Your Taxes Under McCain and Obama

[mykevermin]

The Tax Policy Center is a side group of The Brookings Institution.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/election_issues_matrix.cfm
Simplified matrix of tax changes under each candidate

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?DocID=1840
Table displaying change in federal income tax liability based on number of earners and total income (married couples)

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?DocID=1839
Same thing but for single individuals.

Simple summary:
http://img48.imageshack.us/img48/2735/79711392kg7.jpg

Obama's tax cuts will save you more money than John McCain's, provided you make under $150,000 per year. And there's a 95% chance that you do.

[dmaul1114]

Obama's tax cuts will save you more money than John McCain's, provided you make under $150,000 per year. And there's a 95% chance that you do.

Looking at the table above, looks like the $112,000 bracket listed shows McCain cutting about $400 more than Obama.

Still well below most peoples income, including mine now and even after I graduate next summer. Though if I marry my current girlfriend our combined income would be above that.

But can't say I care, I'm a big supporter of the well off in society carrying most of the tax burden.

[KingBroly]

The +$12 and -$19 makes me cry foul as I think those numbers will go higher.

The top 2 brackets under Obama's plan...that's kinda scary for those people. Especially on a yearly basis. That's really insane. $700,000 a year? That's a bit much.

[SpazX]

Nice chart. Most people still believe that democrats will tax them more anyway though.

The top 2 brackets under Obama's plan...that's kinda scary for those people. Especially on a yearly basis. That's really insane. $700,000 a year? That's a bit much.

I'd take it in a heartbeat. I'd be quite happy with what I had left.

[KingBroly]

It's still a helluvalotta cash for people who are in that situation now would have to pay.

And they'd more likely end up with somewhere around 2 million, not 2.2 as that's how much would your taxes go up by.

[SpazX]

It's still a helluvalotta cash for people who are in that situation now would have to pay.

And they'd more likely end up with somewhere around 2 million, not 2.2 as that's how much would your taxes go up by.

Yeah I edited it out a second after I posted it. It seems quite nice to me.

[dmaul1114]

I'd take it in a heartbeat. I'd be quite happy with what I had left.

Same here.

And keep in mind those are averages and that top category is $2.9 Million and up. Point being the average is going to be skiewed up by the outliers making tens of millions a year and more. Some one making 2.9 million probably won't see a 700K increase, that's just the average increase for people over 2.9 million as a whole.

But again, I have no problem with people making millions paying a hefty chunk of change in tax. Trickle down economics doesn't work. It's not good for the overall economy to have so much a a nation's wealth concentrated in the top 1% or less of the population.

[KingBroly]

I don't think you'd think it nice of the Government to take nearly a fourth of your yearly paycheck extra if you were earning 2.9 million now.

[SpazX]

I don't think you'd think it nice of the Government to take nearly a fourth of your yearly paycheck extra if you were earning 2.9 million now.

I dunno, games cost $60 whether I've got $100 or $1,000,000. If I wasted a ton of money then I might be pissed as I wouldn't have as much to waste, but it all depends on how well you spend your money.

[dmaul1114]

I don't think you'd think it nice of the Government to take nearly a fourth of your yearly paycheck extra if you were earning 2.9 million now.

I'd live with it as I support my principles above all else.

I'm not idly talking either, my girlfriend and I both do pretty well for ourselves in our field. When I'm done with school next year our combined in come would be in the low six figures and if we both continue working hard and advancing we can be $200-300K combined in a decade.

We won't be millionaires, but we'll be in the brackets paying a good chunk more under Obama. And I'm fine with it as I believe in social programs, putting a lot more money in education etc.

Point being, I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is.

I dunno, games cost $60 whether I've got $100 or $1,000,000. If I wasted a ton of money then I might be pissed as I wouldn't have as much to waste, but it all depends on how well you spend your money.

I'm much the same. I'm not very needy or materialistic as I spend a lot of my time on my work or doing cheap things like watching a DVD from Netflix. Probably the only place I have semi expensive tastes is beer, as I'm a beer snob and only drink good microbrews and imports. :D

I have no ambition to be wealthy. I just enjoy my work and work hard because of that.

[mykevermin]

I don't think you'd think it nice of the Government to take nearly a fourth of your yearly paycheck extra if you were earning 2.9 million now.

You seem to be missing the point.

Over and over again.

[dmaul1114]

You seem to be missing the point.

Over and over again.

I don't think he is. He's just talking about that upper 1% or less. Obama's plan is a real kick in the nuts for these greedy rich folks that only care about making as much money as they can for themselves.

That point has nothing to do with Obama's plan being better for 95% of the country. I think he realizes that.

[mykevermin]

No, no. He's talking about the 700K increase in tax burden, as if that's what those earning $2.9m/year will see.

He's constantly overlooking the idea of "mean" and "outliers" is what I'm saying. It's silly, and at this point, deliberate.

[dopa345]

You seem to be missing the point.

Over and over again.

Well, then what is the point?

Without looking it up, what percentage of total tax revenue do you think the top 1/3 of the population account for and what percent would you think is fair?

[dmaul1114]

No, no. He's talking about the 700K increase in tax burden, as if that's what those earning $2.9m/year will see.

He's constantly overlooking the idea of "mean" and "outliers" is what I'm saying. It's silly, and at this point, deliberate.

Ah, that I see and pointed out above. His numbers are off, but there is no denying that Obama's tax plan will suck for those in the top 1%.

Again, I think it's a good thing. They should bear more burden to society for the success society has allowed them to achieve.

[mykevermin]

Well, then what is the point?

Without looking it up, what percentage of total tax revenue do you think the top 1/3 of the population account for and what percent would you think is fair?

Life ain't fair. You don't wanna pay that much in taxes, I got a plan for you: don't be rich.

There's plenty of need for dishwashers in this world. If you hate the tax burden that coincides with being one of the "haves" in society, and you want to give up the tax burden, then you're gonna give up "having" as well.

Hope you like shopping for 10 year old Toyota Tercels.

[level1online]

"Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

No, says the man in Washington. It belongs to the poor.
No, says the man in the Vatican. It belongs to God.
No, says the man in Moscow. It belongs to everyone.

I rejected those answers. Instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose----- Rapture."

[dopa345]

Life ain't fair. You don't wanna pay that much in taxes, I got a plan for you: don't be rich.

There's plenty of need for dishwashers in this world. If you hate the tax burden that coincides with being one of the "haves" in society, and you want to give up the tax burden, then you're gonna give up "having" as well.

Hope you like shopping for 10 year old Toyota Tercels.

If it's not a question of fairness then shouldn't we just forget social programs, it should then be every man/woman/child from themselves?

I'm just curious what you think should be the proper tax burden of the "rich". Should it be 80%? 90%? 100%?

[dmaul1114]

If it's not a question of fairness then shouldn't we just forget social programs, it should then be every man/woman/child from themselves?

I'm just curious what you think should be the proper tax burden of the "rich". Should it be 80%? 90%? 100%?

I agree with the first part. I think the rich having a much higher tax burden is fair. They've benefited more from society and they should give more back. Sure it's their own hard work, but they make their money off of society, got their education in society, their business benefits from international treaties, national defense, maintaining roads etc. etc. etc.

As for what the burden should be, I'm not an economist so I couldn't give it an exact number with any precision. I don't even know what the current break down of tax burden is off the top of my head to use as a starting point.

I'd just say the rich should bear the vast majority of the tax burden and leave it at that.

[Chase]

I don't think he is. He's just talking about that upper 1% or less. Obama's plan is a real kick in the nuts for these greedy rich folks that only care about making as much money as they can for themselves.

That point has nothing to do with Obama's plan being better for 95% of the country. I think he realizes that.


Yeah, I have no problem with Obama's plan. Then again, I am not in the upper 1% or less.

