PDA

View Full Version : LETS TALK TAXES



Vteckidd
09-11-2008, 12:14 AM
http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/06/12/GR2008061200193.gif


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- John McCain and Barack Obama have starkly different philosophies about tax policy - how to raise the revenue needed to support government programs, spur growth and ensure economic fairness.

But voters really want to know one thing: How would the presidential candidates' views trickle down to their tax bills? A report released Wednesday by a nonpartisan policy group in Washington, D.C., takes a big first step toward answering that question.

According to the Tax Policy Center's findings, the common assumptions most people make about the plans of McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, and Obama, the Democrats' pick, are not wildly off-base.

McCain: The average taxpayer in every income group would see a lower tax bill, but high-income taxpayers would benefit more than everyone else.

Obama: High-income taxpayers would pay more in taxes, while everyone else's tax bill would be reduced. Those who benefit the most - in terms of reducing their taxes as a percentage of after-tax income - are in the lowest income groups.

Under both plans, all American taxpayers could pay a price for their tax cuts: a bigger deficit. The Tax Policy Center estimates that over 10 years, McCain's tax proposals could increase the national debt by as much as $4.5 trillion with interest, while Obama's could add as much as $3.3 trillion.

The reason: neither plan would raise the amount of revenue expected under current tax policy - which assumes all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire by 2011. And neither plan would raise enough to cover expected government costs during those 10 years.

"Distributionally, they're markedly different. But in terms of their impact on revenue, the two plans are not terribly different," said Roberton Williams, principal research associate at the Tax Policy Center and the former deputy assistant director for tax analysis at the Congressional Budget Office.
A closer look

In addition to making the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent, McCain says he would double the exemption for dependents, lower the corporate tax rate, make expensing rules more generous for small businesses and lessen the bite of the estate tax and Alternative Minimum tax.

The net result: compared with their tax bill today, taxpayers on average would see their tax bill cut by nearly $1,200. That means their after-tax income would rise by 2%.

But those in the lowest income groups would only see their after-tax income rise by less than 1% (or between $19 and $319). By contrast, the highest-income households - those with incomes of at least $603,000 - would see a boost in after-tax income of 3.4%, or more than $40,000.

Obama's plan would keep the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts in place for everyone except those making more than roughly $250,000, and he would increase the capital gains tax.

Obama would also introduce new tax breaks for lower and middle-income groups. Such breaks include expanding the earned income tax credit, giving those making less than $150,000 a $500 tax credit per person on the first $8,100 in income, giving those making under $75,000 a 50% federal match on the first $1,000 of savings, and exempting seniors making less than $50,000 from having to pay income tax.

Like McCain, Obama would lessen the bite of the estate tax and the Alternative Minimum Tax, but to a lesser degree.

The net result: compared with their tax bill today, taxpayers on average would see their tax bill cut by nearly $160 under Obama's plan. That means their after-tax income would rise by 0.3%.

But those in the lowest-income groups would enjoy the biggest after-tax income rise as a percentage of income - between 2.4% and 5.5% (worth between $567 and $1,042). By contrast, the highest-income households - those with at least $603,000 in income - would see a dramatic decline in their after-tax income - a drop of 8.7%, or $116,000.
The campaigns respond

Jason Furman, a newly appointed senior economic adviser to Obama, said his preliminary response is that the report's findings bear out what Obama's campaign has been saying: that he's for the middle class.

"Middle-class families get tax cuts that are three times larger from Obama than from McCain," Furman said. "And the McCain plan gives nearly one-quarter of its benefits to households making more than $2.8 million annually - the top 0.1%."

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, senior economic adviser to McCain, noted that the report does not take into account the spending reforms - such as eliminating earmarks - that are central to McCain's strategy to support tax relief and help reduce the deficit.

One of the center's co-directors, William Gale, conceded in a conference call that "if McCain succeeds (in achieving his proposed spending cuts), the fiscal cost of his plan does go down."

But spending cuts can be politically difficult to achieve, said Len Burman, the Tax Policy Center's director.

Holtz-Eakin characterized McCain's plan as one geared toward "reshaping federal bureaucracies and protecting taxpayers' money. [His] plan is based on kicking down doors in Washington, and delivering tax dollars back to the American taxpayers who are struggling with record gas prices, soaring food costs and a down economy."
Not the final word

Williams said the Tax Policy Center analysis should be viewed as a work in progress. Researchers plan to update it as they get more information about the plans from the campaigns and if the candidates introduce new tax policies between now and Election Day.

The center will also incorporate the tax elements of McCain's and Obama's health care proposals when they update their findings.

How the candidates' tax plans would affect economic growth is an open question. "It depends on how the deficits are closed," Burman said.

Tax studies have shown that when tax cuts are deficit funded and they're paid for by raising taxes in the future, "the economy is worse off than if you didn't cut at all," Burman said.

Now lets stop being stupid and spreading lies.

Mccain is for giving the people that PAY THE MOST TAXES THE BIGGEST BREAK. That means, the "rich" in your terms get the most benefit.

Lets think about that LOGICALLY.

The people that PAY THE MOST get the MOST BREAK. So people paying $40,000-100,000+ in TAXES get MORE MONEY BACK than the guy paying $2000-10,000. NO WAY , THATS INSANE HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN?

MATH DUMBASSES.

I hate this liberal bullsh!t of "Mccains tax policy means the RICH GET RICHER!!!"

NO ****, they SPEND THE MOST, THEY PAY THE MOST and the keep the ECONOMY GOING.

Obama wants to TAX THE SH!T out of the RICH to give to the poor. SOrry thats stupid, and as carter proved, the totally WRONG THING TO DO when you are near a recession.

And oh by the way, the middle class under BOTH CANDIDATES will get MORE MONEY BACK, Obama just wants to skew it even more.

Problem with Obama is, sure anyone under $200,000 will get a BIG BREAK, but he will go after the small business people and raise the capital gains taxes.

So the people that think hes championing the little people, youre STUPID. WHO DO YOU THINK THE MAJORITY OF THE $80k-200k people are? SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS!!!!!!

How can you sit here and say that taking the money from the people that are keeping this country GROWING and making the economy GROW should have even more money taken away to give to the blue collar guy?

The blue Collar guy is important to take care of, and Under mccain he would get more money back than he does now. but under Obama it will be at the risk of losing EVEN MORE JOBS OVERSEAS AS IT GETS UNBEARABLE TO MAKE ANY KIND OF MONEY OVER $200,000 to do with the tax bracket you will be in.

Makes tons of sense :blah:

Vteckidd
09-11-2008, 12:18 AM
Oh and one last thing.

All you middle class people, that think this is going to be so great. When he implements his UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE, it WILL COME OUT OF YOUR PAYCHECK, it will be MANDATORY!

So your money you get back on taxes, kiss it the fu.ck good bye and THEN SOME

.::UNKNOWN::.
09-11-2008, 12:18 AM
:bump: :goodjob: :yes: :cheers: :bump: :bannana: :stupid: :stupid: :stupid: :bigdance::yourock: :dj: thank god someone gets it reps even if it doesn't matter to you

PawnShopCEO
09-11-2008, 12:20 AM
100% agreed. Most people cant see the forest for the trees. I make well under 50k$ a year and I would get a HUGE tax break under obamas tax cuts. But I KNOW that when you tax the rich even MORE they are going to cut jobs. it is tried and true... there has NEVER been a prospering economy from which the rich dont get richer.

