There are draw back to both plans. For Obama it's that he will over tax the top 5% and companies which could lead to harming our economy or that the increased taxation will have to spread beyond the top 5%. With McCain is that taxation will not increase but spending will continue and we will further increase our deficit thus further weakening our dollar. So at this point it becomes which plan will hurt us less. Less of our money in our pocket or more of our money in our pocket but it's worth less.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
cincy ... for the individuals you are defending ... let me do a stictly mathematical exercise to show why I don't belive in a stright flat tax for all individuals.
Someone who makes $50k .... say they are taxed in toal at 40% .... they're after tax pay is $30k.
What would you say the bottom of the top 5% makes? $1M? 500k? Let's say 500k, but, damn, I think that's really low ... I think the top 5% make over $1M. and think of all the folks WAY above this level. anyway ...
Someone who makes $500k .... say they are taxed in toal at 40% .... they're after tax pay is $300k.
Someone who makes $500k .... say they are taxed in toal at 44% .... they're after tax pay is $280k.
Ok, they are making $20k less ... but they have not been hurt, they can still afford groceries, healthcare and have plenty left over for their luxuries. they can live an EXTREMELY good life ... better that 99% of the planet on that amount which is 20k less.
Again, things that cost money for basic living ... the percentage of total income is *much* larger to those that don't make as much money.
But for those that make HUGE amounts of money, these basic needs aren't nearly a high percentage of income ... so, to me, indeed, they can foot a slightly higher tax percentagel to help pay for the things this country needs to do to ensure they will continue to make these large sums of money.
"You're one of the few Red Sox fans I don't mind." - Newch91
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
There are draw back to both plans. For Obama it's that he will over tax the top 5% and companies which could lead to harming our economy or that the increased taxation will have to spread beyond the top 5%. With McCain is that taxation will not increase but spending will continue and we will further increase our deficit thus further weakening our dollar. So at this point it becomes which plan will hurt us less. Less of our money in our pocket or more of our money in our pocket but it's worth less.
I really don't believe that taxing the large corporations will harm the economy. And by not taxing the poor and middle class, it will give them some extra to spend. So although large corporations get taxed a little more, there is more spending by the people.
I really don't believe that taxing the large corporations will harm the economy. And by not taxing the poor and middle class, it will give them some extra to spend. So although large corporations get taxed a little more, there is more spending by the people.
It's time to at least give this a chance.
they will stop hiring people, ship jobs overseas, or at worst start laying people off. great idea.
I really don't believe that taxing the large corporations will harm the economy. And by not taxing the poor and middle class, it will give them some extra to spend. So although large corporations get taxed a little more, there is more spending by the people.
It's time to at least give this a chance.
No simply increasing taxes on corporations by a few percentage points will not have a significant impact on their business, but the point is what if that is not enough. At that point you either have to increase the taxes again on that 5% which may begin to impact their business or you have to start increasing taxes on more than just that 5%. If you don't want to do that then you basically widen the deficit and risk deflating the value of the dollar. His plan may work, but this is the risk you face with that plan.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
they will stop hiring people, ship jobs overseas, or at worst start laying people off. great idea.
ok, so you think a small tax increase to major corporations is going to lead this economy into enormous unemployment? You think they can't afford it??? so, let's keep doing what we've been doing over the last 8 years?
hmm, that's been working REAL well.
edit .. .by the way ... they have ALREADY stopped hiring US people and shipping jobs overseas ... and that needs to be recognized to some degree in the form of taxes.
"You're one of the few Red Sox fans I don't mind." - Newch91
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
they will stop hiring people, ship jobs overseas, or at worst start laying people off. great idea.
Glad you have a crystal ball. Guess we'll just stick with the way things are....brilliant.
I doubt they will stop hiring people if money is being spent by the middle class. And Obama has stated huge penalties for shipping jobs over seas, something this chicken shit administration has been afraid to do......yea they're really for the middle class.
No simply increasing taxes on corporations by a few percentage points will not have a significant impact on their business, but the point is what if that is not enough. At that point you either have to increase the taxes again on that 5% which may begin to impact their business or you have to start increasing taxes on more than just that 5%. If you don't want to do that then you basically widen the deficit and risk deflating the value of the dollar. His plan may work, but this is the risk you face with that plan.