However, if I had that much income, I probably wouldn't mind.

[distgfx]

"Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

No, says the man in Washington. It belongs to the poor.
No, says the man in the Vatican. It belongs to God.
No, says the man in Moscow. It belongs to everyone.

I rejected those answers. Instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose----- Rapture."

:rofl:

This is a very interesting read and would explain why my parents and other republicans I've spoken to don't like obama and complain a lot about 'giving' money away :-k

I never actually saw the numbers, but it's very nice to have them laid out like this. It'd be nice to actually see it happen but I have my doubts ... about both of them.

[KingBroly]

Oh, I get what they're saying. They'd rather have the money and it taxed to hell than not have it at all. But like I said, they're not in that situation, so they don't really know how they'd take a change like that.

[dmaul1114]

Oh, I get what they're saying. They'd rather have the money and it taxed to hell than not have it at all. But like I said, they're not in that situation, so they don't really know how they'd take a change like that.

Like I said, I'll be pretty well off soon, and I don't mind a higher tax burden. My principles come first.

As for the multimillionaires which none of us are or likely ever will be, no body needs millions of dollars a year, and the people at the absolute top making tens of millions are just ridiculous. They can bear very high tax burdens after a certain point income wise.

The amount CEOs and other top executives make these days, both in relative terms and in terms of percentage of their companies profits, compared to the past is just ridiculous.

But I'll freely admit to leaning pretty strongly socialist when it comes to the extremely wealthy and income redistribution. There should be high enough taxes on these extreme incomes to make people not want to make that much money in effort to drive CEO and other executive salaries back down to more reasonable percentages of their company's income and have more of that income going to the people actually doing the day to day work.

But I know that's not a popular idea among most Americans.

[BillyBob29]

Obama increases my taxes $12.....screw that.;)

[Chase]

Like I said, I'll be pretty well off soon, and I don't mind a higher tax burden. My principles come first.

As for the multimillionaires which none of us are or likely ever will be, no body needs millions of dollars a year, and the people at the absolute top making tens of millions are just ridiculous. They can bear very high tax burdens after a certain point income wise.

The amount CEOs and other top executives make these days, both in relative terms and in terms of percentage of their companies profits, compared to the passed is just ridiculous.

But I'll freely admit to leaning pretty strongly socialist when it comes to the extremely wealthy and income redistribution. There should be high enough taxes on these extreme incomes to make people not want to make that much money in effort to drive CEO and other executive salaries back down to more reasonable percentages of their companies income and have more of that income going to the people actually doing the day to day work.

But I know that's not a popular idea among most Americans.


I like your opinions and will vote for you (when you choose to run). ;)

[fatherofcaitlyn]

I hate to be classist, but...

Show me a person making $2 million paying their full percentage of taxes and I'll show you an unicorn.

When you're taking home $2 million, how much did your underlying business spend on you that year?

$2 million a year is pushing CEO for most companies. I'm sure they don't pay for their car, hotel suites, airplane tickets, etc. Also, the salaries of your maid, butler and gardener are taken off of your pay.

The rich are a strong lot. I'm sure they'll get by.

[thrustbucket]

But I know that's not a popular idea among most Americans.

It's not popular because essentially what you are saying is you dislike the core reasons America was created, set up, and how. So you'd like to see some people's "pursuits of happiness" stunted or even eliminated - out of unfounded trust in a corrupt government to do the right thing with what they steal from it's people.

All because you want to impose your own beliefs about what people "need" and should have on everyone. It's somewhat ironic that you consistently bash others for doing the same thing on the other side of your political views on the basis that their policies could be interfering with your choices and life.

It's wonderful for you that you are able to find a fulfilling life in just going to work and being able to feed yourself and put clothing over your head. How humble of you. But to try and tell others they have to feel the same way through the law, because of your own moral opposition to "Greed" is pretty scary. Millions of people chase after the carrot of being super rich some day, that's what they live for and what keeps them going. Who are you to tell them that they shouldn't and you'll punish them if they do?

Pretty understandable that it's not a popular idea. Most of the people that felt that way stayed in other countries and didn't come here.

[mykevermin]

:lol:

grow up, thrust.

[thrustbucket]

They are legit arguments, buddy. Like it or not. If you disagree with my assessment of Dmaul's posted beliefs, say so.

Edit: Maybe I am over-reacting? Hopefully I'm set straight by you or he if I am. But I read his post several times and that's what I got out of it: The desire to impose personal anti-greed principles on everyone.

[Msut77]

They are legit arguments, buddy.

They are not even arguments let alone "legit". More than likely you are merely cutting and pasting them so who really cares anyway?

[mykevermin]

Please. It's a loaded statement that's teeming with one-sided ideology disguised as "fact."

And those last two sentences of yours are laughably pathetic straw men. Your USA creation story would have us believe that the landed wealthy fled to the US to escape unbearable taxation under the Monarchy, instead of criminals and other unwanted undesirables fleeing noneconomic oppression under the Monarchy.

But that's giving credence to your otherwise laughable claim.

Seriously. Your points aren't valid, are childishly one-sided, and not worth responding to.

Simply put, your argument is pitiful on this surface: the very notion that the wealthy have to fear the government, for it may represent the will of the plurality of the nation, and they can do nothing about it.

Really, think about that. You're arguing that the government is the friend of the poor and destitute in society, and the enemy of the wealthy.

You were making more credible statements when you called Obama a "socialist."

[dmaul1114]

I think you're taking what I said a bit to far to the extreme. I was just justifying why the wealthy should carry the bulk of the tax burden, along with it being unhealthy to look at how much CEOs salaries have increased in terms of percentage of companies profits and to see how much wider the gap between ceo salaries and average employees has gotten over time as well. Someone posted a good article on this a while back, but I don't have the energy to look it up right now.

I'm also not happy just working to feed myself and put clothes over my head. Despite being a grad student and living on anywhere from 15-25K a year the past 6 years and paying taxes etc. I get by pretty well and will do just fine when I'm done in terms of having a good deal of expendable income.

I never said people should have no expendable income. People should be able to have a lot of expendable income. But people with more expendable income (or the means to have it if they didn't piss it all away) should carry more of the tax burden and taxes should be very high in the extreme for the .0001% (or whatever) making 10 million a year or more etc.

Society has afforded such people the chance to make such ludicrous sums of money, they can return the favor by helping keep society afloat.

I don't expect you to agree, thrust, as I know you want as little government as possible, believe government is impossibly corrupt etc. But I don't think my views were quite as extreme as you painted them out to be. They're extreme, but not so extreme that I think people should work just to get by and give the rest to the government as even I wouldn't be happy with that.

All I was saying is the more you make the larger % of the tax burden you should pay and that it needs to be high on the extreme end to keep CEOs and other executives from having no real obstacles to keep increasing their pay disproportionately to growing profits and further widening the gap between their salaries and the working people who are making their money for them by doing all the day to day work. Trickle down economics doesn't work. The rich just get richer while the poor get poorer.

People can earn their ridiculous sums of wealth and hoarde it however greedily they like. But they shouldn't bitch about paying a lot of taxes when their incomes are getting into the millions, tens of millions and beyond.

[JolietJake]

How the hell does this prevent the rich from being rich? If you were super rich before this, you'll be super rich afterward.

If you actually manage to make it into that income bracket, paying taxes isn't going to suddenly make you poor. Of course "poor" is a relative term. Going from millions to hundreds of thousands would probably be poverty to some people.

[thrustbucket]

Please. It's a loaded statement that's teeming with one-sided ideology disguised as "fact."

And those last two sentences of yours are laughably pathetic straw men. Your USA creation story would have us believe that the landed wealthy fled to the US to escape unbearable taxation under the Monarchy, instead of criminals and other unwanted undesirables fleeing noneconomic oppression under the Monarchy.