LightningSpeed
09-11-2008, 12:24 AM
no tax cuts/breaks can save this country.

AlanŽ
09-11-2008, 12:36 AM
http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/06/12/GR2008061200193.gif



Now lets stop being stupid and spreading lies.

Mccain is for giving the people that PAY THE MOST TAXES THE BIGGEST BREAK. That means, the "rich" in your terms get the most benefit.

Lets think about that LOGICALLY.

The people that PAY THE MOST get the MOST BREAK. So people paying $40,000-100,000+ in TAXES get MORE MONEY BACK than the guy paying $2000-10,000. NO WAY , THATS INSANE HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN?

MATH DUMBASSES.

I hate this liberal bullsh!t of "Mccains tax policy means the RICH GET RICHER!!!"

NO ****, they SPEND THE MOST, THEY PAY THE MOST and the keep the ECONOMY GOING.

Obama wants to TAX THE SH!T out of the RICH to give to the poor. SOrry thats stupid, and as carter proved, the totally WRONG THING TO DO when you are near a recession.

And oh by the way, the middle class under BOTH CANDIDATES will get MORE MONEY BACK, Obama just wants to skew it even more.

Problem with Obama is, sure anyone under $200,000 will get a BIG BREAK, but he will go after the small business people and raise the capital gains taxes.

So the people that think hes championing the little people, youre STUPID. WHO DO YOU THINK THE MAJORITY OF THE $80k-200k people are? SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS!!!!!!

How can you sit here and say that taking the money from the people that are keeping this country GROWING and making the economy GROW should have even more money taken away to give to the blue collar guy?

The blue Collar guy is important to take care of, and Under mccain he would get more money back than he does now. but under Obama it will be at the risk of losing EVEN MORE JOBS OVERSEAS AS IT GETS UNBEARABLE TO MAKE ANY KIND OF MONEY OVER $200,000 to do with the tax bracket you will be in.

Makes tons of sense :blah:
:cheers:

TIGERJC
09-11-2008, 12:42 AM
"Under both plans, all American taxpayers could pay a price for their tax cuts: a bigger deficit. The Tax Policy Center estimates that over 10 years, McCain's tax proposals could increase the national debt by as much as $4.5 trillion with interest, while Obama's could add as much as $3.3 trillion."

Thats what I don't like and I really do not support tax cuts unless the gov't is going to cut back spending enough to offset the tax cut. Seeing as gov't spending will prolly never see a decline, I will have to say tax cuts are only a band aid for our economy and with no real economic plan our nation and economy is going to see some real tough time down the road

man
09-11-2008, 12:55 AM
"Under both plans, all American taxpayers could pay a price for their tax cuts: a bigger deficit. The Tax Policy Center estimates that over 10 years, McCain's tax proposals could increase the national debt by as much as $4.5 trillion with interest, while Obama's could add as much as $3.3 trillion."

Thats what I don't like and I really do not support tax cuts unless the gov't is going to cut back spending enough to offset the tax cut. Seeing as gov't spending will prolly never see a decline, I will have to say tax cuts are only a band aid for our economy and with no real economic plan our nation and economy is going to see some real tough time down the road

Agreed, tax cuts are a cheap shot for votes. However, increasing taxes on the rich is pure LAZINESS and doesn't help anyone in the long run.

bigdare23
09-11-2008, 02:24 AM
The Last Post i will make concerning the Election



That sure as hell didn't last long :lmfao:

stephen
09-11-2008, 03:01 AM
http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/06/12/GR2008061200193.gif



Now lets stop being stupid and spreading lies.

Mccain is for giving the people that PAY THE MOST TAXES THE BIGGEST BREAK. That means, the "rich" in your terms get the most benefit.

Lets think about that LOGICALLY.

The people that PAY THE MOST get the MOST BREAK. So people paying $40,000-100,000+ in TAXES get MORE MONEY BACK than the guy paying $2000-10,000. NO WAY , THATS INSANE HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN?

MATH DUMBASSES.

I hate this liberal bullsh!t of "Mccains tax policy means the RICH GET RICHER!!!"

NO ****, they SPEND THE MOST, THEY PAY THE MOST and the keep the ECONOMY GOING.

Obama wants to TAX THE SH!T out of the RICH to give to the poor. SOrry thats stupid, and as carter proved, the totally WRONG THING TO DO when you are near a recession.

And oh by the way, the middle class under BOTH CANDIDATES will get MORE MONEY BACK, Obama just wants to skew it even more.

Problem with Obama is, sure anyone under $200,000 will get a BIG BREAK, but he will go after the small business people and raise the capital gains taxes.

So the people that think hes championing the little people, youre STUPID. WHO DO YOU THINK THE MAJORITY OF THE $80k-200k people are? SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS!!!!!!

How can you sit here and say that taking the money from the people that are keeping this country GROWING and making the economy GROW should have even more money taken away to give to the blue collar guy?

The blue Collar guy is important to take care of, and Under mccain he would get more money back than he does now. but under Obama it will be at the risk of losing EVEN MORE JOBS OVERSEAS AS IT GETS UNBEARABLE TO MAKE ANY KIND OF MONEY OVER $200,000 to do with the tax bracket you will be in.

Makes tons of sense :blah:


CNNmoney.com CLEARLY SAYS:

"...Under both plans, all American taxpayers could pay a price for their tax cuts: a bigger deficit. The Tax Policy Center estimates that over 10 years, McCain's tax proposals could increase the national debt by as much as $4.5 trillion with interest, while Obama's could add as much as $3.3 trillion..."

^^^that's the most import part of the whole ARTICLE/RANT. if we were to follow your ideology that the "rich support the economy" then, how would giving them back more money make our economy any better? clearly, there's far less for our economy to lose under obama as opposed to mccain. you're probably thinking "well it's only a difference of $1.2 trillion!?!" well count to 1 trillion and see how much it REALLY is.

http://i349.photobucket.com/albums/q384/csu15919/335px-Personal_Household_Income_U.png

let's compare this graph with yours. under obama, the people who make less than 111k put the most money back in their pockets. now let's add up the percentage of the population that is from my graph...80% for households (up to 100k), and 93% per individual. so you mean to tell me that 7% of the population is what keeps this economy afloat?

and you can't even use the argument that the more small businesses have to pay, the harder it is for them to live and afford to run their business. so now instead of bringing home $2.9 million a year, you now only bring $2.2...or instead of $700k you're bringing home $600k...SOUND THE ALARM! CANCEL THE LOBSTER! RETURN THE LAMBO! CLOSE THE BUSINESS (that's probably financially supporting itself)! :rolleyes:

let's add an additional $4.5 trillion to our deficit (not to mention the interest on that), and see how that affects the amount of money in our top 5%...that's what it's all about, right?

