And the march toward socialism continues...

[ehidle]

Originally Posted by unclejumbo

Good for the rich. It is not evil to be wealthy if it was earned honestly. The idea that because someone became wealthy entitles the government to take it from them is ludicrous. What possible incentive can there be to work hard and become wealthy if the government is going to step in and take it?

This Republic is not founded on redistribution of wealth. If I ever find myself wealthy, I will do whatever I can to protect if from being taken.

I can't tell you how many healthy people I have dealt with that are sucking on the public tit. Go out and work or starve to death.

I have no problem with safety nets for the truly needy but there are way too many taking advantage of the system.

Couldn't have said it better myself... I agree with you 100% here.

... now I have to go investigate that bulbous, pink object that just flew past my window...

[Coops]

With Obama raising taxes on the "rich" then firing CEOs and limiting the maximum pay for executives, while 10% of the population is out of work, the income from taxes will be dropping drastically (no more tax base). He will be making everyone poor by distributing the wealth we have now, then destroying the ability to create more wealth.
When will the "workers" revolt? Maybe never.

It's pretty ironic. We spent most of the last century trying to topple communism. We finally succeeded, and now we are becoming communist ourselves while the former red menace is thriving on capitalism. The former Soviet Union has divided into separated states. Maybe we will do the same.

Here are some suggestions.
Give California to Mexico for the promise that they will stay in their own country.
Trade New England, New York and New Jersey to Canada in exchange for British Columbia so we can connect up to Alaska.
Sell Hawaii to Japan for 10 trillion dollars to erase the debt and fund the treasury for the next 10 years.
Give independence to Puerto Rico and Guam.

[MostlyHarmless]

Originally Posted by jmanzini

above $250,000 - not really rich

Above $250,000 taxable income ... that is AFTER all deductions ... isn't rich?

I know that Sarah and John tried to portrait every little Joe, who is self employed or has a small business, as the people Obama wanted to tax to hell and back. And I know that many swallowed that stupid lie because they have no idea what the difference between profit and revenue is.

I only have the 2006 data available from the IRS, but according to that, out of 138,394,754 personal income tax returns in 2006, only 4,064,884 had a taxable income of $200,000 or more. That is less than 3% of all personal income tax returns. Those 3% at the top of the income range collect over 30% of the total income. If calling them rich is wrong, I really don't know what rich means. Please tell me.


Jan

[Morel42]

Originally Posted by Coops

It's pretty ironic. We spent most of the last century trying to topple communism. We finally succeeded, and now we are becoming communist ourselves while the former red menace is thriving on capitalism. The former Soviet Union has divided into separated states. Maybe we will do the same.

You are aware that for the Majority of the time that we were "fighting the Commies" That the top tax rate was 90% then slid to 50% in the 1980's right?

Originally Posted by Coops

Here are some suggestions.
Give California to Mexico for the promise that they will stay in their own country.
Trade New England, New York and New Jersey to Canada in exchange for British Columbia so we can connect up to Alaska.
Sell Hawaii to Japan for 10 trillion dollars to erase the debt and fund the treasury for the next 10 years.
Give independence to Puerto Rico and Guam.

Japan has more Debt (Per GDP) we do.. ALOT more actually..
New England actually (as a whole) gives more federal tax Dollars then it receives and has more liberal tax laws then a lot of states (hehe, I said Liberal gun laws) NY isn't so bad, it's just totally dominated by New York's population..

Hawaii? What and lose what is pretty much the single largest naval asset in our arsenal?

Porto Rico and Guam could be dumped as far as I'm concerned though..

[adymond]

Originally Posted by MostlyHarmless

Above $250,000 taxable income ... that is AFTER all deductions ... isn't rich?

I know that Sarah and John tried to portrait every little Joe, who is self employed or has a small business, as the people Obama wanted to tax to hell and back. And I know that many swallowed that stupid lie because they have no idea what the difference between profit and revenue is.

I only have the 2006 data available from the IRS, but according to that, out of 138,394,754 personal income tax returns in 2006, only 4,064,884 had a taxable income of $200,000 or more. That is less than 3% of all personal income tax returns. Those 3% at the top of the income range collect over 30% of the total income. If calling them rich is wrong, I really don't know what rich means. Please tell me.


Jan

How many of that 3% were filed on personal income tax because an LLC had left over profit which would then have to be put on the personal income tax?

A few years ago I worked for a small company that did about $2,000,000 in business. It was an LLC. We got paid shit all year long, but come December 15th or so we would get a check that made up about 70% of our total income. The reason for this was the owner had to empty the coffers so that he didn't get screwed on his personal return. It makes it hard to keep enough opperating capital on hand if you are going to have to pay taxes on it every year.

[Vortex]

Originally Posted by MostlyHarmless

Above $250,000 taxable income ... that is AFTER all deductions ... isn't rich?

I know that Sarah and John tried to portrait every little Joe, who is self employed or has a small business, as the people Obama wanted to tax to hell and back. And I know that many swallowed that stupid lie because they have no idea what the difference between profit and revenue is.

You certainly make an interesting point. How could the American people be so gullible? Let's see if we can figure out where the disconnect is.

In broad terms (for the sake of argument), let's say that gross profit (for a small business person) is gross revenue less expenses (i.e. deductions). Let's also stipulate that taxable income (for a salaried person) is gross compensation (salary plus taxable benefits) less deductions.

Pretty straight forward.

Now in common parlance, when someone says they make 100K it is generally understood that their annual salary is 100K per year. No one takes it to mean that they really make 150K, but after 50K of deductions it's only 100K of income subject to taxes.

So now that we have a technical definition (granted, very simplified) of taxable small business profit versus taxable salaried income and the common usage of the expression, "I make so much per year", let's find the problem.

First we go to http://www.barackobama.com/taxes/

Middle class families will see their taxes cut – and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase.

So clearly that says a family making less than $250,000 of taxable income. Oh wait, it doesn't. That's O.K. though, I'm sure they clear it up at the link that has the detailed description of the Full Obama Tax Plan.

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes...Plan_FINAL.pdf

Middle class families will see their taxes cut – and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase.

See, in the detailed tax plan they went out of their way to explicitly state that it was $250,000 of taxable income (as quoted above). They definitely took the time and energy to expand the summary definition so as to clearly show where they were drawing the line. In fact, if you made $550,000 in salary and had $300,000 in deductions, you were golden. It's clearly obvious to everyone because that's how we all think about salary.

Further more, in the detailed expansion of his plan Obama will keep taxes low for everyone. This is important because it is fiscally unconsionable that the previous administration has added $4 trillion to the deficit.

Barack Obama will keep taxes low for everyone, while working to reform our tax code and make sure that everyone pays their fair share. Obama also believes that after eight years of reckless fiscal policies that squandered historic surpluses and added $4 trillion to the deficit, it is vital for candidates to put forward specific ideas on how they will pay for their proposals without passing on further deficits, debt, and a weaker economy to our children. That is why he has called for closing inefficient tax loopholes, cracking down on offshore tax havens, and repealing a portion of the tax cuts passed in the last eight years for families making over $250,000.

Not only does Obama have a pay-as-you-go policy for federal spending, even his tax increases are really overall tax cuts.

In net, even after these tax changes, the Obama plan is a tax cut. His middle class tax cuts are larger than the loophole closers and rollbacks that he has proposed for families making over $250,000. According to the Tax Policy Center, the Obama plan would reduce taxes as a share of the economy to less than 18.2 percent - the level of taxes that prevailed under President Ronald Reagan.

If you look closely at the list below, you can clearly see all of the spending cuts that will compensate for the reduced revenue from the overall tax cuts. It's also clear that he supports the pay-as-you-go philosophy with TARP, Stimulus One along with Cap and Trade legislation. These programs are the linchpins of reducing the deficit relative to its current level.