But that's giving credence to your otherwise laughable claim.

Seriously. Your points aren't valid, are childishly one-sided, and not worth responding to.

Simply put, your argument is pitiful on this surface: the very notion that the wealthy have to fear the government, for it may represent the will of the plurality of the nation, and they can do nothing about it.

Really, think about that. You're arguing that the government is the friend of the poor and destitute in society, and the enemy of the wealthy.

You were making more credible statements when you called Obama a "socialist."
You completely missed my point then. Those aren't the things I was getting at. See below.

I think you're taking what I said a bit to far to the extreme. I was just justifying why the wealthy should carry the bulk of the tax burden, along with it being unhealthy to look at how much CEOs salaries have increased in terms of percentage of companies profits and to see how much wider the gap between ceo salaries and average employees has gotten over time as well. Someone posted a good article on this a while back, but I don't have the energy to look it up right now.

I'm also not happy just working to feed myself and put clothes over my head. Despite being a grad student and living on anywhere from 15-25K a year the past 6 years and paying taxes etc. I get by pretty well and will do just fine when I'm done in terms of having a good deal of expendable income.

I never said people should have no expendable income. People should be able to have a lot of expendable income. But people with more expendable income (or the means to have it if they didn't piss it all away) should carry more of the tax burden and taxes should be very high in the extreme for the .0001% (or whatever) making 10 million a year or more etc.

Society has afforded such people the chance to make such ludicrous sums of money, they can return the favor by helping keep society afloat.

I don't expect you to agree, thrust, as I know you want as little government as possible, believe government is impossibly corrupt etc. But I don't think my views were quite as extreme as you painted them out to be. They're extreme, but not so extreme that I think people should work just to get by and give the rest to the government as even I wouldn't be happy with that.

All I was saying is the more you make the larger % of the tax burden you should pay and that it needs to be high on the extreme end to keep CEOs and other executives from having no real obstacles to keep increasing their pay disproportionately to growing profits and further widening the gap between their salaries and the working people who are making their money for them by doing all the day to day work. Trickle down economics doesn't work. The rich just get richer while the poor get poorer.

People can earn their ridiculous sums of wealth and hoarde it however greedily they like. But they shouldn't bitch about paying a lot of taxes when their incomes are getting into the millions, tens of millions and beyond.

Appreciate the response. Glad for the clarification.

I want to make it clear to both of you that I am not talking about protecting the rich. Nor do I believe America was set up for rich people. I believe America's primary purpose in it's creation was to protect the "Pursuit of happiness", as long as it doesn't harm others. I oppose anything that threatens that.

The already rich are going to remain rich after these taxes, or even more. I am talking about avoiding deterrents to those striving hard to make it there.

See, taxing people that make millions a year is one thing. But most people don't get to that stage over night, they are at many lower stages that would be taxed far more heavily, thus making it much harder to get higher, should that be their goal. That's my concern. I'm entirely talking about the "pursuit" rather than the ridiculously wealthy already.

Let me ask you a clarifying question: Do you support deterrents for the materially ambitious?


As a side note, as for the OP, It won't affect me either way (like everyone else here). But knowing that a very large percentage of money spent, and thus injected into the economy, is by the top 1% (too lazy to look up the source, but it's repeated many places), do you guys not think multiplying their taxes several times won't effect the economy adversely?

[DJSteel]

Why shouldn't the rich pay more of a percentage of taxes? There is seriously something wrong with the economy if Warren Buffet is paying a less percentage of taxes than his secretary.

[dmaul1114]

I want to make it clear to both of you that I am not talking about protecting the rich. Nor do I believe America was set up for rich people. I believe America's primary purpose in it's creation was to protect the "Pursuit of happiness", as long as it doesn't harm others. I oppose anything that threatens that.

I can agree with that. We just disagree on what the government should do in helping the less fortunate in their pursuit of happiness.


The already rich are going to remain rich after these taxes, or even more. I am talking about avoiding deterrents to those striving hard to make it there.

See, taxing people that make millions a year is one thing. But most people don't get to that stage over night, they are at many lower stages that would be taxed far more heavily, thus making it much harder to get higher, should that be their goal. That's my concern. I'm entirely talking about the "pursuit" rather than the ridiculously wealthy already.


That's why we have a graduated income tax system. It's only fair for people better off to share greater and greater portions of the tax burden as they move up in income. But at the same time it has to be gradual enough to not deter people from working hard and moving up. At least to a point...which I'll touch in in response to your next question.


Let me ask you a clarifying question: Do you support deterrents for the materially ambitious?


Only at the extreme. The uber wealthy million plus crowd of CEOs and other executives who are making millions or tens of millions while the employees that earn the money for them are getting paid crappy and watching as the gap between their salary and their CEOs keeps growing and growing.

For the uber rich, I don't think it's a bad idea for taxes to be used as a deterrent to make them think twice about really needed that 2 million bonus or a 1 million dollar a year raise etc. I'm not saying you tax it so much no one will want to make 10s of millions of dollars. But at least put it high enough (50%, 60%, I'm not sure where) for every dollar earned after 1 million or 5 million or wherever that you give some people pause.


But knowing that a very large percentage of money spent, and thus injected into the economy, is by the top 1%, do you guys not think multiplying their taxes several times won't effect the economy adversely?

No, I think overall the economy would be better with the federal deficit reduced and work done to help the lower class and middle class in their pursuits of happiness. The money's going to be spent anyway, just a matter of where and by whom.

I think it's better for their to be more money in the hands of the lower and middle classes spending it in local shops, than the rich spending it on designer clothes, yachts, Porshe's etc. Spending in local shops is helping the middle and lower classes--providing jobs, keeping local stores in business etc. You don't get that from the rich people blowing it on luxury items, or investing it in trust funds for their kids who'll be lazy and never have to work a day in their lives.

[thrustbucket]

Thanks for the response, D.

I forgot to present another question in relation to the OP: What do you all think about the supposed nearly doubling of capital gains tax that the GOP is claiming Obama will have? Not true? True but don't care? Elaborate.

[dmaul1114]

I don't know enough about capital gains taxes or his plans on them to comment right now.

I have no problems with capital gains taxes on their surface. If you sell something for more than you paid for it, you made a profit and that's income which should be taxed. It's really no different than a store always selling items for less than the paid for them from the supplier.

But I don't know what the current rate is etc. to offer a comment off the top of my head about whether they're too low, have too many loopholes etc.

[mykevermin]

Thanks for the response, D.

I forgot to present another question in relation to the OP: What do you all think about the supposed nearly doubling of capital gains tax that the GOP is claiming Obama will have? Not true? True but don't care? Elaborate.

True but don't care. The market doesn't react to the changes so predictably.

Clinton dropped the top capital gains rate from 28 to 20 (boo! tax and spend liberal!) and we had the awesome, robust economy that was the 1990's.

Bush dropped them from 20 to 15 (smaller than Clinton's! Yay, low tax Republicans!) and we had...well, the economy we've had under Bush.

During both administrations, to be sure, inequality grew; capital gains tax cuts disproportionately benefitted the wealthy. It's been a long time since capital gains taxes were increased, so its effect will be interesting. One thing is certain: those ultra wealthy who derive no income (and thus no income tax) aside from what they earn via investments will be taxed at a higher rate. Good.

[dopa345]

I'd just say the rich should bear the vast majority of the tax burden and leave it at that.

I'll pose the question another way then. The top 1/3 of of the population account for nearly 90% of total tax revenue. Keep in mind that the same group accounted for only about 70-75% of total adjusted gross income. Is that a fair tax burden or not? It's also because of this that of course any tax cut will benefit the wealthy since they pay such a disproportionate share of taxes to begin with.

[Koggit]

The top 1% of earners paid over a third of the nation's taxes makes it sound disproportionate, but when you consider they also brought in about a fifth of the nation's income (19%) you realize they're woefully undertaxed. That means they're only paying about 1.5x the national average -- they're being taxed, on average, around 35% while the national average is 23%. That's very, very, very far from disproportionate, especially when you consider the "19%" they bring in is under-reported due to deductions and benefits being skewed for the wealthy.


Bottom line is the super rich are dreadfully undertaxed. As I mentioned in another thread, my dad pulled in 76k and was taxed over 30%. That's downright unethical when you consider there are multibillionaires getting away with much lower percentages (<20%, even).

[mykevermin]

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=195761

[thrustbucket]

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=195761

Hehe.

Diddy Combs should be levied a heavy social depravity tax.

[dmaul1114]

I'll pose the question another way then. The top 1/3 of of the population account for nearly 90% of total tax revenue. Keep in mind that the same group accounted for only about 70-75% of total adjusted gross income. Is that a fair tax burden or not? It's also because of this that of course any tax cut will benefit the wealthy since they pay such a disproportionate share of taxes to begin with.

Yes. That's perfectly fair to me.

The tax cut part I disagree. You can have a tax cut not benefit them at all (or say not beneft the top 5%) by simply making the tax brackets so those brackets get no cut or even see increases.

Tax cuts don't have to benefit that group and not the lower and middle classes. The Bush tax cuts gave a lot of breaks to the wealthiest and really made no substantive difference to the middle or lower classes.

[thrustbucket]

Well at least Obama wants to make those evil greedy Oil Company's cover the next round super useful tax refund checks.

Stick it to em! Make em pay! Robin Hood to the rescue!

;)

[mykevermin]

Well at least Obama wants to make those evil greedy Oil Company's cover the next round super useful tax refund checks.

Stick it to em! Make em pay! Robin Hood to the rescue!

;)

Now we're getting somewhere! Now we're getting the empty political rhetoric that comes from people who realize that the tax burden of 95% of the population will be LIGHTER under a "tax and spend liberal," and the resultant cognitive dissonance at work!

Forget thinking critically about your ideology; attack, attack, ATTACK!!!!

[fatherofcaitlyn]

I would prefer a flat tax with NO DEDUCTIONS.

Bought a $10 million dollar house? No, you can't deduct the interest.

Had a kid? No, you still have to pay your taxes.

Bought dinner for 300 of your closest friends and mentioned business during the meal. No, you can't consider it a business expense.

Drove to the post office to mail some games you sold on eBay? No, you can't deduct the mileage.

[speedracer]

I would prefer a flat tax with NO DEDUCTIONS.
That's never gonna happen. There's too much money in it. Accountants still recall the moves Reagan made in that direction with a smile on their face. It went so awfully that they know no one will try again in their lifetimes.

These numbers are pre-tax as well. Anyone making six figures or better is going to have a financial adviser whose only professional purpose is shielding as much of that income as possible. When it comes down to it, if you're carrying a tax liability of $2.9mil, I guarantee you that the gross income is significantly higher.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Yes, but it is nice to dream.

Here's another dream for the water pipe: All taxes (state, federal, social security, medicare) should be collected on November 1st. Once normal people see how much they are being jacked, all of those social programs and military adventures that are so essential would be dismantled in a year.

[MSI Magus]

Heres the way I look at it. If I made 2.6 million dollars a year id probally give a solid 2 million to charities or id adopt a couple extra kids and still give most of it away to charity. When I start seeing these rich bastards grow a heart and put their money to good use.....ill start caring a little more about their crying.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Heres the way I look at it. If I made 2.6 million dollars a year id probally give a solid 2 million to charities or id adopt a couple extra kids and still give most of it away to charity. When I start seeing these rich bastards grow a heart and put their money to good use.....ill start caring a little more about their crying.

Not to flip flop, but ...

It is their money, not the government's.

[MSI Magus]

Not to flip flop, but ...

It is their money, not the government's.

The goverment has every right to tax us whatever they want. If we dont like it we can leave the country. Simple as that. Now with that being said, does it mean they should tax us insane rates? Thats highly debatable. But im a time where so much needs to be done and the rich are refusing to do much but fatten their own pockets, I dont really mind them being taxed more. Maybe if they stepped up a little more then people like me and you would speak out for them a little more. Maybe if they invested in America vs sending jobs over seas we would speak up for them a little more. And maybe if CEOs were payed based on their performance and even then not hundreds of millions we would care a little more.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

The government isn't spending the money they receive properly.

See Iraq and prescription drug bill.

As far as jobs going overseas, how much of that does the government subsidize through mileage exemptions or farm bills?

[MSI Magus]

The government isn't spending the money they receive properly.

See Iraq and prescription drug bill.

As far as jobs going overseas, how much of that does the government subsidize through mileage exemptions or farm bills?

I didn't say they are spending their money properly. Hell you named 2 things, I guarantee you can go and look at almost any government program and find a ton of waste. Im just as pissed off about that as how the rich are using their money. There are few politicians left or right that I respect...most id rather spit at their feet and say they disgust me for what they have let and are letting happen to our country. Same goes for subsidies, farm bills and the other. Hell I dont even care if companies take jobs overseas, I just think they should either then be reinvesting the money they are making on globalization back into creating new US jobs or accept the fact that the government is going to tax them and create programs to retrain U.S citizens out of work. Id prefer the companies to do it over the government though, 1 thats the way it should be and 2 they would do a better job.

The facts are that ya the government is screwing up right now, right and left.....but that doesn't change the fact that the rich are just getting richer and richer while laughing at the rest of us. I cant remember if it was T Boone Pickens, Warrent Buffet or another ultra rich old guy that said this but one talked about their immigrant father who worked hard to make a small amount of money so his kid could make something of themselves. That he took that little bit of money and through hard made it rich. He said he then invested that back into America and the American Dream....but he was pissed off because nowdays he sees people getting ultra rich with little work and often by screwing over fellow country men. They then take and piddle away their money and dont give a shit about country. I think that statement was dead on. Rich people nowdays are the exact same as the men in your avatar.

[thrustbucket]

Now we're getting somewhere! Now we're getting the empty political rhetoric that comes from people who realize that the tax burden of 95% of the population will be LIGHTER under a "tax and spend liberal," and the resultant cognitive dissonance at work!

Forget thinking critically about your ideology; attack, attack, ATTACK!!!!

Hey I really don't knock the Obama income tax changes. It's inconsequential to me. It's cute, though, that just because your convinced income tax will be better under Obama, you'll turn a blind eye to other silly tax nonsense he DOES have and call it baseless rhetoric and attacks.

But as most of us lauded the last refund check as ridiculous, any person with a brain would have to at least raise an eyebrow at corporate lynching Robin Hood style for the next one.

[dmaul1114]

I would prefer a flat tax with NO DEDUCTIONS.


I could never support it as it's just not fair, despite being a flat rate across all groups.

Paying say 20-25% of you income in taxes is huge burden to someone making $15,000 but really no burden at all to someone making $1 million. Yes the millionaire pays a lot more in sum, but his quality of life isn't affected where as a person making $15,000 would struggle to make ends meet with no taxes, much less with 20-25%.

That's an extreme comparison, but it holds as you to through the brackets, a flat rate will always be much harder on the lower brackets and gradually move up to not mattering much by the higher brackets.

I used to be in favor of a flat tax years ago, but now after more thought there's no way I'd support moving off a graduated tax bracket system. The richer shouldn't just pay more money, they should also pay a higher percentage for all the reasons I outlined earlier in the thread.

[dmaul1114]

The government isn't spending the money they receive properly.


That's a separate issue. I believe in a large and strong government, lots of social programming etc, and thus fairly high taxes. That doesn't mean I think the government is doing a great job currently.

What you do in such cases is vote for people in line with your beliefs on how government spending should change. Not oppose taxes. Unless your libertarian or conservative and want it downsized period (regardless of whether it works and money is being spent well).


But as most of us lauded the last refund check as ridiculous, any person with a brain would have to at least raise an eyebrow at corporate lynching Robin Hood style for the next one.

I have no problem with that at all. The Oil companies are making record profits year after year while people suffer through higher gas prices. They're not going to reduce profits and eat some cost to lower gas prices. They're going to sell it for as high as they can all the time. That's how capitalism works.

And that's my biggest gripe with capitalism. So I have no problem with the government socking them with a tax and giving an energy rebate to the people. It would be a different story if the oil companies were having dwindling profits and struggline as well. But they're not, they're greedily raking in record profits while consumers struggle. So fuck them.

[HuBu]

That's a separate issue. I believe in a large and strong government, lots of social programming etc, and thus fairly high taxes. That doesn't mean I think the government is doing a great job currently.

What you do in such cases is vote for people in line with your beliefs on how government spending should change. Not oppose taxes. Unless your libertarian or conservative and want it downsized period (regardless of whether it works and money is being spent well).



I have no problem with that at all. The Oil companies are making record profits year after year while people suffer through higher gas prices. They're not going to reduce profits and eat some cost to lower gas prices. They're going to sell it for as high as they can all the time. That's how capitalism works.

And that's my biggest gripe with capitalism. So I have no problem with the government socking them with a tax and giving an energy rebate to the people. It would be a different story if the oil companies were having dwindling profits and struggline as well. But they're not, they're greedily raking in record profits while consumers struggle. So fuck them.

Gas price are also driven by speculations and investors. Its not just the gas companies. most of you are saying how the upper class are greedy and such with all their money. They are the one spending the most money on products and throwing the biggest parties. All the money they spent are going into companies and services, that the middle man work in. And all the taxes on the large sum of money they spend are going into the government. The tax on one of their car purchase are equal to many purchases of the small sedans we drive. And most of us only own one sedan while those guys have multiple sport cars.

consumers struggle because you are the idiot buying into it. Why do you think there are so many foreclosed homes, because people bought homes they know they can't afford or manage. yes i know that some people are really foreclosing because of the tight economy, but the rest are people that wanted to make quick cash without considering the risk of things. and there are always those out their scamming on those that don't understand how things work.

oil companies are not suffering because there are still people out there that thinks driving a hummers and SUVs are cool. its like that saying, vote with your pocket. the consumers have more control on the market than anyone. its just whether they are smart enough to do it.

[MSI Magus]

Gas price are also driven by speculations and investors. Its not just the gas companies. most of you are saying how the upper class are greedy and such with all their money. They are the one spending the most money on products and throwing the biggest parties. All the money they spent are going into companies and services, that the middle man work in. And all the taxes on the large sum of money they spend are going into the government. The tax on one of their car purchase are equal to many purchases of the small sedans we drive. And most of us only own one sedan while those guys have multiple sport cars.

consumers struggle because you are the idiot buying into it. Why do you think there are so many foreclosed homes, because people bought homes they know they can't afford or manage. yes i know that some people are really foreclosing because of the tight economy, but the rest are people that wanted to make quick cash without considering the risk of things. and there are always those out their scamming on those that don't understand how things work.

oil companies are not suffering because there are still people out there that thinks driving a hummers and SUVs are cool. its like that saying, vote with your pocket. the consumers have more control on the market than anyone. its just whether they are smart enough to do it.

Screw Reaganomics. The trickle down theory doesnt work and we should not be happy with the small amount of money we make off them buying their $100,000 car. Just because the average consumer is a moron that spends far too much money and gets themselves in trouble doesnt mean we should just let the rich get huge hand outs.

Its laughable that you cant see whats wrong with saying they pay enough taxes, after all they buy multiple cars in a year! Ya that means they are paying more in taxes, but it also means its just because they piss their money away. You also ignore the fact that much of they money they are making is coming out of our pocket and that they hire tax help that lets them dodge taxes and use loopholes that equal out to dozens times more then we make in a year.

[Ruined]

Bottom line is the super rich are dreadfully undertaxed. As I mentioned in another thread, my dad pulled in 76k and was taxed over 30%. That's downright unethical when you consider there are multibillionaires getting away with much lower percentages (<20%, even).

If they are super rich why should they be overtaxed? Just because you don't have as much money as they do? It is not easy to get super rich, and if they or their family earned the money legally they should not be forced to give it all away, since they are currently paying the majority of taxes out there even before you consider overtaxing them. Redistribution of wealth is not a captialist concept. In a capitalist economy you can either make it big or not, and if you aren't making it big you have to try to change the way you are operating your life until you are living the way you want to live.

Personally I think a flat tax is the most fair. Everyone pays the exact same percentage of what they make to the government, rich or poor. The rich still will pay mountains of more money to the government than the poor will.

[HuBu]

Screw Reaganomics. The trickle down theory doesnt work and we should not be happy with the small amount of money we make off them buying their $100,000 car. Just because the average consumer is a moron that spends far too much money and gets themselves in trouble doesnt mean we should just let the rich get huge hand outs.

Its laughable that you cant see whats wrong with saying they pay enough taxes, after all they buy multiple cars in a year! Ya that means they are paying more in taxes, but it also means its just because they piss their money away. You also ignore the fact that much of they money they are making is coming out of our pocket and that they hire tax help that lets them dodge taxes and use loopholes that equal out to dozens times more then we make in a year.

just like how we don't dodge taxes ourselves. or people playing the system so they can get welfare support when they don't actually meet the requirement for it? do you see poor people pissing their money away?

[dmaul1114]

oil companies are not suffering because there are still people out there that thinks driving a hummers and SUVs are cool. its like that saying, vote with your pocket. the consumers have more control on the market than anyone. its just whether they are smart enough to do it.

Of course consumers are partly to blame. But that's an over-simplification. Especially focusing on Hummers, SUVs etc. Those are pricey cars. Those people can pay the higher gas bills without much though, just like I can (though I drive a Mazda3) as most people who own those kinds of cars are doing ok for themselves.

The impact is really felt on the poor family driving a couple of 10 year old cars to their jobs etc.

Just because you don't have as much money as they do? It is not easy to get super rich, and if they or their family earned the money legally they should not be forced to give it all away, since they are currently paying the majority of taxes out there even before you consider overtaxing them.

Because society has afforded them the opportunity to get rich, they should pay a greater % of taxes on top of playin gthe majority because of their earnings. I've laid out my reasons for why here already. And like I said, I know it's not popular. I'm not a 100% capitalist person. I'm for capitalism, but it has to be tinged with a bit of socialism for a society to be a decent place to live from a humanitarianism stand point IMO.

People are naturally self interested and not enough of the well off will freely donate enough of their money to help the greater good. Thus we need taxes, and taxes should go up in percentage as people earn more and can afford to bear more burden.

[HuBu]

Because society has afforded them the opportunity to get rich, they should pay a greater % of taxes on top of playin gthe majority because of their earnings. I've laid out my reasons for why here already. And like I said, I know it's not popular. I'm not a 100% capitalist person. I'm for capitalism, but it has to be tinged with a bit of socialism for a society to be a decent place to live from a humanitarianism stand point IMO.

People are naturally self interested and not enough of the well off will freely donate enough of their money to help the greater good. Thus we need taxes, and taxes should go up in percentage as people earn more and can afford to bear more burden.

So I should pay more because I took an opportunity that was given to me? Fuck I am going to have to pay more just for paying attention in class in public school. Just because I made the choice to better myself doesn't mean that I should pay more in a way. Even with a flat percentage tax, I am still paying more. earning more does not mean that I can bear a greater burden.

[dmaul1114]

So I should pay more because I took an opportunity that was given to me? Fuck I am going to have to pay more just for paying attention in class in public school. Just because I made the choice to better myself doesn't mean that I should pay more in a way. Even with a flat percentage tax, I am still paying more. earning more does not mean that I can bear a greater burden.

Yep. Like I said I have a master's degree and will have a Ph D by this time next year.

I've been afforded a lot of opportunities and I'm not going to complain about being in higher tax brackets because of that.

But this is an agree to disagree issue as conservatives like you aren't going to agree with it and a liberal like me isn't going to change my tune. Posts here are really for the handful of people who are in the middle--but unfortunately few of those people come to political forums so these things really are just nothing more than a place to kill time at work for those of us that like to here ourselves talk!

[thrustbucket]

I have no problem with that at all. The Oil companies are making record profits year after year while people suffer through higher gas prices. They're not going to reduce profits and eat some cost to lower gas prices. They're going to sell it for as high as they can all the time. That's how capitalism works.

Wait a second, weren't you the one practically celebrating high gas prices as a deterrent in another thread? Weren't you the one basically arguing that until the common man suffers at the pump, we can't get rid of oil? Now you want to argue that we should give relief to the common man for expensive gas?

The oil company's have not done anything wrong. So why should they be punished? Shouldn't punishment only be dished to people doing something wrong?

They are actually making very small margins of gasoline sales for automobiles. They have shifted so that they are charging more for their products for airplanes and other oil-based industries so that they don't have to raise gasoline prices super high (which is why oil prices can keep skyrocketing without making the prices at the pump slide up in-time with it)

Oil company's are also using a hell of a lot of that profit to find more and extract more oil. You paint a picture of a bunch of fat wealthy men laughing and giggling and rolling around in mountains of money. While there is nothing wrong with that, they also can't keep investing in their own business if you punish them. [/quote]


Because society has afforded them the opportunity to get rich, they should pay a greater % of taxes on top of playin gthe majority because of their earnings.

I've come to realize that the real crux of my disagreement with you is this whole "society got me this, so I owe" mentality. I find it baffling. Society, in your examples, is the government, and the government didn't help any rich person get rich.

Nobody owes "society" money. It's ridiculous to say that successful people owe more because society got them there. That sort of thing echoes of Stallin.

[HuBu]

Yep. Like I said I have a master's degree and will have a Ph D by this time next year.

I've been afforded a lot of opportunities and I'm not going to complain about being in higher tax brackets because of that.

But this is an agree to disagree issue as conservatives like you aren't going to agree with it and a liberal like me isn't going to change my tune. Posts here are really for the handful of people who are in the middle--but unfortunately few of those people come to political forums so these things really are just nothing more than a place to kill time at work for those of us that like to here ourselves talk!

The tax brackets gets higher the more you make. but that doesn't mean you I need to shell out extra money when it comes time to do my federal tax. Plus sometime, people make more money because the living expense of where they are living requires it.

I work in a company that has an office in miami and an office in st paul. living expensive in st paul is much lower than miami. so my pay might be more than a person in st paul, but that higher in pay doesnt mean that i m richer than that person in st paul does it? so if you pay more in taxes, that would actually make me poorer than that guy.

and yes i agree with you on the fact that this is place for us to talk among ourselves and waste time at work.

[dmaul1114]

Wait a second, weren't you the one practically celebrating high gas prices as a deterrent in another thread? Weren't you the one basically arguing that until the common man suffers at the pump, we can't get rid of oil? Now you want to argue that we should give relief to the common man for expensive gas?


Nope that was someone else. I said in the thread I was ok with current prices and it's not a terrible idea to let them stay high enough to get people to drive less. But I said that there had to be limits on this and $5 bucks was about as high as I could go.


The oil company's have not done anything wrong. So why should they be punished? Shouldn't punishment only be dished to people doing something wrong?


I don't view it as punishment. Just like I don't view having higher tax % brackets for higher earners as punishment. It's just carrying more of the burden in turn for their success.

Though I'd be shocked if their hasn't been some shady price gouging going on that the Oil companies are involved with, but that's just speculation at this point and off topic for this thread.


I've come to realize that the real crux of my disagreement with you is this whole "society got me this, so I owe" mentality. I find it baffling. Society, in your examples, is the government, and the government didn't help any rich person get rich.


Government runs the education system, most universities are state schools ran on tax state funds. The government protects national security and keeps us safe so we can get rich. The government provides research grant funding that helps as academics make our name, get prominent and make bigger pay checks. This research improves the world, health breakthroughs, new inventions, better crime and other social policies and so forth. The list could go on and on etc. etc. The government does a lot of things to make the country a great place to live and to give people opportunities to succeed. Those of us who make it, should be willing to pay more of the burden to afford others the same chances.

Thus it's our duty (our being us successful or to be successful people) to help the less fortunate and to help younger generations succeed.

But yes, this is our fundamental disagreement with you being a libertarian for the most part and myself being very liberal with some socialist leanings. We'll never agree on these points, but I don't mind discussing them. Again, I like hearing myself talk, and maybe something we say will have some impact on people in the middle and younger folks who are less set in their beliefs. That is the true value of such discourse.

[dmaul1114]

The tax brackets gets higher the more you make. but that doesn't mean you I need to shell out extra money when it comes time to do my federal tax.

But the higher brackets is what forces you to shell out more money in federal taxes. That's all I was saying. The percentages go up so people that make more pay a higher percentage of their income.

I wasn't suggesting any additional taxes, other than raising the percentages on the highest brackets back to, or above, the levels before the Bush cuts.

[speedracer]

If they are super rich why should they be overtaxed? Just because you don't have as much money as they do?
In that case, wouldn't a dollar figure tax per head be the most fair, regardless of income?

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Unless your libertarian or conservative and want it downsized period (regardless of whether it works and money is being spent well).

I have no problem with that at all. The Oil companies are making record profits year after year while people suffer through higher gas prices. They're not going to reduce profits and eat some cost to lower gas prices. They're going to sell it for as high as they can all the time. That's how capitalism works.

And that's my biggest gripe with capitalism. So I have no problem with the government socking them with a tax and giving an energy rebate to the people. It would be a different story if the oil companies were having dwindling profits and struggline as well. But they're not, they're greedily raking in record profits while consumers struggle. So fuck them.

I'm a libertarian and you're a socialist.

IF the oil companies were doing nothing wrong while raking in their profits, I'd take you to task for it. It's their money. They earned it. Since the oil companies got government handouts and they are suppressing alternative energy, I can't really complain. It's their money, but they wouldn't have earned it without preferential treatments from the government and a government sitting on the sidelines while oil crushes alternatives.

If everybody played fair (:lol::lol::lol:), we wouldn't have this problem.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

But the higher brackets is what forces you to shell out more money in federal taxes. That's all I was saying. The percentages go up so people that make more pay a higher percentage of their income.

Except they don't pay a higher percentage of their income. They use loopholes and deductions.

[dmaul1114]

I'm a libertarian and you're a socialist.


I wouldn't call myself a socialist. I'm liberal with some socialist leanings. But far from totally socialist. For instance, I don't support universal health care for instance, but like Obama's plan of making it affordable for everyone etc.


IF the oil companies were doing nothing wrong while raking in their profits, I'd take you to task for it. It's their money. They earned it. Since the oil companies got government handouts and they are suppressing alternative energy, I can't really complain. It's their money, but they wouldn't have earned it without preferential treatments from the government and a government sitting on the sidelines while oil crushes alternatives.


That's part of it for me as well. It's not just that they're making obscene profits, its the stuff you mentioned, that I think they're probably been some shady price gouging going on that involved them etc. that makes me support the Windfall profits tax. Not just their obscene earnings in and of themselves.

Except they don't pay a higher percentage of their income. They use loopholes and deductions.

Yep, and that's a part of the flawed system that Obama says he'll address. Hopefully he wins and keeps his word. A lot of the revenue needed for his plans and getting the budget deficit paid down could come simply through closing loopholes etc. and limit the need for tax increases.

[mykevermin]

Personally I think a flat tax is the most fair. Everyone pays the exact same percentage of what they make to the government, rich or poor. The rich still will pay mountains of more money to the government than the poor will.

The irony of this? Taxes would go up for the rich and come down for the rest under your plan.

:lol:

[thrustbucket]

Nope that was someone else. I said in the thread I was ok with current prices and it's not a terrible idea to let them stay high enough to get people to drive less. But I said that there had to be limits on this and $5 bucks was about as high as I could go.
I apologize then for thinking it was you.

I don't view it as punishment. Just like I don't view having higher tax % brackets for higher earners as punishment. It's just carrying more of the burden in turn for their success.

Though I'd be shocked if their hasn't been some shady price gouging going on that the Oil companies are involved with, but that's just speculation at this point and off topic for this thread.

Government runs the education system, most universities are state schools ran on tax state funds. The government protects national security and keeps us safe so we can get rich. The government provides research grant funding that helps as academics make our name, get prominent and make bigger pay checks. This research improves the world, health breakthroughs, new inventions, better crime and other social policies and so forth. The list could go on and on etc. etc. The government does a lot of things to make the country a great place to live and to give people opportunities to succeed. Those of us who make it, should be willing to pay more of the burden to afford others the same chances.

I see. So your argument is mostly dealing with the education system being used for success. That sort of makes sense, especially if grants and/or scholarships were used.

What if someone never went to college and hit it big? What do they owe society? Less? The same? Why should "paying back society" be a flat tax in the sense that not everyone used society equally to get where they were?

Thus it's our duty (our being us successful or to be successful people) to help the less fortunate and to help younger generations succeed.
I actually agree with this. Where I differ, obviously, is that I don't think it should be forced.

[dmaul1114]

What if someone never went to college and hit it big? What do they owe society?


They still benefit from national security, law enforcement, the road system and all the other things that keep them safe, let them go to work, run a business or whatever. And benefit from their customers/employers having these benefits and being able to give them their patronage.

It's not just education, education is just the clearest example. And even if they didn't go to college, the probably benefited from the public education system--high school, vocational school etc. I can't imagine many go to private school and then don't go to college. But anyway, again it's just the best example of owing success to opportunities provided by society (which are there because of the government or resulting from our form of government).


I actually agree with this. Where I differ, obviously, is that I don't think it should be forced.

Yep, we definitely disagree there. People suck. People are inherently self interested. Not enough well off people would give enough for the government (or third parties) to provide all the services I feel we need.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

They still benefit from national security, law enforcement, the road system and all the other things that keep them safe, let them go to work, run a business or whatever. And benefit from their customers/employers having these benefits and being able to give them their patronage.

People were successful in this country before the government controlled most of this.

[Msut77]

People were successful in this country before the government controlled most of this.

People such as slave owners, or JP Morgan who got his start from war profiteering. The point being the biggest time of shared prosperity (perhaps ever) was post New Deal.

[dopa345]

The irony of this? Taxes would go up for the rich and come down for the rest under your plan.

:lol:

That's not true at all. Currently the top 25% for example pay about 85% of total taxes but made only 67% of total income.

[mykevermin]

I actually agree with this. Where I differ, obviously, is that I don't think it should be forced.

Arguing "forced" or "not forced" is silly on the surface, for (1) the loaded language that "forced" carries, but also that (2) it's semantically set up for ambiguity but also an unwillingness to compromise.

But talk about a matter of degrees and nuances is different.

Should we pay higher taxes for, say, welfare, which keeps crime rates down, keeps families' heads above water while people search for work?

Should we pay higher taxes for, say, health care for all, so that nobody should feel that they can't "afford" to be healthy?

Should that health care we pay for include elective and cosmetic surgery too?

Should the government take higher taxes from the wealthy and buy us all 160GB PS3s, since we can't afford a $500 fucking system?

Should the government take higher taxes from the wealthy in order to pay their bills and also allow the working and lower classes to have enough money to pay for food? Rent? A mortgage? How about cable TV (with or without premium stations like HBO)?

That's where a more fruitful conversation lies. To act as if there are no direct or indirect benefits from higher taxation is incorrect; to get into the "forced" nature of it all is absurd.

But, most of all, give Ruined's flat tax suggestion, the argument that somehow the rich pay a larger % of their income (not their wealth, but just income) into the tax system is laughably wrong. Bring on the flat tax, and watch the conservatives shit their pants due to the inevitability of those at the top seeing tax increases, and those at the bottom suffer from tax decreases, that make Obama look like Neal Boortz by comparison.

EDIT: Of course it is, dopa. The wealthy pay a smaller % of their income than others; moreover, since they're more likely to grow their own wealth from non-income means than others (benefits, investments, stock options, etc.), your argument is oversimplified and misleading (or you're just telling the selective truth).

[Ruined]

The irony of this? Taxes would go up for the rich and come down for the rest under your plan.

:lol:

Uh, no. But a nice try :)

[dopa345]

EDIT: Of course it is, dopa. The wealthy pay a smaller % of their income than others; moreover, since they're more likely to grow their own wealth from non-income means than others (benefits, investments, stock options, etc.), your argument is oversimplified and misleading (or you're just telling the selective truth).

I don't see how you can argue that. The numbers are straight out of the IRS statistics which includes all income from all sources include capital gains, investments etc.. so everything that you are saying is included. The reason why the truth is simple because it actually is that straightforward. The rich, however you want to define them, do pay a disproportionate share of taxes, that's irrefutable.

[bmulligan]

I wouldn't call myself a socialist. I'm liberal with some socialist leanings. But far from totally socialist. For instance, I don't support universal health care for instance, but like Obama's plan of making it affordable for everyone etc.

Please, stop calling yourself a "liberal". This modern definition has been hammered into something of no resemblance to anything that stands for, or believes in, freedom. At least Myke freely admits to his collectivist philosophy. You, on the other hand, are either self-delusional, or just a sham as evidenced by the contradiction in the above statement.

I'm a big supporter of the well off in society carrying most of the tax burden

I have no ambition to be wealthy. I just enjoy my work and work hard because of that.

They should bear more burden to society for the success society has allowed them to achieve

I'll be pretty well off soon, and I don't mind a higher tax burden. My principles come first.

We just disagree on what the government should do in helping the less fortunate in their pursuit of happiness.

I could never support it as it's just not fair, despite being a flat rate across all groups.

I believe in a large and strong government, lots of social programming etc, and thus fairly high taxes.

They're not going to reduce profits and eat some cost to lower gas prices. They're going to sell it for as high as they can all the time...And that's my biggest gripe with capitalism.

I don't view it as punishment. Just like I don't view having higher tax % brackets for higher earners as punishment. It's just carrying more of the burden in turn for their success.


Just what is "society's burden"? You are. You, who would force free men into involuntary servitude to assuage your own guilt of neglecting the underprivileged. When you decide to open a private homeless shelter, or pay ten strangers' health insurance premiums with your PhD salary, you can then be judge and jury over the money I earn with my own two hands, and the wealth I create in my wake. Just remember that starving child you could feed with that NetFlix rental fee, or how many families you could help instead of drinking that snobby beer. Why should the rich be punished, or burdened, with the cost of building that new housing project when you're perfectly capable of picking up a hammer?

Since you enjoy your work and do it for it's own reward, you shouldn't mind giving up all your luxuries until everyone has been serviced according to their need. Until you submit to your principles and live by them, please stop claiming you have them.

[Msut77]

I just imagine the spittle impacting on mulligans monitor while he waves his feeble fists and then I lean back and let out mighty peals of laughter.