"YOU CAN PUT LIPSTICK ON A PIG...BUT IT'S STILL A PIG!" HAHAHA!

jwrape
09-11-2008, 07:05 AM
I know for a fact that the wealthy folks I know pay taxes through the nose, and once they arrived in that tax bracket they started paying taxes not only once a year but quarterly just to keep up with it all. The rich pay a crazy amount of taxes on the money they have ALREADY paid taxes on and then when they die, they have to pay death taxes. :thinking: That is rediculous. More taxes = stupidity. There is no reason to keep upping the taxes when the governement is already spending too much money as it is. Stop the stupid over spending and reduce taxes not up taxes and spend more moeny on the "Golden toilet seats" for the whitehouse. :crazy:
I know who I am voting for and it looks like more and more are getting on board with us.

4dmin
09-11-2008, 08:10 AM
Now lets stop being stupid and spreading lies. so your admitting republicans have done nothing but lie?


Mccain is for giving the people that PAY THE MOST TAXES THE BIGGEST BREAK. That means, the "rich" in your terms get the most benefit.

Lets think about that LOGICALLY.

The people that PAY THE MOST get the MOST BREAK. So people paying $40,000-100,000+ in TAXES get MORE MONEY BACK than the guy paying $2000-10,000. NO WAY , THATS INSANE HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN?

MATH DUMBASSES. it wouldn't be in our "terms"... they are rich considering household avg is around 50k - your logic fails to take into account outside factors. taxes pay for what? oh ya everything... so by decreasing taxes you are now taking money away from needed programs like education, infrastructure, and a whole slue of gov't programs.

you talk all self righteous i'm sure you cashed your stimulus check... oh ya thank china. lets talk deficit - republicans don't want to talk about how lets not only make us depended on the middle east for oil but countries like china we now owe a sh!t ton of money too.


I hate this liberal bullsh!t of "Mccains tax policy means the RICH GET RICHER!!!"

NO ****, they SPEND THE MOST, THEY PAY THE MOST and the keep the ECONOMY GOING.

Obama wants to TAX THE SH!T out of the RICH to give to the poor. SOrry thats stupid, and as carter proved, the totally WRONG THING TO DO when you are near a recession.

And oh by the way, the middle class under BOTH CANDIDATES will get MORE MONEY BACK, Obama just wants to skew it even more.

Problem with Obama is, sure anyone under $200,000 will get a BIG BREAK, but he will go after the small business people and raise the capital gains taxes.

So the people that think hes championing the little people, youre STUPID. WHO DO YOU THINK THE MAJORITY OF THE $80k-200k people are? SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS!!!!!! i think you are failing to see that 95% of the popultion including you fall into the POOR category; which makes up 95% of the consumers in the US. who do you think these people are getting rich off of? me, you and rest of the US. so you want to give tax cuts to oil execs who are making records gains and already have far more tax breaks then you or I? ya that makes lots of sense. you say taxing the rich in a recession is the wrong thing to do but we have had 4+ years of mccain/bush policy and guess what... it helped get us here. explain that one?


How can you sit here and say that taking the money from the people that are keeping this country GROWING and making the economy GROW should have even more money taken away to give to the blue collar guy?

The blue Collar guy is important to take care of, and Under mccain he would get more money back than he does now. but under Obama it will be at the risk of losing EVEN MORE JOBS OVERSEAS AS IT GETS UNBEARABLE TO MAKE ANY KIND OF MONEY OVER $200,000 to do with the tax bracket you will be in.

Makes tons of sense :blah:again you keep saying they keep this country growing, but you are far off course - rich only get rich due to the back breaking americans that support their gains. you can't build a skyscrapper in an armani suit ;)

you are talking out of your ass mike like you are some business owner making 250+k a year... my wife and i probably make more then 90% of the people on this board if not more so i don't want to hear sh!t about taxes b/c we pay more in taxes then what a lot of you make.

tony
09-11-2008, 08:27 AM
Spare the rich, cause they're the most important aspect of our society. If they don't survive, we don't survive! We need to get down on our knees and thank them every day that they spend the money they do.

Do you realize how ignorant this line of thinking is? We say this in every post regarding taxes, Reagan did this in the 80's which led to record deficits which resulted in Bush Sr. raising taxes! Damn the rich, everyone needs to pay.. hell increase my taxes if it shuts the "wealthy" up.

I guess what gets me is, its the unwealthy that defend this notion lol I was once a part of this line of thinking, then I got EDUCATED. I haven't been the same since.

4dmin
09-11-2008, 08:29 AM
Spare the rich, cause they're the most important aspect of our society. If they don't survive, we don't survive! We need to get down on our knees and thank them every day that they spend the money they do.

Do you realize how ignorant this line of thinking is? We say this in every post regarding taxes, Reagan did this in the 80's which led to record deficits which resulted in Bush Sr. raising taxes! Damn the rich, everyone needs to pay.. hell increase my taxes if it shuts the "wealthy" up.

I guess what gets me is, its the unwealthy that defend this notion lol I was once a part of this line of thinking, then I got EDUCATED. I haven't been the same since.

:goodjob: 2x

Total_Blender
09-11-2008, 08:39 AM
If the average consumers have more money they will be able to support the small businesses by consuming/spending more.

What trickle down economics fails to take into account is that businesses usually only expand when demand increases. Giving the owners of businesses a tax break just gives them more money without increasing their demand. why would they expand and invest in equipment/personnel to increase production if demand for their products remains the same or even drops?

What makes more sense to me would be to give consumers a lesser share of the tax burden which would then increase demand for goods and services. The small businesses would then be bringing in more revenue, and demand would increase. These are the right conditions for growth.

Vteckidd
09-11-2008, 09:49 AM
it wouldn't be in our "terms"... they are rich considering household avg is around 50k - your logic fails to take into account outside factors. taxes pay for what? oh ya everything... so by decreasing taxes you are now taking money away from needed programs like education, infrastructure, and a whole slue of gov't programs.

Wait a second, you realize that under Mccain on average people will save MORE. You do realize that? Problem is the top will save SLIGHTLY more instead of paying 15% more.

Its FACT im sorry ask any ECONOMIST, the RICH are what keeps the economy going
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/top_50__of_wage_earners_pay_96_09__of_income_taxes .Par.0008.ImageFile.jpg


Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.03% of Income Taxes


This proves that it was not the tax cut that caused revenues from the rich to fall, but the recession and the stock market crash. In other words, you live by the sword, you die by the sword. If you are going to benefit from the rich paying more taxes, due to progressivity, on the upside, you are going to lose more revenue from these people on the downside. This is a good argument for reducing progressivity.

Think of it this way: less than four dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. Are the top half millionaires? Noooo, more like "thousandaires." The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $26,000 and up in 1999. (The top 1% earned $293,000-plus.) Americans who want to are continuing to improve their lives - and those who don't want to, aren't. Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay:

Top 5% pay 53.25% of all income taxes (Down from 2000 figure: 56.47%). The top 10% pay 64.89% (Down from 2000 figure: 67.33%). The top 25% pay 82.9% (Down from 2000 figure: 84.01%). The top 50% pay 96.03% (Down from 2000 figure: 96.09%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.97% of all income taxes. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 17.53 (2000: 20.81%) of all income. The top 5% earns 31.99 (2000: 35.30%). The top 10% earns 43.11% (2000: 46.01%); the top 25% earns 65.23% (2000: 67.15%), and the top 50% earns 86.19% (2000: 87.01%) of all the income.
The Rich Earned Their Dough, They Didn't Inherit It (Except Ted Kennedy)

The bottom 50% is paying a tiny bit of the taxes, so you can't give them much of a tax cut by definition. Yet these are the people to whom the Democrats claim to want to give tax cuts. Remember this the next time you hear the "tax cuts for the rich" business. Understand that the so-called rich are about the only ones paying taxes anymore.

I had a conversation with a woman who identified herself as Misty on Wednesday. She claimed to be an accountant, yet she seemed unaware of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which now ensures that everyone pays some taxes. AP reports that the AMT, "designed in 1969 to ensure 155 wealthy people paid some tax," will hit "about 2.6 million of us this year and 36 million by 2010." That's because the tax isn't indexed for inflation! If your salary today would've made you mega-rich in '69, that's how you're taxed.

Misty tried the old line that all wealth is inherited. Not true. John Weicher, as a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank, wrote in his February 13, 1997 Washington Post Op-Ed, "Most of the rich have earned their wealth... Looking at the Fortune 400, quite a few even of the very richest people came from a standing start, while others inherited a small business and turned it into a giant corporation." What's happening here is not that "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer." The numbers prove it.





you talk all self righteous i'm sure you cashed your stimulus check... oh ya thank china. lets talk deficit - republicans don't want to talk about how lets not only make us depended on the middle east for oil but countries like china we now owe a sh!t ton of money too.

I didnt get a stimulus check. Deficit? You do realize we have had a deficit for the last oh i dont know 100 years. The ENITRE world is in an econimic downturn. Not just us. You can blame it all you want on BUSH but mark my words now OBAMA will do WORSE. Alkso as the paper CLEARLY STATES, they DO NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE REST OF MCCAINS SPENDING REDUCTIONS . If you take those into account and he can implement them, then you will have a much LOWER number.

Obama plans to INCREASE social programs, what do you think that does to the deficit?

So none of you guys responded to the HEALTH CARE remark. Avoiding much?

The problem for the economic issue is OIL PRICES WHICH HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH BUSH. And may i remind you that Pelosi and Reed havent done **** to deal with it.


i think you are failing to see that 95% of the popultion including you fall into the POOR category; which makes up 95% of the consumers in the US. who do you think these people are getting rich off of? me, you and rest of the US. so you want to give tax cuts to oil execs who are making records gains and already have far more tax breaks then you or I? ya that makes lots of sense. you say taxing the rich in a recession is the wrong thing to do but we have had 4+ years of mccain/bush policy and guess what... it helped get us here. explain that one?


Paul please please please, and i say this politely and with respect, get your head out of the liberal medias ASS.

Bush Mccain policy? do you even know ANYTHING about Mccain or are you just so anti republican you refuse to do any real research and just stick to the Medias talking points?

Mccain has MORE AGGRESSIVE tax cuts than Bush, and Obama wants to KEEP BUSHs tax cuts till 2013. So can you please stop making this partisan comparison when its flat out WRONG.

Its PROVEN that taxing the rich HURTS THE ECONOMY, it SLOWS GROWTH, IT RAISES PRICES and it KILLS JOBS. THAT SIR IS FACT GO DO ALL THE RESEARCH YOU WANT ON IT.

Im not going to say what i make cause en i always get PMs telling me im full of ****, etc. But i venture to say that im a SMALL BUSINESS OWNER. Obama will effectively make it VERY HARD for me to grow, it will make it very hard for me to move to the next step. He will be after me.



again you keep saying they keep this country growing, but you are far off course - rich only get rich due to the back breaking americans that support their gains. you can't build a skyscrapper in an armani suit ;)


You are totally wrong and sorry you have no clue what you are talking about. Read the figures. The RICH pay 96% of the income taxes of this country. SO why are we giving the LOWER 4% huge tax breaks when THEY ARENT THE ONES SPENDING?

But ill play your game.

Paul, who do you think EMPLOYS YOUR BLUE COLLAR WORKERS? HMMMMMMM WHO DO YOU THINK BUILDS THE FACTORIES, OWNS THE FACTORIES, ASSEMBLY LINES ETC? OH YEAH THAT WOULD BE THE RICH GUY.

So, you TAX the RICH guy an extra $100-200k a year, and in return he does 2 things that history has proven

1) Cuts Jobs (so there goes your middle class tax break since they have no job they aint paying taxes ;) )

2) They raise prices

Sweet so that extra $600 you get back every year goes to paying an extra 1-5% on consumer goods ACROSS THE BOARD.

MAKES PERFECT SENSE!

In a RECESSION the LAST THING YOU DO IS HURT THE BUSINESS OWNERS, THE RICH PEOPLE, you want them to have CONFIDENCE and to keep investing in their business which is OUR INFRASTRUCTURE for the economy. The blue collar guy does absolutely NOTHING if the RICH people they work for shut their jobs down.

FACTS ARE FACTS.



you are talking out of your ass mike like you are some business owner making 250+k a year... my wife and i probably make more then 90% of the people on this board if not more so i don't want to hear sh!t about taxes b/c we pay more in taxes then what a lot of you make.
Im a small busines owner paul, and under Obama my taxes would go up

PM me if you would like to know what i make. I dont like posting it on the board. You would be surprised , i make about 6 times what i made at "other places" if you can remember what that was


Paul, i love you you little tree hugging hippie you :cheers:

tony
09-11-2008, 10:16 AM
Wait a second, you realize that under Mccain on average people will save MORE. You do realize that? Problem is the top will save SLIGHTLY more instead of paying 15% more.

Its FACT im sorry ask any ECONOMIST, the RICH are what keeps the economy going
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/top_50__of_wage_earners_pay_96_09__of_income_taxes .Par.0008.ImageFile.jpg








Thats a nice article from Rush Limbaugh..

Now, I will direct you to the IRS statistics, pay attention to the percentages...

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/00in11si.xls

You will notice that the $50k to $500k income bracket account for 57.8% of all revenue before tax credits.

$50k is average Joe salary especially with two incomes, even $400k isn't far fetched so this whole.. "the wealthy needs tax cuts because they pay a proportionate number of taxes" is BS.

Want to know the income bracket with the biggest tax burden?

$100k to $200k - And I KNOW from what Paul has posted between him and his wife they fall into that range if they file jointly.

The #2 tax bracket is $50k to $75k.

Vteckidd
09-11-2008, 10:20 AM
And im sorry, i dont want to be BLUE COLLAR, i dont want a big tax break, i want to be RICH.

I want to be the one wearing and Armani Suit

I want a Ferrari

I want a $1000000 home.

Whats wrong with that? that doesnt make me EVIL CORPORATE AMERICA. THat makes me an AMERICAN.

I bet the Blue COllars feel the same way. You want to enslave them all and keep them down and keep them from wanting to have any aspirations for making MORE MONEY because they will get the **** taxed out of them .

Same with any of them that want to own small businesses. Youll make it nearly impossible for any of them to open one and be succesfull.

There goes the American Dream

metalman
09-11-2008, 10:40 AM
The problem with both Obama and Mcain is that neither really does address the real issue.....SPENDING.

Capt._Ron
09-11-2008, 11:05 AM
The problem with both Obama and Mcain is that neither really does address the real issue.....SPENDING.

Thats exactly right. It really doesn't matter how you twist the numbers to give a tax break. The truth is niether republicans nor democrats want to decrease the size of the government and why would they once the get in power. A smaller government means they would have less power, money, and influence. Thats why I am a libertarian and in support of the fair tax.:goodjob:

4dmin
09-11-2008, 11:11 AM
Wait a second, you realize that under Mccain on average people will save MORE. You do realize that? Problem is the top will save SLIGHTLY more instead of paying 15% more. dude you didn't do well in math did you... total up the bottom 6 brackets which make up 95% of the US population McCain total $8454/ Obama total $8784... now divide both numbers by 6 you get what...

McCain avg cut $1409 /// Obama avg cut $1464

^ thats right Obama saving 95% of Americans more money.


I didnt get a stimulus check. Deficit? You do realize we have had a deficit for the last oh i dont know 100 years. The ENITRE world is in an econimic downturn. Not just us. You can blame it all you want on BUSH but mark my words now OBAMA will do WORSE. Alkso as the paper CLEARLY STATES, they DO NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE REST OF MCCAINS SPENDING REDUCTIONS . If you take those into account and he can implement them, then you will have a much LOWER number. Of course the deficit has be going on for years but the fact of the matter is we do need to cut it... its isn't going to go away and being dependent on countries like CHINA for funding is the last thing we need to do.


Obama plans to INCREASE social programs, what do you think that does to the deficit? there is nothing wrong w/ social programs - there are of course tons of leeches and reform is needed but social programs are what make the US diffrent from many countries.


So none of you guys responded to the HEALTH CARE remark. Avoiding much?after working 6 years in the insurance business and be in it during 9/11 i'm very happy to now be out of it. i think there is nothing wrong w/ providing affordable healthcare to everyone especially children. i would love for you to take a single cobra cancelation call - where you have to sit there and tell someone who is on cobra that very well could be dieing of cancer "i'm sorry your astronomical cobra payment was one day late and your policy is now terminated".


The problem for the economic issue is OIL PRICES WHICH HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH BUSH. And may i remind you that Pelosi and Reed havent done **** to deal with it. he has had tons of opportunity to better our situation from R&D to more regulations on the oil industry. i find it hard to believe you think he has had no hand in this... he has made millions in the oil industry.



Paul, who do you think EMPLOYS YOUR BLUE COLLAR WORKERS? HMMMMMMM WHO DO YOU THINK BUILDS THE FACTORIES, OWNS THE FACTORIES, ASSEMBLY LINES ETC? OH YEAH THAT WOULD BE THE RICH GUY.

So, you TAX the RICH guy an extra $100-200k a year, and in return he does 2 things that history has proven

1) Cuts Jobs (so there goes your middle class tax break since they have no job they aint paying taxes ;) )

2) They raise prices

Sweet so that extra $600 you get back every year goes to paying an extra 1-5% on consumer goods ACROSS THE BOARD.

MAKES PERFECT SENSE!

In a RECESSION the LAST THING YOU DO IS HURT THE BUSINESS OWNERS, THE RICH PEOPLE, you want them to have CONFIDENCE and to keep investing in their business which is OUR INFRASTRUCTURE for the economy. The blue collar guy does absolutely NOTHING if the RICH people they work for shut their jobs down.

FACTS ARE FACTS.you are mixing up personal/business and how consumers fall into this...

major companies aren't privately owned thats why they are publicly traded. those CEOs aren't going to layoff people b/c uncle same is dipping into their salary. they will cut jobs due to slow economy, healthcare, etc

they raise prices to offset failing economy... who takes the biggest hit of this? the 95% of america which falls into your POOR category who makes up the MAJORITY of consumers.

taxes have already been cut for the upper 5% and they still cut jobs, they still raised prices, and now look at us... 95% of america is drowing in this... the rich can not stay rich w/o the POOR 95% of USA consumers.



Im a small busines owner paul, and under Obama my taxes would go up explain? b/c you are mixing up the issues... this thread was about PERSONAL INCOME TAX not corporate america taxes.

4dmin
09-11-2008, 11:16 AM
And im sorry, i dont want to be BLUE COLLAR, i dont want a big tax break, i want to be RICH.

I want to be the one wearing and Armani Suit

I want a Ferrari

I want a $1000000 home.

Whats wrong with that? that doesnt make me EVIL CORPORATE AMERICA. THat makes me an AMERICAN.

I bet the Blue COllars feel the same way. You want to enslave them all and keep them down and keep them from wanting to have any aspirations for making MORE MONEY because they will get the **** taxed out of them .

Same with any of them that want to own small businesses. Youll make it nearly impossible for any of them to open one and be succesfull.

There goes the American Dream

Nothing wrong with the American Dream - Dreaming is what has made this country great - problem is privileged few talk about change and never do anything about it. Having all of the money in the world doesn't make you a great person but providing methods to better society is the key to true success.

as metalman said - speding is the key... yet this can go so deep it is impossible to discuss. you have to evaluate on a case by case.

Vteckidd
09-11-2008, 11:29 AM
dude you didn't do well in math did you... total up the bottom 6 brackets which make up 95% of the US population McCain total $8454/ Obama total $8784... now divide both numbers by 6 you get what...

McCain avg cut $1409 /// Obama avg cut $1464

^ thats right Obama saving 95% of Americans more money.

So you only want to look at PART OF THE PICTURE?
http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/06/12/GR2008061200193.gif


Under Mccain the average cut is over $1000, Obama is $160.

The problem is you REFUSE to acknowledge that the TOP 50% of money makers are paying 96% of the TAXES.

Again i guess it just goes back to you want to tax the rich to give to the poor .

[QUOTE]
there is nothing wrong w/ social programs - there are of course tons of leeches and reform is needed but social programs are what make the US diffrent from many countries.

after working 6 years in the insurance business and be in it during 9/11 i'm very happy to now be out of it. i think there is nothing wrong w/ providing affordable healthcare to everyone especially children. i would love for you to take a single cobra cancelation call - where you have to sit there and tell someone who is on cobra that very well could be dieing of cancer "i'm sorry your astronomical cobra payment was one day late and your policy is now terminated".

You know what that really sucks, but guess what, IT HAPPENS. Not as much as you think im sure.

But again tell me who is going to FUND THIS UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE? It will be YOUR TAX DOLLARS.

See you guys crack me up, you only look at 10% of the picture then rant an rave about thow the other side is wrong.

Lets put this example up for discussion.

Joe Schmoe makes $50,000 a year after taxes

Obama gives him a tax cut, he now makes $52,000 a year after Taxes

Obama wants to provide FREE healthcare that you HAVE TO PAY FOR. IT will cost you on average $200 a month.

