fatheadfred Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 I thought Obama was going to raise taxes on high incomes.He is, I can't wait. Woo hoo! Link to post Share on other sites
Party @ the Moontower Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 lower You must be as rich as this board led me to believe Jules. Can you spare some change so I can feed my kid? Those damn middle class people need to just get a job. Again Jules....I know where you stand, my prob isn't with you. I'm just joking about you sending $$$..unless you have some extra Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 do you mean lower for the wealthy? i'm just curious, since obama's plan IS to lower taxes for the vast majority of americans -- the middle class.I don't know what wealthy is, but specifically a lower corporate tax rate (25%), and reducing/eliminating the estate tax (double taxation; I know people who had to sell the business in order to pay the estate tax. Ridiculous). Also maintaining the capital gains and dividen tax rates. Relaxed rules on expensing equipment. He also proposes leaving the top tax bracket at 35%, which isn't a reduction per se, but something I agree with. Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 I don't know what wealthy is, but specifically a lower corporate tax rate (25%), and reducing/eliminating the estate tax (double taxation; I know people who had to sell the business in order to pay the estate tax. Ridiculous). Also maintaining the capital gains and dividen tax rates. Relaxed rules on expensing equipment. He also proposes leaving the top tax bracket at 35%, which isn't a reduction per se, but something I agree with. be more specific. Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 it's pretty hard to know what actually will happen once someone gets into office. bush ran on "compassionate conservatism," and he gets an F for both words, almost from the get-go. i do believe that obama is a more honest person, though. Then, we're in agreement. Obama is probably being honest about his philosophy towards governing and I'm in more agreement with McCain than I am with Obama. Income is yearly whereas wealth is accumulated. Obama is proposing to raise taxes on the former, not the latter. Link to post Share on other sites
kwall Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 He is, I can't wait. Woo hoo!wow. Link to post Share on other sites
austrya Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 do you mean lower for the wealthy? i'm just curious, since obama's plan IS to lower taxes for the vast majority of americans -- the middle class. According to that one website, my taxes would be about $400 lower per year with McCain than with Obama. But taxes aren't as big of an issue for me as some of the other issues. I'm definitely middle class. Link to post Share on other sites
sweetheart-mine Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 I don't know what wealthy is, but specifically a lower corporate tax rate (25%), and reducing/eliminating the estate tax (double taxation; I know people who had to sell the business in order to pay the estate tax. Ridiculous). Also maintaining the capital gains and dividen tax rates. Relaxed rules on expensing equipment. He also proposes leaving the top tax bracket at 35%, which isn't a reduction per se, but something I agree with. i agree with you on the estate tax. corporations, though, need a long, deep, chronic, and public audit, which i think would result in even more of a leap in corporate taxes than obama might be thinking of -- and many people would be calling for it, including a few conservatives i know. Link to post Share on other sites
kwall Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 Income is yearly whereas wealth is accumulated. Obama is proposing to raise taxes on the former, not the latter.also, many small businesses with incomes over 250K file as individuals and would have their taxes raised. Link to post Share on other sites
Party @ the Moontower Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 PATMT, i have no clue what you're doing...let me turn it on you, do you really want to list out each of obama's policies you agree with, how they differ from mccain's and why you support them. by this point, if someone says they like mccain tax policies better than b's, how can you not not know what the differences are? I'm responding to the the cats that cry this board (Obama supporters) don't allow debate and FS. Not you, not Jules. It was said over and over here today that anyone that's not an O supporter is treated like a jerk, This is simply not the case. I see a lot of Obama links, facts, and support, but rarely see it for the other sides. Nobody here supporting O stops debate, it's just rarely do we see a clear argument for McCain, Baldwin, McKinney, Nader, Barr...or Palin. Not even a nice link. Link to post Share on other sites
sweetheart-mine Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 Then, we're in agreement. Obama is probably being honest about his philosophy towards governing and I'm in more agreement with McCain than I am with Obama. Income is yearly whereas wealth is accumulated. Obama is proposing to raise taxes on the former, not the latter. right, we know where we stand on both counts then. i suspect there ultimately may be some fine-tuning of your second point if obama gets into office. i would hope so, personally. Link to post Share on other sites
laurie Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 Are polling place volunteers tested for prosopagnosia? I have to love your use of the word prosopagnosia/. Are you a neuroligist? We need a good neurologist now, it's getting a bitdemented out there - dyspaxic even Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 i agree with you on the estate tax. corporations, though, need a long, deep, chronic, and public audit, which i think would result in even more of a leap in corporate taxes than obama might be thinking ofpublic or private Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 It was said over and over here today that anyone that's not an O supporter is treated like a jerk, This is simply not the case. i respectfully disagree on 'simply not the case'. granted, sometimes they deserve it...but sometimes they don't. there are legitimate acts of jerkiness on both sides. Link to post Share on other sites
laurie Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 Are polling place volunteers tested for prosopagnosia? Link to post Share on other sites
kwall Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 rarely do we see a clear argument for McCain, Baldwin, McKinney, Nader, Barr...or Palin. Not even a nice link.i suspect that you will never consider an argument with which you disagree to be "clear". Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 i suspect that you will never consider an argument with which you disagree to be "clear".I suspect that you will never make an argument of any kind for or against anything. Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 i suspect that you will never consider an argument with which you disagree to be "clear". in all fairness, why don't you try...if just to prove a point. to be fair to the other side, you do seem to bait a lot...as does jules, jude, etc. no big deal to me, but i can see why it becomes irksome and somebody could clamor for more substance. that's why, even though we're pretty opposite on most political fronts, i can't help but like ikol...you can disagree with him, but he comes w/ intelligent detail to why he says what he does. and it's often funnier too. Link to post Share on other sites
kwall Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 I suspect that you will never make an argument of any kind for or against anything.i disagree. Link to post Share on other sites
Party @ the Moontower Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 i suspect that you will never consider an argument with which you disagree to be "clear". BS douchebag. You have yet to ever give anything Kwall. I'm out of here. All you do is stink the place up. Link to post Share on other sites
kwall Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 in all fairness, why don't you try...try what, exactly? Link to post Share on other sites
Party @ the Moontower Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 there are legitimate acts of jerkiness on both sides. Agreed. Link to post Share on other sites
kwall Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 BS douchebag.well, at least you were clear. Link to post Share on other sites
Party @ the Moontower Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 I suspect that you will never make an argument of any kind for or against anything. in all fairness, why don't you try...if just to prove a point. to be fair to the other side, you do seem to bait a lot...as does jules, jude, etc. no big deal to me, but i can see why it becomes irksome and somebody could clamor for more substance. that's why, even though we're pretty opposite on most political fronts, i can't help but like ikol...you can disagree with him, but he comes w/ intelligent detail to why he says what he does. and it's often funnier too. Good post. Link to post Share on other sites
explodo Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 can't you guys just get that certain folks may find similiar issues important to them that you do...however, their view of how said issue needs to be addressed can lead them to a candidate that isn't yours. that, kids, is democracy.Right. Like I'm all for abortions anytime before age 13, but I understand when people don't necessarily understand where I'm coming from on that one. Sucks to get stuck with an ugly kid, though. No doubt about that. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts