Isn't it time for a new election thread?!

[Sir Stewart]

True, but most of us could live and work and then die and then return again to live and work and die again, hundreds of times and never come even close to making what a well paid ball player makes in 5-15 years or even 6 months.

Okay, it's a tired argument on all sides, but - most of us also could not physically come close to what those folks can do.

[fatheadfred]

Can you honestly tell me you'd rather be sure you can buy an RV when you retire than help me pay my bills if I find out tomorrow that I have a brain tumor? I may have worked less than you due to my age, but I can't believe I've worked less hard. But that is what this is about, this is what we're playing for in this election. I'm bankrupt or dead if I get sick. You get to go to one less football game or buy less albums or whatever it is that you like to do if I get health insurance.

 

This is how I see pushing more taxes on the wealthy. The reality of us po folk is this. Personally, my financial liabilities are education and medical debt. The medical debt is b.s. and stems from 2 things. 1. Not being able to afford coverage 2. Even with coverage the shit didn't really cover the huge ass inflated bill for the service thanks to the insurance jack up.

 

RV or death, a new Benz or white bread instead wheat?

[fatheadfred]

I suppose I find many of these type of conversations to be a lot of chest

puffing with not too much substance. Unless one is willing to put hard and

fast definitions on terms such as 'rich' this all remains abstract. So who

is rich?

Ball players or movie stars get paid obscene salaries It's true. But they only get paid

so much because we flood their industries with cash. No one makes us.

 

This is a challenge when we do not consider cost of living. However, if they threw that into the campaign people would really shy away from figuring out all those damn numbers.

 

In my region, the Obama plan seems pretty close (200 and 250), however in NY, Chicago, San Fran, etc. it would seem like 300 and 350 should be the cut.

 

I agree w/ the rock star and athlete wage. People feed the obscenity. What I don't agree with is taxpayer supported stadiums.

[fatheadfred]

I'd really like to see what the plans are for cost cutting in the government for both sides. Spending is obviously way out of control and you can't take it from the Defense budget.

 

Why can we not scale back the Defense budget?

[Good Old Neon]

Okay, it's a tired argument on all sides, but - most of us also could not physically come close to what those folks can do.

 

True

[fatheadfred]

I would love to revisit this thread in the distant future when some of you become moderately successful or when you reach retirement age and you start to spend your retirement funds at a time when you have limited tax deductions and most everything becomes ordinary income.

Maybe in the distant future we won't be strapped due to warmongering and the discussion of who to lay the burden on will be a thing of the past.

[explodo]

I wonder if we could choose to direct our tax contributions? Say we pick our top 3 areas, e.g. education, transportation, energy, on our withholding form? And if we don't want to decide, we can leave it up to the man, like we currently do. This way we have more control than just "call your representative".

I've wanted this for years. Of course there is the argument that the general population isn't privy to all the factors that go into setting a budget, which is true, but I do think something like this could work with some sort of proportional layout. Example: you pay 25% in taxes. 17.5% can be distributed as normal, the rest can be distributed to certain sectors of your choosing. I'm not nearly intelligent enough to know if that is plausible in any way, but it sounds good to me.

[Good Old Neon]

All this talk against a more just redistribution of wealth seems sort of vulgar considering we

[Preferred B]

I would love to revisit this thread in the distant future when some of you become moderately successful or when you reach retirement age and you start to spend your retirement funds at a time when you have limited tax deductions and most everything becomes ordinary income.

You really think that nobody here who agrees that people who make over $250,000 should pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes could possibly be even moderately successful? Or might be in or know someone in that tax bracket? Or be or know someone who is retired?

 

I guess the fundamental thing I'm not understanding here: many people who object to this concept are implying that a 26% or 27% income tax rate is going to take people with high incomes right down to middle class living standards.

[explodo]

I would love to revisit this thread in the distant future when some of you become moderately successful or when you reach retirement age and you start to spend your retirement funds at a time when you have limited tax deductions and most everything becomes ordinary income.

We're liberals. We're not looking for success. We're looking to game the system for an easy ride.

[Tweedling]

We're liberals. We're not looking for success. We're looking to game the system for an easy ride.

I knew it!

[M. (hristine]

I couldn't be swayed by Tweedy wanting me to vote for Obama, but this whole Obama is the anti-Christ thing has really got me thinking.

[austrya]

I heard he's going to make reparations for black people once he's elected too. He descends from slavery, you know.

 

At least that's what my mom's friend thinks.

 

I had to remind her that his mom was white and his dad came from Kenya.

[John Smith]

The eras that conservatives seem to point to with love and awe is the 1950

[John Smith]

A major point of contention for right wingers is the Unified Estate and Gift tax. Right wingers hate it, but they have the Murder-suicide act of 2010 to help them with their cause (fyi the tax rate is zero in 2009). Anyhow I am not against this tax in concept, just in execution. How so? For one main reason it taxes the bulk of the estate, whereas I think just the gain should be taxed. For instance if you have stock in coke that you have a basis of $1/share but it has a market value of $2. The tax to your heirs will be on the $2, while I think it should be on the $1. That and the rates should be at lower rates.

 

Some might say why tax it at all? Simple because the law right now says your heirs get the stepped up basis on your death or in simpler terms if they sold the stock the day after you died then their cost would be considered $2 and if they sold it for $2 there would be no gain. However the IRS would have already taxed the $1 gain at a very high rate and they would have taxed the original $1 basis at the same high rate. If they would just tax the gains at a fair rate I would have no trouble with it. This would eliminate taxing these things at high rates and eliminate double taxation when the basis is taxed.

 

As to the whole

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

We're liberals. We're not looking for success. We're looking to game the system for an easy ride.

 

 

This made me smile...not a LOL...but a mms

 

by the way...how about that witty new screen name and avatar (although cave men were reputedly neanderthals and not cro-mags...but give me points for spur of the moment wittiness...)

[Good Old Neon]

I couldn't be swayed by Tweedy wanting me to vote for Obama, but this whole Obama is the anti-Christ thing has really got me thinking.

 

Yeah, I too was on the fence about Obama, but once then I found out he was being endorsed by the King of Fucking Darkness himself, well, I couldn

[JUDE]

You really think that nobody here who agrees that people who make over $250,000 should pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes could possibly be even moderately successful? Or might be in or know someone in that tax bracket? Or be or know someone who is retired?

 

I guess the fundamental thing I'm not understanding here: many people who object to this concept are implying that a 26% or 27% income tax rate is going to take people with high incomes right down to middle class living standards.

 

I love how statements that some may find objectionable are always take in the most extreme of contexts. I was simply pointing out that people

[uncool2pillow]

I'm pretty sure this is not what any of us want. Maybe some of us, I guess, but certainly not the majority. We want those tax dollars to go to fix schools, roads, invest in new technologies and energy sources, subsidize vegetables (if grain subsidies are sticking around) to ensure healthy eating, health care for children (at the very least), etc. And I think we're all more than willing to pay our share. Of course, making sure our tax dollars actually go towards helpful stuff rather than the defense budget is a whole other issue. I don't see how any of this is socialism or a redistribution of wealth (because, see, those things make life better for everybody). As somebody else said, it's simply putting country ahead of yourself.

I agree with about everything you said here. I teach in the public schools (don't let anyone tell you there aren't conservatives in the school system) and would love to see more funding for everything you cited. Here's the problem: It's a lot easier to increase taxes than it is to appropriate wisely.

 

To claim that not wanting to pay more taxes before any changes in appropriation are made is putting county ahead of yourself is just plain wrong. Who's to say that untaxed money (like Gates, Buffet, and many more anonymous wealthy people) won't be better served in philanthropy or being invested in small businesses that put people to work? I do believe that paying taxes is a patriotic duty, but it's also a patriotic duty to make sure those taxes are serving our best interest.

[Party @ the Moontower]

I guess the fundamental thing I'm not understanding here: many people who object to this concept are implying that a 26% or 27% income tax rate is going to take people with high incomes right down to middle class living standards.

 

 

This is the problem I have had with this whole discussion. How is Obama's tax policies getting reduced to this nonsense?

 

We're liberals. We're not looking for success. We're looking to game the system for an easy ride.

 

That's always been my goal!

[uncool2pillow]

"According to The Book of Revelations:

 

The Anti-Christ will be a man, in his 40's, of MUSLIM descent,

Isn't the Book of Revelation 500-600 years older than Islam? It's too bad there are 1000s of people who just eat this stuff up. I probably won't vote for Obama for political reasons (still doubt I can vote for Palin for VP, so I'm undecided), but this kind of thing is just insane.

[Analogman]

I recall being taught that deal about an ant-Christ president in church back in the early 1970s.

 

McCain: Ayers will come up in debate

 

Andy Barr 1 hour, 10 minutes ago

 

John McCain said Tuesday that Barack Obama is

[Winston Legthigh]

Who's to say that untaxed money (like Gates, Buffet, and many more anonymous wealthy people) won't be better served in philanthropy or being invested in small businesses that put people to work?

I am.

 

I'm on the board of a local runaway shelter. If we didn't receive government grants, to the tune of $250k - $400k annually, we'd fold. Private donations average about $20k/year.

[Analogman]

Young Jews 'schlep' to Fla. in search of grandparents' votes

[Party @ the Moontower]

Can anyone show me how O's plan will bring the rich down? And when we speak of "rich" I mean the top 5% of the wealthiest people in this nation.

 

Obama wanting to raise taxes on the 5% of the American (very wealthy) people who already hold most of this country