$200x12=$2400 (which is what 3rd party analysts say it will cost for free healthcare if you include all the illegal immigrants which obama wants to do)

Joe Schmoe now makes $49,600

Congratulations, his tax cut MEANT NOTHING. Joe Schmoe has LESS money that he had before.

So, now, Under Obama Jim Bob was making $1,000,000 a year after taxes.

Obama raises taxes on him by 15%.

Thats an extra $150,000 in TAX LIABILITY.

Jim Bob decides that he needs to cut back 200 jobs to offset the tax iability he now carries, and another 100 jobs to offset the cost of having to raise wages to pay for the MANDATORY HEALTHCARE he has to take from his employees.

Congrats you just shrunk a business and lost jobs.




he has had tons of opportunity to better our situation from R&D to more regulations on the oil industry. i find it hard to believe you think he has had no hand in this... he has made millions in the oil industry.


PELOSI AND REED, LOOK THEM uP, ITS A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS FOR THE LAST 2 YEARS AND THEY HAVE DONE FU.CK ALL ABOUT THE ENERGY CRISIS?!!!!!

I love it its all BUSHs fault because YOUR CONGRESS CANT DO A GOD DAMN THING. LOL


major companies aren't privately owned thats why they are publicly traded. those CEOs aren't going to layoff people b/c uncle same is dipping into their salary. they will cut jobs due to slow economy, healthcare, etc

Take Economics 101 basic principles. Higher taxes=lost revenue=layoffs


they raise prices to offset failing economy... who takes the biggest hit of this? the 95% of america which falls into your POOR category who makes up the MAJORITY of consumers.

you do realize the economy is a circular thing. It has ups and downs. As i proved in my other thread the Economy is NOT THAT BAD. We have been in recessions before under CLINTON when the .com bubble burst. We have gotten through it, UNDER BUSH mind you, and in the face of a 1 trillion dollar 9/11 incident. We had ENOURMOUS economic properity over the last few years, only makes sense we go down.


taxes have already been cut for the upper 5% and they still cut jobs, they still raised prices, and now look at us... 95% of america is drowing in this... the rich can not stay rich w/o the POOR 95% of USA consumers.


No, they are cutting jobs because of OIL PRICES. Jesus, the NUMBER 1 factor right now is OIL PRICES. Its causing the cost of EVERYTHING TO GO UP.

The Housing market being crooked, thats what is affecting new home sales.

Please show me where 95% of the people are DROWNING? Lat i checked we had 94% of this country employed which is damn near perfect.

If the RICH dont keep the jobs for the poor, then THEIR IS NO POOR! Do you not REALIZE THAT?




explain? b/c you are mixing up the issues... this thread was about PERSONAL INCOME TAX not corporate america taxes.

If you canot understand that TAXING the RICH means taxing BUSINESS OWNERS then this is a lost argument. Paul you cannot seperate the 2.

4dmin
09-11-2008, 12:02 PM
Under Mccain the average cut is over $1000, Obama is $160.

The problem is you REFUSE to acknowledge that the TOP 50% of money makers are paying 96% of the TAXES.

Again i guess it just goes back to you want to tax the rich to give to the poor .
refuse - i already know the rich pay the most in taxes i see it every pay period... i think i already stated i take out extra in taxes to make sure my wife/i don't have to pay - thats how much we make ;)

but again McCain isn't saving AMERICA anything he is saving 5% of Americas on taxes. And how are you giving to the poor...? You aren't giving people money you are allowing them to keep more of what they earn.



But again tell me who is going to FUND THIS UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE? It will be YOUR TAX DOLLARS. Um he isn't giving FREE Healthcare to anyone and your talking to someone who knows quite a bit about the healthcare industry. I spent 6 years working for one of Americas Top TPA's and my wife is a Pharmacist.




Lets put this example up for discussion.

Joe Schmoe makes $50,000 a year after taxes

Obama gives him a tax cut, he now makes $52,000 a year after Taxes

if you make 50k a year you are probably paying around what 24% in taxes which is approx $11500 - so if Obama gives Joe a taxe break Joe would actually be making 40k... um ya i think uncle same is getting enough from Joe. Have you tried living on 40k before? Can you own a home on 40k? Support a wife/kid(s) on 40k?

I won't go into the rest of the math b/c it is pointless. There is no numbers on his healthcare plan nor has he said to be FREE for everyone. It was stated healthcare for all children.



So, now, Under Obama Jim Bob was making $1,000,000 a year after taxes.

Obama raises taxes on him by 15%.

Thats an extra $150,000 in TAX LIABILITY. Jim pays 35% in taxes which is what it is looking out to be he would of paid 350k in taxes bringing home 650k which is roughly more then 13 avg American Households... do i feel sorry for him? No - b/c if he mixes personal income tax woes w/ corporate business like you suggest then he doesn't even deserve tax breaks.


Jim Bob decides that he needs to cut back 200 jobs to offset the tax iability he now carries, and another 100 jobs to offset the cost of having to raise wages to pay for the MANDATORY HEALTHCARE he has to take from his employees.

Congrats you just shrunk a business and lost jobs. Dude you are so wrong... again you are mixing corp taxes with personal income taxes. Furthermore you also are totally not taking into account that the upper 5% have more taxe breaks and loop holes then any other bracket.

Lets talk Enron you feel sorry for those f*cks and people like them why?




PELOSI AND REED, LOOK THEM uP, ITS A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS FOR THE LAST 2 YEARS AND THEY HAVE DONE FU.CK ALL ABOUT THE ENERGY CRISIS?!!!!!

I love it its all BUSHs fault because YOUR CONGRESS CANT DO A GOD DAMN THING. LOL I'm sorry but how can they pass anything with opposition? This goes both ways. If Obama gets into office he has what 2 years to make anything happen.



Take Economics 101 basic principles. Higher taxes=lost revenue=layoffs dude you are so off base...





If you canot understand that TAXING the RICH means taxing BUSINESS OWNERS then this is a lost argument. Paul you cannot seperate the 2.Again you are trying to argue personal income tax burdens corp life... :thinking: My whole career i have worked for small-large private companies - people don't lay people off for personal income tax reasons. furthermore most layoffs aren't in the private sector - At&t, Delta, etc

JConner
09-11-2008, 12:07 PM
AWESOME POST! + + + The uneducated democrats do not realize that if the EVIL RICH (the business owners) get a tax hike all they are going to do is fire a few employees or cut the bottom level employee's pay!

AlanŽ
09-11-2008, 12:28 PM
Again you are trying to argue personal income tax burdens corp life... :thinking: My whole career i have worked for small-large private companies - people don't lay people off for personal income tax reasons. furthermore most layoffs aren't in the private sector - At&t, Delta, etc
What you fail to realize is that most small business owners use a lot of their own income to help expand the business faster. A lot of small business don't have huge outside investments or profit margins the way major corporations do. For example in my Dad's consulting firm the guys that work for him get to take home the majority of what ever they pull in leaving a very small profit margin for the actual company. So when it comes time to pay the guys it comes out of his pocket first and then he has the company reimburse him because most of the time the government(which is where most of his contracts are)is late in paying the company. So what happens when Obama gets in and the taxes that he pays goes up? It makes it harder for him to pay all of his guys and that leads to job cuts.

4dmin
09-11-2008, 01:17 PM
What you fail to realize is that most small business owners use a lot of their own income to help expand the business faster. A lot of small business don't have huge outside investments or profit margins the way major corporations do. For example in my Dad's consulting firm the guys that work for him get to take home the majority of what ever they pull in leaving a very small profit margin for the actual company. So when it comes time to pay the guys it comes out of his pocket first and then he has the company reimburse him because most of the time the government(which is where most of his contracts are)is late in paying the company. So what happens when Obama gets in and the taxes that he pays goes up? It makes it harder for him to pay all of his guys and that leads to job cuts.

again you guys keep mixing the two... if your dad makes over 250k PERSONALLY - not what his business makes but what he claims he brought HOME then yes he will get taxed... if the company made 1 Million dollars your dad isn't getting taxed on that the company is.

Vteckidd
09-11-2008, 01:24 PM
again you guys keep mixing the two... if your dad makes over 250k PERSONALLY - not what his business makes but what he claims he brought HOME then yes he will get taxed... if the company made 1 Million dollars your dad isn't getting taxed on that the company is.
you do realize what MY BUSINESS makes DIRECTLY effects my take home pay right?

If my COMPANY makes $100,000 in PROFIT, ME, MIKE CORVEY will get paid $xx,xxx

People that work for companies and are making million+ are pretty rare.

Vteckidd
09-11-2008, 01:28 PM
Ok paul then you tell me

WHO ARE THE PEOPLE in the TOP 50%. You can put lipstick on a pig but its still a pig.

THat means you can sit here and say we are confusing the two but they are DIRECTLY RELATED.

DO you know what Capital Gains tax is?

Obamas ENTIRE TAX PLAN is built around taxing LARGE BUSINESSES, SMALL BUSINESS, AND THE "RICH" who just so happen to OWN THOSE BUSINESSES.

i seriously cant see how you cant connect the two.

AlanŽ
09-11-2008, 01:34 PM
again you guys keep mixing the two... if your dad makes over 250k PERSONALLY - not what his business makes but what he claims he brought HOME then yes he will get taxed... if the company made 1 Million dollars your dad isn't getting taxed on that the company is.
Paul that's just it you still don't get. Like Mike said what a small business OWNER makes is directly affected by how well the company does. And whatever the OWNER makes directly effects the business. The two are in all actuality inter-connected and I think you are missing that unfortunately and thats why you disagree with Mike and I.

BanginJimmy
09-11-2008, 01:45 PM
It already been pointed out, but taxes arent the issue, spending is. The major difference between Obama's and McCain's plans are that Obama wants another trillion a year in hand out programs for the lazy. Then add in the 870M for the UN welfare fund. Then throw in universal healthcare.


Someone correct me if I am wrong, but dont the IRS numbers only include the FICA tax, not SS and medicare?

AlanŽ
09-11-2008, 01:56 PM
but again McCain isn't saving AMERICA anything he is saving 5% of Americas on taxes. And how are you giving to the poor...? You aren't giving people money you are allowing them to keep more of what they earn.
:thinking: Paul with all due respect, that has to be the most contradictary statement I have ever heard. The logic in this statement is missing. If anything you answered your own question. Yes he is saving 5% of American's money BY letting those in lower income brackets KEEP more of what they make. To me it looks like a win win cituation.




=admin]if you make 50k a year you are probably paying around what 24% in taxes which is approx $11500 - so if Obama gives Joe a taxe break Joe would actually be making 40k... um ya i think uncle same is getting enough from Joe. Have you tried living on 40k before? Can you own a home on 40k? Support a wife/kid(s) on 40k?
In my eyes this comes down to personal responsibility. If you are only making 40K a year and you know there is no way you can afford to do those things then why do it?



Jim pays 35% in taxes which is what it is looking out to be he would of paid 350k in taxes bringing home 650k which is roughly more then 13 avg American Households... do i feel sorry for him? No - b/c if he mixes personal income tax woes w/ corporate business like you suggest then he doesn't even deserve tax breaks.
Where does Mike say he's combining business and personal taxes. The scenario stated that Jim made $1 million a year and pays 350k a year in taxes. Also I don't understand how democrats or anyone for that matter can sit here and say they don't feel sorry that the government is taking away 35% of someone else's income. How do you think you would feel if you bust your ass to make $1 million bucks and the government comes in and says hey sorry but we're gonna have to take 35% of what you made this year to give it to some other guy who 9 times out of 10 is capable of making money but would rather work the system so he can sit on his duff? The line of logic of so what if the government takes a huge chunk of money from a guy who makes a million bucks of half a million bucks or a quarter of a million bucks because at the end of the day he still has more money than me doesnt make any ****ing sense. The point is that it's still that guys money and HE had to WORK for it.
in

I'm sorry but how can they pass anything with opposition? This goes both ways. If Obama gets into office he has what 2 years to make anything happen
Opposition? What opposition? Bush has vetoed almost nothing in the 8 years he has been there.

Total_Blender
09-11-2008, 02:39 PM
So you only want to look at PART OF THE PICTURE?

So, now, Under Obama Jim Bob was making $1,000,000 a year after taxes.

Obama raises taxes on him by 15%.

Thats an extra $150,000 in TAX LIABILITY.

Jim Bob decides that he needs to cut back 200 jobs to offset the tax iability he now carries, and another 100 jobs to offset the cost of having to raise wages to pay for the MANDATORY HEALTHCARE he has to take from his employees.

Congrats you just shrunk a business and lost jobs.
.

If he's cutting 200 jobs to make up for an additional $150k in added tax liability that comes out to $750 per job. Surely he's paying his employees more that $750 a year :screwy:

And from what I have read, the main function of Obama's "universal healthcare" would be to require people who are eligible for insurance through their employers to purchase that insurance (and possible give them a little tax credit for doing so). Its not like its going to be a giant Welfare For Everyone party. :screwy:

All of these tax credit incentives though... like a tax credit for college tuition... a lot of working families don't carry as much tax liability as they spend on college tuition. I haven't been able to find much info on the tax credit for education, does anyone have any sources?

tony
09-11-2008, 03:09 PM
I guess my figures got glossed over? Can someone please define rich now since the biggest tax burden goes to $100k - $200k income earners.. which is very common.

4dmin
09-11-2008, 03:45 PM
Paul that's just it you still don't get. Like Mike said what a small business OWNER makes is directly affected by how well the company does. And whatever the OWNER makes directly effects the business. The two are in all actuality inter-connected and I think you are missing that unfortunately and thats why you disagree with Mike and I.

if you have a stable privately owned company then your personal taxes should not affect your business. if it does and you now are taking away from your biggest asset which is your company. i work for a 30+ million dollar privately owned company - dude makes a sh!t ton of money and we are in the auto industry. we just had our strongest month in history of the company; why? b/c of strong infrastructure - employees futures are not based off of the owners personal taxes but on the company. if the company was having a hard time then it would trickle down to employees but the fact my boss pays more in taxes this year or the next isn't relevant to his employees nor should it be.

if you burden your employees for personal gain then you will fail in the long run.... meaning cutting benefits so you can afford a new bmw will not sit well with your employees.

i'm wonder out of the two of you if either of you own a home, cars, married, kids, and have had to put yourself through school?

4dmin
09-11-2008, 03:58 PM
:thinking: Paul with all due respect, that has to be the most contradictary statement I have ever heard. The logic in this statement is missing. If anything you answered your own question. Yes he is saving 5% of American's money BY letting those in lower income brackets KEEP more of what they make. To me it looks like a win win cituation.dude this makes no sense what so ever. keep taxes high for those who CAN'T afford them to begin with and tax those who can less :thinking: i'm sure your profits will surely rise while consumers have less money available and cost are rising... where do you come up with this logic?

95% of Americans make under 250k they are the MAJORITY of consumers - the more they are taxed the less they can spend + less you make if you are in the upper 5%

you guys keep bringing up CORP america in this discussion better hope we move to universal healthcare thats the biggest cost to employers is benefits.



In my eyes this comes down to personal responsibility. If you are only making 40K a year and you know there is no way you can afford to do those things then why do it?this goes both ways... you make a 1 million a year and uncle sam decides to take 35% of that i guess you take on that burden YOURSELF you don't pass it on to your employees... that sir is just bad managment. NO WONDER YOU TOO ARE VOTING REPUBLICAN. :rolleyes:

Vteckidd
09-11-2008, 04:00 PM
I pay cash for cars, pay my own school tuition , in the process of purxhsasing my first home, and I own my own business. I'm not married

metalman
09-11-2008, 05:19 PM
if you burden your employees for personal gain then you will fail in the long run.... meaning cutting benefits so you can afford a new bmw will not sit well with your employees.



I agree it will not sit well...but I am not sure it will fail. I agree with you in principle though.

In private companies this employee screwing is done quite frequently.
Its one reason that unlike my fathers generation most folks now have to keep switching jobs their entire career and hope they dont get fuked out of any retirement plan etc. Whereas, in my dad's generation a fellow worked at the same plant, company, whatever...for 30, 40 years or more and then collected a nice pension.

I used to manage a multi million dollar private company. The owner there eliminated all contributions to pension/401k etc etc plans, and eventually all but eliminated profit based bonuses for the key players in the company who influenced the bottom line....all while increasing his own 'take' and the 'take' of his relatives in the company. Alot of it was done under cover...but as I kept the books it was known to me. Also, over time he eliminated gas and vehicle perks and many other benefits (income) from the employees while increasing his own. Eventually he ditched me in favor of someone cheaper as well. That company has tripled in revenue since I left so if you ask people like him, they'll lie to you and tell you they agree with you....but they'll screw theyre employees out of as much as they can.

I can tell you this, his tax concern was equally balanced bewteen his personal income and corporate tax. He paid himself a lower salary then typical for his type biz and then took perks, many of which would be illegal, such as charging personal items to the company, hiding it as job & labor costs etc etc to fluff his income to a very healthy amount. This also enabled him to look his key employees in the face and tell them various jobs/accounts werent as profitable as hoped....yeah...because he added "costs" them for personal gain :rolleyes: ...and then of course profit sharing would be less.

I find this approach in private business to be typical...and youre very fortunate if you work for a company thats different. I think many dont realize exactly whats going on because they dont see the books. ;)

Sorry for the halfassed threadjack...your comment brought many thoughts to mind.

4dmin
09-11-2008, 05:38 PM
I agree it will not sit well...but I am not sure it will fail. I agree with you in principle though.

In private companies this employee screwing is done quite frequently.
Its one reason that unlike my fathers generation most folks now have to keep switching jobs their entire career and hope they dont get fuked out of any retirement plan etc. Whereas, in my dad's generation a fellow worked at the same plant, company, whatever...for 30, 40 years or more and then collected a nice pension.

I used to manage a multi million dollar private company. The owner there eliminated all contributions to pension/401k etc etc plans, and eventually all but eliminated profit based bonuses for the key players in the company who influenced the bottom line....all while increasing his own 'take' and the 'take' of his relatives in the company. Alot of it was done under cover...but as I kept the books it was known to me. Also, over time he eliminated gas and vehicle perks and many other benefits (income) from the employees while increasing his own. Eventually he ditched me in favor of someone cheaper as well. That company has tripled in revenue since I left so if you ask people like him, they'll lie to you and tell you they agree with you....but they'll screw theyre employees out of as much as they can.

I can tell you this, his tax concern was equally balanced bewteen his personal income and corporate tax. He paid himself a lower salary then typical for his type biz and then took perks, many of which would be illegal, such as charging personal items to the company, hiding it as job & labor costs etc etc to fluff his income to a very healthy amount. This also enabled him to look his key employees in the face and tell them various jobs/accounts werent as profitable as hoped....yeah...because he added "costs" them for personal gain :rolleyes: ...and then of course profit sharing would be less.

I find this approach in private business to be typical...and youre very fortunate if you work for a company thats different. I think many dont realize exactly whats going on because they dont see the books. ;)

Sorry for the halfassed threadjack...your comment brought many thoughts to mind.

this is exactly what i'm talking about... most business owners are going to compensate moving purchases through business, etc...

i worked for a company that had people on payroll (family members) that never even walked in the building and they made more then execs - BS happens all the time with private companies but the fact of FEAR tatics like "america will lose jobs over obama tax cuts" :lmfao: - come on.

AlanŽ
09-11-2008, 06:21 PM
if you have a stable privately owned company then your personal taxes should not affect your business. if it does and you now are taking away from your biggest asset which is your company. i work for a 30+ million dollar privately owned company - dude makes a sh!t ton of money and we are in the auto industry. we just had our strongest month in history of the company; why? b/c of strong infrastructure - employees futures are not based off of the owners personal taxes but on the company. if the company was having a hard time then it would trickle down to employees but the fact my boss pays more in taxes this year or the next isn't relevant to his employees nor should it be.

if you burden your employees for personal gain then you will fail in the long run.... meaning cutting benefits so you can afford a new bmw will not sit well with your employees.

i'm wonder out of the two of you if either of you own a home, cars, married, kids, and have had to put yourself through school?

Absolutely agreed with you on all counts.

DevilK9
09-12-2008, 07:54 AM
Missing two very important points:

1) The misconception that the rich spend the most money. Think about it. If there's one >100K person for every, let's say....300 <100K people, and he spends and average of 65K a year while each of them spend an average of 35-40K per year...then which spends more money? The rich? Uhhh...no. The rich get richer, first, because they have the financial ground to build upon, and because they don't spend their money, they invest it, and they use other people's money. Like Trump, who I don't like personally, once told me at a Toys for Tots Convention, "It takes money to make money, it just doesn't have to be yours!".

2) You are posting charts and stating "facts" as if that's exactly what's going to happen if and when the Palin/McCain Regime crosses the 1600 threshold. Keep in mind these are their "conceptual plans". Neither candidate can initiate this policy, they can push for it. They are only 1/3 of pie.

Here's an interesting research project for you. Find one....just one....POTUS campaign platform that actually made it to law and/or policy in it's full measure. Don't say NCLB, because the current program is nothing like what was originally proposed by the Bush/Cheney ticket in 4/2000.