I agree with that post. But something needs to change, so I'd like to at least give Obama's plan a chance.
cincy ... for the individuals you are defending ... let me do a stictly mathematical exercise to show why I don't belive in a stright flat tax for all individuals.
Someone who makes $50k .... say they are taxed in toal at 40% .... they're after tax pay is $30k.
What would you say the bottom of the top 5% makes? $1M? 500k? Let's say 500k, but, damn, I think that's really low ... I think the top 5% make over $1M. and think of all the folks WAY above this level. anyway ...
Someone who makes $500k .... say they are taxed in toal at 40% .... they're after tax pay is $300k.
Someone who makes $500k .... say they are taxed in toal at 44% .... they're after tax pay is $280k.
Ok, they are making $20k less ... but they have not been hurt, they can still afford groceries, healthcare and have plenty left over for their luxuries. they can live an EXTREMELY good life ... better that 99% of the planet on that amount which is 20k less.
Again, things that cost money for basic living ... the percentage of total income is *much* larger to those that don't make as much money.
But for those that make HUGE amounts of money, these basic needs aren't nearly a high percentage of income ... so, to me, indeed, they can foot a slightly higher tax percentagel to help pay for the things this country needs to do to ensure they will continue to make these large sums of money.
In your first example, the $50,000 person is paying $20,000 in tax...the $500,000 person is paying $200,000....isn't that enough more?
Cna you see that if you tax the upper ends too much, you reduce incentives to improve? Especially since you are then taking that $ and giving it free to people who didn;t have to earn it? So, now you are punishing improvement and then rewarding the status quo.
Someone said something about taxing compaines that make $250,000...
So, what is the combined family income that is right at the 5% level? Anyone know? Why wouldn;t Obama say that?
There are draw back to both plans. For Obama it's that he will over tax the top 5% and companies which could lead to harming our economy or that the increased taxation will have to spread beyond the top 5%. With McCain is that taxation will not increase but spending will continue and we will further increase our deficit thus further weakening our dollar. So at this point it becomes which plan will hurt us less. Less of our money in our pocket or more of our money in our pocket but it's worth less.
Didn't I already say this. Well, it wasn't exaclty the same, so I'll just say....
I agree. That is why the question of whether or not McCain will (or can) lower spending significantly is so important, to me at least. If he can and does, I like his plan much better.
I agree with that post. But something needs to change, so I'd like to at least give Obama's plan a chance.
I agree something needs to change but both men have it wrong. the first step to fiscal health is to reduce spending significantly. I'm not talking about a million here or million there. I'm talking in the tens of billions. If we don't drastically cut spending it doesn't matter what plan we implement because spending will continue to rise so to adjust for that either taxes will rise or inflation will rise weakening the dollars.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
In your first example, the $50,000 person is paying $20,000 in tax...the $500,000 person is paying $200,000....isn't that enough more?
Cna you see that if you tax the upper ends too much, you reduce incentives to improve? Especially since you are then taking that $ and giving it free to people who didn;t have to earn it? So, now you are punishing improvement and then rewarding the status quo.
Someone said something about taxing compaines that make $250,000...
So, what is the combined family income that is right at the 5% level? Anyone know? Why wouldn;t Obama say that?
Obama has said the levels of income to be taxed. I forget the exact amounts, but they were similar to his business tax codes. I'm sure they are easy to find.
Obama has said the levels of income to be taxed. I forget the exact amounts, but they were similar to his business tax codes. I'm sure they are easy to find.
Maybe so, but I couldn't find them the other day...only looked for 20 mintues or so though. So, help me out if it's easy.
I agree something needs to change but both men have it wrong. the first step to fiscal health is to reduce spending significantly. I'm not talking about a million here or million there. I'm talking in the tens of billions. If we don't drastically cut spending it doesn't matter what plan we implement because spending will continue to rise so to adjust for that either taxes will rise or inflation will rise weakening the dollars.
Again I largely agree with you Spending is way out of control. But I don't believe McCain will cut spending anymore than Obama. In fact he may spend even more. And at least the Dems want to spend on things that try and improve the country. Whereas the GOP would like to spend Billions on bullshit wars!!!!!!!
