| Author |
Previous Topic | Next Topic |
|
cspatmon
2092 Posts |
 Posted - 10/15/2008 : 3:10:41 PM
|
| A Simple yes or no. Will McCain bring up in tonight's debate the dreaded "Double A's". Ayers and Acorn. I think if he does it will be political suicide. |
|
SoCalRay
2698 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2008 : 3:15:04 PM
|
That would be crazy to bring up Acorn now with video of McCain speaking to Acorn
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ9wy2MI1NI
|
|
|
the_mortgage_guy
1178 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2008 : 4:45:16 PM
|
| I don't think it matters. People are more scared of the economy than terrorists, etc. A bad economy never poses well for the party in power in elections. Unfortunately, most people spend 5 minutes discerning important issues this country faces and so it is more expedient to just blame the people in power. Remember, it takes 2 to tango. I imagine a few people may change their minds if they looked into things more but probably not enough and I can't say I blame them. Go Repubs 2012. It was over before it started. |
|
|
darkstar
18092 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2008 : 4:49:51 PM
|
I think the fannie connection would be more apropos but his focus needs to be punching holes in Obama's plan but only thru using how his works better...Just punching holes and not filling them leaves us all empty...
I also think he HAS to bring up the socialism comment, it's undeniable and the REAL danger of his campaign...
No matter how bad McCain would hurt us, he wouldn't launch us FURTHER into socialism...We;re there, but we could go a lot further and Obama will take us further than McCain, if for no other reason, you should vote for McCain... |
|
|
mykal5
2765 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2008 : 4:58:15 PM
|
Like the Darkstar said, I think he would look more Presidential by attacking Obama's economic policies, and revealing his own. McCain had after Obama's associations long ago, but to do so now will look desperate.
If I were a McCain advisor, I would have sat down with some leading Conservative economic advisors and created a unique plan to be presented tonight and detailed in the coming weeks. |
|
|
darkstar
18092 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2008 : 4:59:29 PM
|
| Mike, what's your opinion of his socialism comment?... |
|
|
assassin17
4155 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2008 : 5:09:02 PM
|
| I agree. The thing to attack is his comment of spreading the wealth. I'd hammer out for 90 minutes what that represents. |
|
|
stewpot
442 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2008 : 5:10:55 PM
|
The only chance McCain has is to hit Obama from every direction and hope he slips up, to the point where he can follow up with some hard hitting shots. Other than that, he's done. Thats not McCains style though.
If it doesnt go that way, the only hope is for something Bill and Hillary have been holding back, like Obamas love child or a tape of him discussing strategy with OBL. JK |
|
|
LoanPro71
2676 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2008 : 5:18:35 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by assassin17
I agree. The thing to attack is his comment of spreading the wealth. I'd hammer out for 90 minutes what that represents.
The redistribution of wealth is the redistribution of wealth ... no matter WHO gets the money.
The Bank Bailout that is occuring as we speak ... to the tune of $1.5 TRILLION in total ... is ... by far ... the greatest redistribution of wealth in World History.
Of course the super-wealthy are getting the money .... so I guess it's not really Socialism. 
Obama could knock that "redistribution of wealth" crap out of the park without even thinking about it.
Of course, McCain is a moron ... so he'll probably bring it up.
|
|
|
darkstar
18092 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2008 : 5:37:02 PM
|
| For the 100th time, we got it LP...The point is Obama is telling you to your face he will deepen us within the socialism umbrella, again, for that reason alone, his own party should be chastising him...Corporate socialism is cheaper than overall, so at this point, I'll take that until we can fix things... |
|
|
LoanPro71
2676 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2008 : 5:40:01 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by darkstar
For the 100th time, we got it LP...The point is Obama is telling you to your face he will deepen us within the socialism umbrella, again, for that reason alone, his own party should be chastising him...Corporate socialism is cheaper than overall, so at this point, I'll take that until we can fix things...
How is Corporate Socialism cheaper?
This makes absolutely no sense.
70% of America's GDP is CONSUMPTION ... not PRODUCTION.