[RAMSTORIA]

or how many families you could help instead of drinking that snobby beer.

fuck that. itll be a cold day in hell before i start drinking natural ice over guinness.

[Koggit]

dmaul's super dumb.

I really like this thread, though. Or, rather, that site.

This is cool: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411750_updated_candidates_summary.pdf

From that, I found it interesting that in fact the bottom 80% do better under Obama while the top 20% do better under McCain. Obama plans to collect 18.2% of the GDP and McCain plans to collect 17.6% of the GDP. I think those are the most important numbers in this.

[elprincipe]

Neither Obama or McCain's tax plans have any basis in reality, period, end of story.

[MSI Magus]

People were successful in this country before the government controlled most of this.

Yes and it was largly because of as someone else said slave labor, lax labor laws, child labor, the lack of having to pay for any health care or decent wages for their workers. The few small business that came up were largly lucky or hit on brilliant concepts.

The common man that did well over time was largly a result of government intervention and the fact that business men were patriots back then that atleast reinvested in the US and gave much to US Charity. As I said before, the rich now are selfish bastards that just reinvest over seas.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

People such as slave owners, or JP Morgan who got his start from war profiteering. The point being the biggest time of shared prosperity (perhaps ever) was post New Deal.

As unpleasant as it was, it was still legal.

[dmaul1114]

Just what is "society's burden"? You are. You, who would force free men into involuntary servitude to assuage your own guilt of neglecting the underprivileged. When you decide to open a private homeless shelter, or pay ten strangers' health insurance premiums with your PhD salary, you can then be judge and jury over the money I earn with my own two hands, and the wealth I create in my wake. Just remember that starving child you could feed with that NetFlix rental fee, or how many families you could help instead of drinking that snobby beer. Why should the rich be punished, or burdened, with the cost of building that new housing project when you're perfectly capable of picking up a hammer?

Since you enjoy your work and do it for it's own reward, you shouldn't mind giving up all your luxuries until everyone has been serviced according to their need. Until you submit to your principles and live by them, please stop claiming you have them.


I have no respect for your political views and usually don't respond to your posts, but I will to this one briefly for the purpose of clarification.

I readily admit to all those flaws. As I said earlier, human's are entirely self interested beings. While I do make charitable contributions etc., if I wasn't taxed I wouldn't donate that level of money to the government or anyone else. I'm no more exempt from being self interested than the next guy.

That's why I support a graduated income tax system. People, myself included, are self interested and thus I think the income tax system is crucial for the government and social programs to get the money then need to do the things they have to do and the things I think they should do. There's no way in hell people would ever voluntarily give the amount of money they give in taxes. You think that's their right, but I think society would collapse if that were reality.

As for having choices of what to do with their money, if people want to make donations to charitable causes, they still can. And most are tax deductible. So it's the best of both worlds IMO. Self interested people have to "donate" money through taxes, and people who care can make donations themselves and write them off. You'll never accept it given your views, but again I think it's necassary for the greater good. A world where people have no responsibility to anyone but themselves is one I wouldn't want to live in. And that's the world we would have without taxes and a large government as it seems with each passing year people care less and less about others.

[dmaul1114]

As unpleasant as it was, it was still legal.

But it is not now. Nor are the child labor laws and all the other stuff mentioned.

It's a different world now and in the current world people owe some of their success to all the things provided by the government that I listed before.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Yes and it was largly because of as someone else said slave labor, lax labor laws, child labor, the lack of having to pay for any health care or decent wages for their workers. The few small business that came up were largly lucky or hit on brilliant concepts.

The common man that did well over time was largly a result of government intervention and the fact that business men were patriots back then that atleast reinvested in the US and gave much to US Charity. As I said before, the rich now are selfish bastards that just reinvest over seas.

If slave labor, lax labor laws, child labor, and poor pay and benefits were the secret to a successful business, third world countries would have the richest business owners and there would be no rich people in Europe.

The reason the rich invest overseas is because overseas labor is cheaper. Put in tariffs like there were when business men were "patriots" and they'll suddenly start reinvesting in the US.

The problem with trickle down economics is that it'll seek the lowest point possible to collect.

In a "shrinking" world, that lowest point is a third world country.

[dmaul1114]

If slave labor, lax labor laws, child labor, and poor pay and benefits were the secret to a successful business, third world countries would have the richest business owners .....y.

Again, third world countries lack all the things our governments, governments in europe etc. provide for their people.

Thus they don't have the same opportunities for success. It's hard to achieve success if you aren't living in a safe place, have little access to health care, little or no education available etc. etc.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

But it is not now. Nor are the child labor laws and all the other stuff mentioned.

It's a different world now and in the current world people owe some of their success to all the things provided by the government that I listed before.

If government affords so many opportunities for people, why do some still fail so miserably? Why do generations of the same family cling to the bottom rung of the socioeconomic ladder?

[dmaul1114]

If government affords so many opportunities for people, why do some still fail so miserably? Why do generations of the same family cling to the bottom rung of the socioeconomic ladder?

Just because opportunities are afforded doesn't mean everyone will seize them. It still takes desire to succeed and hard work. And also the government needs to do more and it's failing in many areas--such as low quality schools in many inner cities etc.

Providing more opportunties just means we (US, Europe etc.) have less poor and that most of or our poor are better off than in third world countries where the government doesn't afford it's citizen's the same opportunities. Not that poverty will ever be erased. That's not a feasible goal as at the end of the day you'll have some people who just don't want to work hard.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Just because opportunities are afforded doesn't mean everyone will seize them. It still takes desire to succeed and hard work. And also the government needs to do more and it's failing in many areas--such as low quality schools in many inner cities etc.

Is America as successful as it has ever been?

Is the government in control of its citizens' lives as much as it ever has?

[dmaul1114]

Is America as successful as it has ever been?

Unquestionably.


Is the government in control of its citizens' lives as much as it ever has?

Probably so, but depends on who the citizen's are. Obviously blacks and women have many more rights now than in the past.

But I don't think that really gets into taxes and social programs. A lot of the "control" is stuff in the patriot act, FISA etc. that is an independent issue and are things I vehemently oppose.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Unquestionably.



Probably so, but depends on who the citizen's are. Obviously blacks and women have many more rights now than in the past.

But I don't think that really gets into taxes and social programs. A lot of the "control" is stuff in the patriot act, FISA etc. that is an independent issue and are things I vehemently oppose.

Awww. I thought you would recognize Bush's reign as a step backwards for 80% of the people in this country. I guess Christmas isn't early this year.

I was going to argue that we were on the right side of a bell curve with a Y axis of personal success and a X axis of government control.

[Msut77]

As unpleasant as it was, it was still legal.

I think Libertarianism rots brains.

[Msut77]

If slave labor, lax labor laws, child labor, and poor pay and benefits were the secret to a successful business, third world countries would have the richest business owners and there would be no rich people in Europe.

First world corporations (and people) are the ones ultimately running the show and making money off of the exploitation, shocking I know.

Is America as successful as it has ever been?

Not really.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

I think Libertarianism rots brains.
No need to go personal.

I'm applying Moral Relativism. Even if every successful business owner used slave or child labor (and I doubt it), said owners were simply playing by the rules of the game at that time.

I view it like chop blocks in the early days of football. Today, they're considered a foul. Back then, it was a good way to stop a runner.

To agree with you, I don't think nowadays are America's most successful.

[Msut77]

Even if every successful business owner used slave or child labor (and I doubt it), said owners were simply playing by the rules of the game at that time.

You are failing to make the distinction between being "successful" and making the levels of profit that is expected of corporations today (and in the past as well).

"Owners" will sink as low as they are allowed even f they were making money before, and not to make it personal again but it seems as if one of the core tenets of Libertarianism is to remove "rules".