Again I largely agree with you Spending is way out of control. But I don't believe McCain will cut spending anymore than Obama. In fact he may spend even more. And at least the Dems want to spend on things that try and improve the country. Whereas the GOP would like to spend Billions on bullshit wars!!!!!!!
You see, that's certainly a fair statement...though I disagree. I think John McCain is FAR more likely to reduce spending than Obama. I also don't think all that $ Obama wants to spend will necessarily improve the country.
In your first example, the $50,000 person is paying $20,000 in tax...the $500,000 person is paying $200,000....isn't that enough more?
Cna you see that if you tax the upper ends too much, you reduce incentives to improve? Especially since you are then taking that $ and giving it free to people who didn;t have to earn it? So, now you are punishing improvement and then rewarding the status quo.
You are looking at the glass half empty and I'm looking at the glass half full.
Isn't $280k in take home enough? Do you REALLY need to make it $300k? Really? Would you (and this is a overall top 5% 'you') rather grab that extra 20k than improve the infrastructure, heathcare, education in this country? Are people really THAT greedy that they can't pitch in a little more even though they are MORE than well off. Again, I'm not talking about them handing over their entire paycheck ... these poeple at the top 5% ... they can EASILY afford this cost to better the world they live in.
Reduced incentives to improve?
I don't think making 56 cents on the dollar vs 60 cent on the dollar, is really that much of a disincentive to make a lot more money.
and who said anything about giving it to people for "free" ... make them work for it ... make them work to improve the infrastucture in this country ... educate people better in the public schools ... these are things this country needs .... but hey ... if making $300k a year vs $280k a year in after tax pay is that important, keep it and let this country go to shit.
"You're one of the few Red Sox fans I don't mind." - Newch91
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
Again I largely agree with you Spending is way out of control. But I don't believe McCain will cut spending anymore than Obama. In fact he may spend even more. And at least the Dems want to spend on things that try and improve the country. Whereas the GOP would like to spend Billions on bullshit wars!!!!!!!
with the way McCain was sabre rattling the other week towards Russia ...I ahve a feeling he'll spend a lot more .... on military.
"You're one of the few Red Sox fans I don't mind." - Newch91
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
Seems to me you are looking to empty my glass and fill yours, while I'd like to keep my glass filled with what I earned and allow you the same.
I meant on what you take home vs what you are taxed ... you wer eonly looking at the TAXED side ... thus, the glass half empty side.
edit ... by the way ... I am MUCH close to the $500k side than the $50k side of this equation and I am MORE than willing to pitch in if everyone else will
I ain't loking for no hand out ... please don't assume that I am.
NO ONE should get a hand out ... people should work for welfare .... but we need to improve alot in this country ... and the rich folks can kick in a touch more than the poor.
"You're one of the few Red Sox fans I don't mind." - Newch91
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
with the way McCain was sabre rattling the other week towards Russia ...I ahve a feeling he'll spend a lot more .... on military.
Not to mention the way Rudy and others talked at the convention!! 911,911,911, Islamic terror, 911.....Iran is next on their agenda. No doubt about it.
I meant on what you take home vs what you are taxed ... you wer eonly looking at the TAXED side ... thus, the glass half empty side.
'Cause that's the side up for debate...I've already earned it all, the only side that matters is how much you want to take from me.
I don't think we'll see eye to eye on this. You're ok with people paying a disproportionate amount of their earnings in taxes, I'm not. These people are also the ones buying more goods and services...again, taxed more, but it's their own choice at that point, so it's certainly better than income tax.
Seems to me you are looking to empty my glass and fill yours, while I'd like to keep my glass filled with what I earned and allow you the same.
You can go fix the roads and build the bridges yourself then. While your at it, get yourself a raft and get yourself over to Iraq and fight for yourself as well.
You see, that's certainly a fair statement...though I disagree. I think John McCain is FAR more likely to reduce spending than Obama. I also don't think all that $ Obama wants to spend will necessarily improve the country.
I think that McCain may spend a little less than Obama but it will not be a significant amount. I highly doubt that McCain is going to come in and slash the budget a few billion dollars.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
I meant on what you take home vs what you are taxed ... you wer eonly looking at the TAXED side ... thus, the glass half empty side.
edit ... by the way ... I am MUCH close to the $500k side than the $50k side of this equation and I am MORE than willing to pitch in if everyone else will
I ain't loking for no hand out ... please don't assume that I am.
NO ONE should get a hand out ... people should work for welfare .... but we need to improve alot in this country ... and the rich folks can kick in a touch more than the poor.
Sorry if it came across as you specifically...I meant you in the argument, your side.
I agree...no one should get a handout, so let's fix that before we just start giving them more handouts.
I also agree, the rich can kick in WAY more than the poor...I'm just saying that they already do, in fact way too much more in my opinion.
You can go fix the roads and build the bridges yourself then. While your at it, get yourself a raft and get yourself over to Iraq and fight for yourself as well.
Huh? C'mon, rise above that BS your trying to spew...you can do it.
I think that McCain may spend a little less than Obama but it will not be a significant amount. I highly doubt that McCain is going to come in and slash the budget a few billion dollars.
Probably right...and I do worry that McCain will waste $ on another war...thats' my biggest concern with him.
Comments
i'll take that as an "i'm incredibly gullible" response, then.
did i mention this swampland, er, i mean farmland, i have for sale in muskogee?
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
Someone who makes $50k .... say they are taxed in toal at 40% .... they're after tax pay is $30k.
What would you say the bottom of the top 5% makes? $1M? 500k? Let's say 500k, but, damn, I think that's really low ... I think the top 5% make over $1M. and think of all the folks WAY above this level. anyway ...
Someone who makes $500k .... say they are taxed in toal at 40% .... they're after tax pay is $300k.
Someone who makes $500k .... say they are taxed in toal at 44% .... they're after tax pay is $280k.
Ok, they are making $20k less ... but they have not been hurt, they can still afford groceries, healthcare and have plenty left over for their luxuries. they can live an EXTREMELY good life ... better that 99% of the planet on that amount which is 20k less.
Again, things that cost money for basic living ... the percentage of total income is *much* larger to those that don't make as much money.
But for those that make HUGE amounts of money, these basic needs aren't nearly a high percentage of income ... so, to me, indeed, they can foot a slightly higher tax percentagel to help pay for the things this country needs to do to ensure they will continue to make these large sums of money.
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
I really don't believe that taxing the large corporations will harm the economy. And by not taxing the poor and middle class, it will give them some extra to spend. So although large corporations get taxed a little more, there is more spending by the people.
It's time to at least give this a chance.
they will stop hiring people, ship jobs overseas, or at worst start laying people off. great idea.
No simply increasing taxes on corporations by a few percentage points will not have a significant impact on their business, but the point is what if that is not enough. At that point you either have to increase the taxes again on that 5% which may begin to impact their business or you have to start increasing taxes on more than just that 5%. If you don't want to do that then you basically widen the deficit and risk deflating the value of the dollar. His plan may work, but this is the risk you face with that plan.
ok, so you think a small tax increase to major corporations is going to lead this economy into enormous unemployment? You think they can't afford it??? so, let's keep doing what we've been doing over the last 8 years?
hmm, that's been working REAL well.
edit .. .by the way ... they have ALREADY stopped hiring US people and shipping jobs overseas ... and that needs to be recognized to some degree in the form of taxes.
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
LOL. Look around. That's what's happening now. Ha, ha.
Glad you have a crystal ball. Guess we'll just stick with the way things are....brilliant.
I doubt they will stop hiring people if money is being spent by the middle class. And Obama has stated huge penalties for shipping jobs over seas, something this chicken shit administration has been afraid to do......yea they're really for the middle class.
I agree with that post. But something needs to change, so I'd like to at least give Obama's plan a chance.
In your first example, the $50,000 person is paying $20,000 in tax...the $500,000 person is paying $200,000....isn't that enough more?
Cna you see that if you tax the upper ends too much, you reduce incentives to improve? Especially since you are then taking that $ and giving it free to people who didn;t have to earn it? So, now you are punishing improvement and then rewarding the status quo.
Someone said something about taxing compaines that make $250,000...
So, what is the combined family income that is right at the 5% level? Anyone know? Why wouldn;t Obama say that?
Didn't I already say this.
I agree. That is why the question of whether or not McCain will (or can) lower spending significantly is so important, to me at least. If he can and does, I like his plan much better.
I agree something needs to change but both men have it wrong. the first step to fiscal health is to reduce spending significantly. I'm not talking about a million here or million there. I'm talking in the tens of billions. If we don't drastically cut spending it doesn't matter what plan we implement because spending will continue to rise so to adjust for that either taxes will rise or inflation will rise weakening the dollars.
Obama has said the levels of income to be taxed. I forget the exact amounts, but they were similar to his business tax codes. I'm sure they are easy to find.
Maybe so, but I couldn't find them the other day...only looked for 20 mintues or so though. So, help me out if it's easy.
Again I largely agree with you Spending is way out of control. But I don't believe McCain will cut spending anymore than Obama. In fact he may spend even more. And at least the Dems want to spend on things that try and improve the country. Whereas the GOP would like to spend Billions on bullshit wars!!!!!!!
You see, that's certainly a fair statement...though I disagree. I think John McCain is FAR more likely to reduce spending than Obama. I also don't think all that $ Obama wants to spend will necessarily improve the country.
You are looking at the glass half empty and I'm looking at the glass half full.
Isn't $280k in take home enough? Do you REALLY need to make it $300k? Really? Would you (and this is a overall top 5% 'you') rather grab that extra 20k than improve the infrastructure, heathcare, education in this country? Are people really THAT greedy that they can't pitch in a little more even though they are MORE than well off. Again, I'm not talking about them handing over their entire paycheck ... these poeple at the top 5% ... they can EASILY afford this cost to better the world they live in.
Reduced incentives to improve?
I don't think making 56 cents on the dollar vs 60 cent on the dollar, is really that much of a disincentive to make a lot more money.
and who said anything about giving it to people for "free" ... make them work for it ... make them work to improve the infrastucture in this country ... educate people better in the public schools ... these are things this country needs .... but hey ... if making $300k a year vs $280k a year in after tax pay is that important, keep it and let this country go to shit.
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
with the way McCain was sabre rattling the other week towards Russia ...I ahve a feeling he'll spend a lot more .... on military.
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
really?
Seems to me you are looking to empty my glass and fill yours, while I'd like to keep my glass filled with what I earned and allow you the same.
I meant on what you take home vs what you are taxed ... you wer eonly looking at the TAXED side ... thus, the glass half empty side.
edit ... by the way ... I am MUCH close to the $500k side than the $50k side of this equation and I am MORE than willing to pitch in if everyone else will
I ain't loking for no hand out ... please don't assume that I am.
NO ONE should get a hand out ... people should work for welfare .... but we need to improve alot in this country ... and the rich folks can kick in a touch more than the poor.
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
Not to mention the way Rudy and others talked at the convention!! 911,911,911, Islamic terror, 911.....Iran is next on their agenda. No doubt about it.
'Cause that's the side up for debate...I've already earned it all, the only side that matters is how much you want to take from me.
I don't think we'll see eye to eye on this. You're ok with people paying a disproportionate amount of their earnings in taxes, I'm not. These people are also the ones buying more goods and services...again, taxed more, but it's their own choice at that point, so it's certainly better than income tax.
You can go fix the roads and build the bridges yourself then. While your at it, get yourself a raft and get yourself over to Iraq and fight for yourself as well.
I think that McCain may spend a little less than Obama but it will not be a significant amount. I highly doubt that McCain is going to come in and slash the budget a few billion dollars.
Sorry if it came across as you specifically...I meant you in the argument, your side.
I agree...no one should get a handout, so let's fix that before we just start giving them more handouts.
I also agree, the rich can kick in WAY more than the poor...I'm just saying that they already do, in fact way too much more in my opinion.
Huh? C'mon, rise above that BS your trying to spew...you can do it.
agree to disagree .... well discussed.
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
Probably right...and I do worry that McCain will waste $ on another war...thats' my biggest concern with him.