See what I mean?
|
|
|
frank drigotas j
1503 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2008 : 5:41:09 PM
|
Here is blasphemy:
what is wrong with socialism?
Mind you, I've embraced capitalism all of my too short life, but I pose the question to those more intelligent and articulate than I.
dollar
ps. You can wait until after the debate (10/15/08) and the references to already entrenched social security, medicare, bank bailouts, food stamps, income taxes, unemployment benefits, etc. |
|
|
darkstar
18092 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2008 : 5:45:55 PM
|
>>>See what I mean?
Not at all, your example means nothing... |
|
|
CoolMtgGuy
3663 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2008 : 5:54:23 PM
|
Using some aspects of socialism (eg: nationalizing banks) is ok in my book. Implementing a full and complete socialist state is a whole nother matter. The alarmists would have us believe that we will have the latter unless McCain is POTUS. Sounds familiar? (reminder: current POTUS said we would have nuclear terrorism if we don't take out Saddam Hussein)
Fortunately, the scare tactics won't work this time. McCain has not figured that out yet and I doubt that he ever will. He is being beat up by many in his own party so he has to spend most of his time holding his base in place and no effort can be expended going after the necessary uncommited voters ... especially those white people who would never vote for a "colored man" but were previously supporting Hillary Clinton.
Forget the crap about this country becoming a socialist state. No way, no how.
quote:
Originally posted by frank drigotas jr
Here is blasphemy:
what is wrong with socialism?
Mind you, I've embraced capitalism all of my too short life, but I pose the question to those more intelligent and articulate than me.
dollar
ps. You can wait until after the debate (10/16/08) and the references to entrenched social security, medicare, bank bailouts, food stamps, income taxes, unemployment benefits, etc.
|
|
|
mykal5
2765 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2008 : 5:56:18 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by darkstar
Mike, what's your opinion of his socialism comment?...
It was a terrible comment. Just plain terrible. I don't care for his tax plan and don't believe we need anything other than a flat tax. Ultimately his tax plan is probably going to cost someone making $251,000 about $5,000 more in taxes a year. If you are making $20,000 a month another $400 a month isn't going to hurt, but anything more than your feelings, but that doesn't make it right. It is one of the few areas I disagree with Obama on.
My taxes won't be going up under his plan but if I were in that income bracket I can honestly say I wouldn't care, in fact I wouldn't care if mine went up another ~3% if our government would cut spending at apply it to our debt. Otherwise tax increases are a dumb idea.
I've read a study recently that John McCain and Barack Obama are about tied in terms of support among the wealthy but the majority of Obama's support came from those far higher in the income bracket. That demographic tends to make money through capital gains rather than the group that is between $250,000 and $1,000,000 who like you and me, work for every dime generally speaking. I would rather see no increase but if you have to do it, do it for those above $1,000,000. |
|
|
LoanPro71
2676 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2008 : 6:01:58 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by darkstar
>>>See what I mean?
Not at all, your example means nothing...
If 70% of our GDP is based on consumption then wouldn't it make more sense to give money to CONSUMERS.
Without demand ... supply isn't necessary.
|
|
|
darkstar
18092 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2008 : 6:19:13 PM
|
| We can keep backing that up to more and more issues...If spending was controlled, we wouldn't even be having this conversation so in the current state, if I have to choose, I choose corporate socialism over public...Giving back to us isn't the solution, stop taking so much or just spend what they take a lot better...Giving it means they shouldn't have had it which goes back to my previous points...Both forms of socialism suck, we're already under the one umbrella, I vote to not further that in the hopes we can stop this whole nightmare first... |
|
|
LoanPro71
2676 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2008 : 6:31:58 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by darkstar
We can keep backing that up to more and more issues...If spending was controlled, we wouldn't even be having this conversation so in the current state, if I have to choose, I choose corporate socialism over public...Giving back to us isn't the solution, stop taking so much or just spend what they take a lot better...Giving it means they shouldn't have had it which goes back to my previous points...Both forms of socialism suck, we're already under the one umbrella, I vote to not further that in the hopes we can stop this whole nightmare first...
Here's the way I see it.
The biggest problem with Corporate Socialism in today's world is the fact that so much of our Corporate production is being outsourced to foreign lands.
Why should US Taxpayers give money to Corporations that will take that money overseas to setup shop? It's totally illogical the way I see it.
I'm with you 100% in that we should eliminate ALL wealth redistribution and dramatically cut Federal spending.
We have to stop TAKING MONEY from those who EARN IT in the first place. The income tax is pure insanity ... and about as Un-American and illogical as it gets.
When you punish those who work hard ... why should people work hard?
When you punish investors by taxing Captial Gains ... why should people invest?
You and I agree on most of this already.
Where we disagree is Corporate Welfare ... and from every angle I can see .... it looks to be much more destructive than the ordinary Welfare that goes to the individual consumer.
|
|
|
darkstar
18092 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2008 : 6:50:10 PM
|
| The only positive to corporate welfare it's generally a one time thing(not always), but once you give everyone a new benefit(i.e. health care), it's never going away and will always cost more and more...I'd prefer they just not take what they don't need, giving back just shows bad accounting...They shouldn't need to give anything back, but that's in a perfect world and most of us will be dead before we see any major changes in this system of government...As soon as this crisis is over to any degree, you know full well, it's back to blowing up some new bubble to explode in the next 10-15yrs, it's our way of life! LOL |
|
|
LoanPro71
2676 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2008 : 7:00:59 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by darkstar
The only positive to corporate welfare it's generally a one time thing(not always), but once you give everyone a new benefit(i.e. health care), it's never going away and will always cost more and more...I'd prefer they just not take what they don't need, giving back just shows bad accounting...They shouldn't need to give anything back, but that's in a perfect world and most of us will be dead before we see any major changes in this system of government...As soon as this crisis is over to any degree, you know full well, it's back to blowing up some new bubble to explode in the next 10-15yrs, it's our way of life! LOL
So true ... the good 'ole Bubble has become an American tradition ... compliments of the Federal Reserve system.
|
|
|
the_mortgage_guy
1178 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2008 : 9:13:35 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by mykal5
quote:
Originally posted by darkstar
Mike, what's your opinion of his socialism comment?...
It was a terrible comment. Just plain terrible. I don't care for his tax plan and don't believe we need anything other than a flat tax. Ultimately his tax plan is probably going to cost someone making $251,000 about $5,000 more in taxes a year. If you are making $20,000 a month another $400 a month isn't going to hurt, but anything more than your feelings, but that doesn't make it right. It is one of the few areas I disagree with Obama on.
My taxes won't be going up under his plan but if I were in that income bracket I can honestly say I wouldn't care, in fact I wouldn't care if mine went up another ~3% if our government would cut spending at apply it to our debt. Otherwise tax increases are a dumb idea.
I've read a study recently that John McCain and Barack Obama are about tied in terms of support among the wealthy but the majority of Obama's support came from those far higher in the income bracket. That demographic tends to make money through capital gains rather than the group that is between $250,000 and $1,000,000 who like you and me, work for every dime generally speaking. I would rather see no increase but if you have to do it, do it for those above $1,000,000.
Good comment but 2 things. Corporate America puts the tax cost in the price of the product.
$400 does make a difference over 4 years with accrued interest for lets say a million people that make over 250k? Remember the economic stimulus was I believe $600 and both parties thought was going to stimulate the economy. |
|
|
zpaperkid
76 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2008 : 9:18:39 PM
|
Michael, why do you advocate a flat tax?
The only folks whom ever proposed it were rich dudes. Because they would pay far less income tax. Thats why. We have a progressive (so called) tax system which says that those whom make more $$ should pay more. And those who make less, pay less. Flat tax would mean that poor folks getting minimum wage would pay more than they do now. No matter how you run the numbers it doesnt pencil out. There are many rich folks who pay no taxes! Off-shore banking, tax loopholes, all kinds of schemes.
Loan Pro always makes the most sense of anyone on this forum. We desperately need a third party to counteract the ruling parties. Ron Paul is very astute, but not the right guy for now.
Steve, Bush and the GOP gave us socialism for the wealthy elite and mega corporations, and this huge bailout for his Wall Street crook buddies. Its about time the common working man got a break for a change. |
|
|
mykal5
2765 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2008 : 9:31:26 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by zpaperkid
Michael, why do you advocate a flat tax?
The only folks whom ever proposed it were rich dudes. Because they would pay far less income tax. Thats why. We have a progressive (so called) tax system which says that those whom make more $$ should pay more. And those who make less, pay less. Flat tax would mean that poor folks getting minimum wage would pay more than they do now. No matter how you run the numbers it doesnt pencil out. There are many rich folks who pay no taxes! Off-shore banking, tax loopholes, all kinds of schemes.
Loan Pro always makes the most sense of anyone on this forum. We desperately need a third party to counteract the ruling parties. Ron Paul is very astute, but not the right guy for now.
Steve, Bush and the GOP gave us socialism for the wealthy elite and mega corporations, and this huge bailout for his Wall Street crook buddies. Its about time the common working man got a break for a change.
Great point and from a purely economic point I will agree a flat tax will increase the burden on those who earn less, unless of course the rate is very low. A lower marginal rate (20%) would of course require a huge reduction in spending. For the most part I tend to be a positive rights person however when it comes to taxation I tend to fall in the negative rights camp. My stance is purely emotional, it just "feels" right.
I am well aware that the richest 1% own 38% of the wealth and the top 5% own 59%, so a progressive tax system makes more economical sense, but it doesn't necessarily seem or feel right. When you add wealth to the equation the flat tax argument loses weight.
|
|
|
Tsnyder
8256 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2008 : 10:55:57 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by mykal5
quote:
Originally posted by zpaperkid
Michael, why do you advocate a flat tax?
The only folks whom ever proposed it were rich dudes. Because they would pay far less income tax. Thats why. We have a progressive (so called) tax system which says that those whom make more $$ should pay more. And those who make less, pay less. Flat tax would mean that poor folks getting minimum wage would pay more than they do now. No matter how you run the numbers it doesnt pencil out. There are many rich folks who pay no taxes! Off-shore banking, tax loopholes, all kinds of schemes.
Loan Pro always makes the most sense of anyone on this forum. We desperately need a third party to counteract the ruling parties. Ron Paul is very astute, but not the right guy for now.
Steve, Bush and the GOP gave us socialism for the wealthy elite and mega corporations, and this huge bailout for his Wall Street crook buddies. Its about time the common working man got a break for a change.
Great point and from a purely economic point I will agree a flat tax will increase the burden on those who earn less, unless of course the rate is very low. A lower marginal rate (20%) would of course require a huge reduction in spending. For the most part I tend to be a positive rights person however when it comes to taxation I tend to fall in the negative rights camp. My stance is purely emotional, it just "feels" right.
I am well aware that the richest 1% own 38% of the wealth and the top 5% own 59%, so a progressive tax system makes more economical sense, but it doesn't necessarily seem or feel right. When you add wealth to the equation the flat tax argument loses weight.
Heck... you guys just need to think a little... this is easy.
You don't have to punish low income people with a flat tax... you
simply make the first X number of dollars in earnings tax exempt and
adjust the rate for the rest slightly higher.
Instead of everyone paying 15% you exempt the first $30K of
income and raise the rate to 17% for everyone else.
Problem solved... next.
Tsnyder |
|
|
Tsnyder
8256 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2008 : 11:01:03 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by frank drigotas jr
Here is blasphemy:
what is wrong with socialism?
Mind you, I've embraced capitalism all of my too short life, but I pose the question to those more intelligent and articulate than I.
Frank...
I don't claim to be more intelligent or articulate than you
but here's my view...
Socialism destroys the incentive to excel. If we're both going to
receive the same reward what's your incentive to produce more than me?
Guaranteeing financial equality simply means everyone will be equally poor.
Or... as Alvin Lee (Ten Years After) once wrote... "Soak the rich, feed the
poor, 'til there are no rich no more."
Tsnyder
|
|
|
LoanPro71
2676 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2008 : 12:30:48 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tsnyder
quote:
Originally posted by mykal5
quote:
Originally posted by zpaperkid
Michael, why do you advocate a flat tax?
The only folks whom ever proposed it were rich dudes. Because they would pay far less income tax. Thats why. We have a progressive (so called) tax system which says that those whom make more $$ should pay more. And those who make less, pay less. Flat tax would mean that poor folks getting minimum wage would pay more than they do now. No matter how you run the numbers it doesnt pencil out. There are many rich folks who pay no taxes! Off-shore banking, tax loopholes, all kinds of schemes.
Loan Pro always makes the most sense of anyone on this forum. We desperately need a third party to counteract the ruling parties. Ron Paul is very astute, but not the right guy for now.
Steve, Bush and the GOP gave us socialism for the wealthy elite and mega corporations, and this huge bailout for his Wall Street crook buddies. Its about time the common working man got a break for a change.
Great point and from a purely economic point I will agree a flat tax will increase the burden on those who earn less, unless of course the rate is very low. A lower marginal rate (20%) would of course require a huge reduction in spending. For the most part I tend to be a positive rights person however when it comes to taxation I tend to fall in the negative rights camp. My stance is purely emotional, it just "feels" right.
I am well aware that the richest 1% own 38% of the wealth and the top 5% own 59%, so a progressive tax system makes more economical sense, but it doesn't necessarily seem or feel right. When you add wealth to the equation the flat tax argument loses weight.
Heck... you guys just need to think a little... this is easy.
You don't have to punish low income people with a flat tax... you
simply make the first X number of dollars in earnings tax exempt and
adjust the rate for the rest slightly higher.
Instead of everyone paying 15% you exempt the first $30K of
income and raise the rate to 17% for everyone else.
Problem solved... next.
Tsnyder
Why not just eliminate the income tax all together?
It is, afterall, a Communist concept. One of the 10 Planks, in fact.
|
|
|
mykal5
2765 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2008 : 06:39:07 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tsnyder
quote:
Originally posted by mykal5
quote:
Originally posted by zpaperkid
Michael, why do you advocate a flat tax?
The only folks whom ever proposed it were rich dudes. Because they would pay far less income tax. Thats why. We have a progressive (so called) tax system which says that those whom make more $$ should pay more. And those who make less, pay less. Flat tax would mean that poor folks getting minimum wage would pay more than they do now. No matter how you run the numbers it doesnt pencil out. There are many rich folks who pay no taxes! Off-shore banking, tax loopholes, all kinds of schemes.
Loan Pro always makes the most sense of anyone on this forum. We desperately need a third party to counteract the ruling parties. Ron Paul is very astute, but not the right guy for now.
Steve, Bush and the GOP gave us socialism for the wealthy elite and mega corporations, and this huge bailout for his Wall Street crook buddies. Its about time the common working man got a break for a change.
Great point and from a purely economic point I will agree a flat tax will increase the burden on those who earn less, unless of course the rate is very low. A lower marginal rate (20%) would of course require a huge reduction in spending. For the most part I tend to be a positive rights person however when it comes to taxation I tend to fall in the negative rights camp. My stance is purely emotional, it just "feels" right.
I am well aware that the richest 1% own 38% of the wealth and the top 5% own 59%, so a progressive tax system makes more economical sense, but it doesn't necessarily seem or feel right. When you add wealth to the equation the flat tax argument loses weight.
Heck... you guys just need to think a little... this is easy.
You don't have to punish low income people with a flat tax... you
simply make the first X number of dollars in earnings tax exempt and
adjust the rate for the rest slightly higher.
Instead of everyone paying 15% you exempt the first $30K of
income and raise the rate to 17% for everyone else.
Problem solved... next.
Tsnyder
Sounds like another progressive taxation system to me, albeit much less than our current.
Where am I wrong?
|
|
|
darkstar
18092 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2008 : 07:14:09 AM
|
| We are taxed from the time we wake up until the time we go to sleep...Try to think of how many things you do as part of your day that doesn't involve paying some type of tax, good luck!...I am all for flat tax, but how do we set that without responsible spending?...If we base it off our current needs it would be too high IMO, they need to control spending first THEN see how much they need to take from us, not the other way around... |
|
|
hertz
853 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2008 : 07:16:29 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by zpaperkid
Michael, why do you advocate a flat tax?
The only folks whom ever proposed it were rich dudes. Because they would pay far less income tax. Thats why. We have a progressive (so called) tax system which says that those whom make more $$ should pay more. And those who make less, pay less. Flat tax would mean that poor folks getting minimum wage would pay more than they do now. No matter how you run the numbers it doesnt pencil out. There are many rich folks who pay no taxes! Off-shore banking, tax loopholes, all kinds of schemes.
Loan Pro always makes the most sense of anyone on this forum. We desperately need a third party to counteract the ruling parties. Ron Paul is very astute, but not the right guy for now.
Steve, Bush and the GOP gave us socialism for the wealthy elite and mega corporations, and this huge bailout for his Wall Street crook buddies. Its about time the common working man got a break for a change.
With a flat tax, this would be eliminated. |
|
|
darkstar
18092 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2008 : 07:24:22 AM
|
>>>Steve, Bush and the GOP gave us socialism for the wealthy elite and mega corporations,
I can't just place blame on the controlling party, It takes both parties to get anything done in D.C...Blaming just ONE perpetuates the machine... |
|
|
fairandbalanced
44 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2008 : 07:38:27 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by darkstar
We are taxed from the time we wake up until the time we go to sleep...Try to think of how many things you do as part of your day that doesn't involve paying some type of tax, good luck!...I am all for flat tax, but how do we set that without responsible spending?...If we base it off our current needs it would be too high IMO, they need to control spending first THEN see how much they need to take from us, not the other way around...
I totally agree. All of us in the real world understand this...cash flow gets tight, the first thing we do is look at where we can cut back. I love my satellite TV and my DSL and my cell phone, but when it comes right down to it, those would be the first things to go, but my sister would starve before she'd go a day without her cell phone, hence the gridlock in Washington. No one can agree on a set of priorities. |
|
|
Tsnyder
8256 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2008 : 09:22:13 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by mykal5
quote:
Originally posted by Tsnyder
quote:
Originally posted by mykal5
quote:
Originally posted by zpaperkid
Michael, why do you advocate a flat tax?
The only folks whom ever proposed it were rich dudes. Because they would pay far less income tax. Thats why. We have a progressive (so called) tax system which says that those whom make more $$ should pay more. And those who make less, pay less. Flat tax would mean that poor folks getting minimum wage would pay more than they do now. No matter how you run the numbers it doesnt pencil out. There are many rich folks who pay no taxes! Off-shore banking, tax loopholes, all kinds of schemes.
Loan Pro always makes the most sense of anyone on this forum. We desperately need a third party to counteract the ruling parties. Ron Paul is very astute, but not the right guy for now.
Steve, Bush and the GOP gave us socialism for the wealthy elite and mega corporations, and this huge bailout for his Wall Street crook buddies. Its about time the common working man got a break for a change.
Great point and from a purely economic point I will agree a flat tax will increase the burden on those who earn less, unless of course the rate is very low. A lower marginal rate (20%) would of course require a huge reduction in spending. For the most part I tend to be a positive rights person however when it comes to taxation I tend to fall in the negative rights camp. My stance is purely emotional, it just "feels" right.
I am well aware that the richest 1% own 38% of the wealth and the top 5% own 59%, so a progressive tax system makes more economical sense, but it doesn't necessarily seem or feel right. When you add wealth to the equation the flat tax argument loses weight.
Heck... you guys just need to think a little... this is easy.
You don't have to punish low income people with a flat tax... you
simply make the first X number of dollars in earnings tax exempt and
adjust the rate for the rest slightly higher.
Instead of everyone paying 15% you exempt the first $30K of
income and raise the rate to 17% for everyone else.
Problem solved... next.
Tsnyder
Sounds like another progressive taxation system to me, albeit much less than our current.
Where am I wrong?
Where's the progressive part? I'm just showing you a way to implement
a flat tax without punishing low income earners. Everyone else would pay
the same rate.
Frankly, I'm with LoanPro on this one... there should be no income tax at all.
Tsnyder |
|
|
Scrooge McDuck
8753 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2008 : 09:41:40 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tsnyder
quote:
Originally posted by mykal5
quote:
Originally posted by Tsnyder
quote:
Originally posted by mykal5
quote:
Originally posted by zpaperkid
Michael, why do you advocate a flat tax?
The only folks whom ever proposed it were rich dudes. Because they would pay far less income tax. Thats why. We have a progressive (so called) tax system which says that those whom make more $$ should pay more. And those who make less, pay less. Flat tax would mean that poor folks getting minimum wage would pay more than they do now. No matter how you run the numbers it doesnt pencil out. There are many rich folks who pay no taxes! Off-shore banking, tax loopholes, all kinds of schemes.
Loan Pro always makes the most sense of anyone on this forum. We desperately need a third party to counteract the ruling parties. Ron Paul is very astute, but not the right guy for now.
Steve, Bush and the GOP gave us socialism for the wealthy elite and mega corporations, and this huge bailout for his Wall Street crook buddies. Its about time the common working man got a break for a change.
Great point and from a purely economic point I will agree a flat tax will increase the burden on those who earn less, unless of course the rate is very low. A lower marginal rate (20%) would of course require a huge reduction in spending. For the most part I tend to be a positive rights person however when it comes to taxation I tend to fall in the negative rights camp. My stance is purely emotional, it just "feels" right.
I am well aware that the richest 1% own 38% of the wealth and the top 5% own 59%, so a progressive tax system makes more economical sense, but it doesn't necessarily seem or feel right. When you add wealth to the equation the flat tax argument loses weight.
Heck... you guys just need to think a little... this is easy.
You don't have to punish low income people with a flat tax... you
simply make the first X number of dollars in earnings tax exempt and
adjust the rate for the rest slightly higher.
Instead of everyone paying 15% you exempt the first $30K of
income and raise the rate to 17% for everyone else.
Problem solved... next.
Tsnyder
Sounds like another progressive taxation system to me, albeit much less than our current.
Where am I wrong?
Where's the progressive part? I'm just showing you a way to implement
a flat tax without punishing low income earners. Everyone else would pay
the same rate.
Frankly, I'm with LoanPro on this one... there should be no income tax at all.
Tsnyder
thats not 100% true. that is not a flat tax at all.
$30,000 no taxes paid.
$35,000 pays $850 in taxes or 2.42%
$45,000 pays $2,550 in taxes or 5.67%
$65,000 pays $4,250 in taxes or 6.54%
$85,000 pays $9,350 in taxes or 11%
$100,000 pays $11,900 in taxes or 11.9%
$130,000 pays $17,000 in taxes or 13.1%
and so on and so on. it takes a lot of income to hit that full 17% i think.
it still rewards the lazy and penalizes the successful. |
|
|
frank drigotas j
1503 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2008 : 12:10:42 PM
|
"entrenched social security, medicare, bank bailouts, food stamps, income taxes, unemployment benefits, etc."
Aren't we almost there?
dollar |
|
|
lemeuss
463 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2008 : 12:37:45 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by cspatmon
A Simple yes or no. Will McCain bring up in tonight's debate the dreaded "Double A's". Ayers and Acorn. I think if he does it will be political suicide.
so much for a simple yes or no.
In hindsight, YES, HE WILL! : ) |
|
|
| |
Previous Topic | Next Topic |
|
|
|
Search for: 