The Obama plan pays for these tax cuts by cutting spending overall. Obama’s spending cuts include responsibly ending the war in Iraq, limiting payments to high-income farmers, cutting subsidies for private plans in Medicare, reforming student loans, cutting earmarks to at least the level they were in 1994, ending no-bid contracting, and phasing out unnecessary and duplicative programs. He will also support pay-as-you-go budget rules and a constitutionally acceptable line-item veto to cut pork-barrel spending. Overall, Barack Obama’s budget will reduce the deficit relative its current level and its realistic future trajectory.

Of course not everyone bothered to download the detailed PDF of the Full Obama Tax Plan (stupid, lazy Americans). They didn't really need to. Obama clearly stated the case, again and again, specifically mentioning the phrase - families with $250,000 of net taxable income.



Yes, clear as day on every speech he gave. The numbers never changed either. With amazing discipline, Obama consistently stayed on message without numerical deviation.



Well I have done a lot of research and I guess I will have to concede your first point. It was clearly those rat bastard lying Republicans that misled the stupid, lazy Americans on the over/under $250,000 tax issue.

Hopefully I can do better on the second point.

Originally Posted by MostlyHarmless

Those 3% at the top of the income range collect over 30% of the total income. If calling them rich is wrong, I really don't know what rich means. Please tell me.

I think there are many places where $250,000 wouldn't necessarily strike the average person as rich.

Take for instance a couple with children, both making $125,000 in Silicon Valley (combined income $250,000). After a 36% or 39% federal income tax rate, 10% state income tax, near 10% state sales tax and property taxes in an expensive real estate market, they probably just barely have enough money left over for low-cost private schools (rather than subject their kids to the atrocious public school system).

Comfortably middle class? Maybe. Rich? Definitely not.

On a side note - Even with tax rates bordering on extortion, California is still apparently insolvent.

[Eugene V. Debs]

So taxes, government programs and corporate welfare = socialism?

[Morel42]

Originally Posted by Eugene V. Debs

So taxes, government programs and corporate welfare = socialism?

Silence! How dare you make people start using correct definitions!

Everyone knows that reality has a liberal agenda....

[Dodahdude]

Found a replacement for Sarah Palin position. The choosen one will be pleased....


Smart man!!





A Well-Planned Retirement - From The London Times:





Outside the Bristol Zoo, in England , there is a parking

lot for 150 cars and 8 coaches, or buses.

It was manned by a very pleasant attendant with a

ticket machine charging cars £1 (about $1.40) and

coaches £5 (about $7).

This parking attendant worked there solid for all of 25

years. Then, one day, he just didn't turn up for work.

"Oh well", said Bristol Zoo Management - "we'd better

phone up the City Council and get them to send a new

parking attendant . . . "

"Err . . . no", said the Council, "that parking lot is your

responsibility."


"Err . . . no", said Bristol Zoo Management, "the

attendant was employed by the City Council, wasn't

he?"

"Err . . . no!" insisted the Council.

Sitting in his villa somewhere on the coast of Spain

(presumably), is a man who had been taking the

parking lot fees, estimated at £400 (about $560) per

day at Bristol Zoo for the last 25 years. Assuming 7

days a week, this amounts to just over £3.6 million

($7 million - or $280,000 every year for 25 years)!

And no one even knows his name.

[ehidle]

Originally Posted by Dodahdude

Found a replacement for Sarah Palin position. The choosen one will be pleased....

Smart man!!

A Well-Planned Retirement - From The London Times:

Outside the Bristol Zoo, in England , there is a parking

lot for 150 cars and 8 coaches, or buses.

It was manned by a very pleasant attendant with a

ticket machine charging cars £1 (about $1.40) and

coaches £5 (about $7).

http://www.snopes.com/crime/clever/carpark.asp