|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Mar 13, 2010 20:47:01 GMT
Riotgrrl - Here is a summary of Obama's latest tax proposals. taxes.about.com/od/2009taxes/a/obama_tax_proposals_2.htmI don't believe in graduated income tax. That's not fair at all. That's income redistribution by government. More precisely, it is forced confiscation from those citizens most unlikely to vote for Obama, and redistribution of those funds to citizens most likely to vote for Obama and the Democrats. It's political patronage with someone else's money.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Mar 13, 2010 21:05:20 GMT
Riotgrrl - Here is a summary of Obama's latest tax proposals. taxes.about.com/od/2009taxes/a/obama_tax_proposals_2.htmI don't believe in graduated income tax. That's not fair at all. That's income redistribution by government. More precisely, it is forced confiscation from those citizens most unlikely to vote for Obama, and redistribution of those funds to citizens most likely to vote for Obama and the Democrats. It's political patronage with someone else's ney. But Bushad, the tax changes will only affect those earning over £200k pa. That's a hefty salary. Why would you lose sleep about people on that kind of salary paying a few pence more?
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Mar 13, 2010 21:08:27 GMT
I'm going to put this out here - and I recognise that it's just an opinion - but I hope to hit the £50k level in the next ten years.
And on that level, there is nothing on god's earth I want to do that I can't afford to do. They can tax me on every penny above that at 100%.
That's more than enough money for anyone to live, and to live well on.
I'm stuck on the moment about £35k, and even on that we live well.
I've often thought that, more than a 'minimum wage', we need a maximum wage. Nobody needs a handbag at £1k (although I'd like one!!!).
It's all gravy really after about £30k. Which is about, what, $60k?
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Mar 13, 2010 21:14:02 GMT
It's not £200k riotgrrl, it's $200k. There is a difference. In the USA a small business owner can opt to be taxes as a subchapter S corporation. In that instance his business and personal incomes are run together and taxes as one. There are oh so many sub chapter S small business from the dry cleaner on the corner to the small sandwich shop on wheels. Many of these earn over $200,000 per year and much of that gets reinvested back into their businesses.
But that's not the point. I don't believe the Democratic Party should take advantage of the fact that they're currently in power to confiscate funds from Republicans (Most high income earners in America are Republicans). And I think your attitude is unfair when you say, "hy would you lose sleep about people on that kind of salary paying a few pence more?" In other words, you're saying, "Stick it to them because I'm not one of them." You're helping to make my point about how unfair this is.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Mar 13, 2010 21:16:54 GMT
It's not £200k riotgrrl, it's $200k. There is a difference. In the USA a small business owner can opt to be taxes as a subchapter S corporation. In that instance his business and personal incomes are run together and taxes as one. There are oh so many sub chapter S small business from the dry cleaner on the corner to the small sandwich shop on wheels. Many of these earn over $200,000 per year and much of that gets reinvested back into their businesses. But that's not the point. I don't believe the Democratic Party should take advantage of the fact that they're currently in power to confiscate funds from Republicans (Most high income earners in America are Republicans). And I think your attitude is unfair when you say, "hy would you lose sleep about people on that kind of salary paying a few pence more?" In other words, you're saying, "Stick it to them because I'm not one of them." You're helping to make my point about how unfair this is. So it's £100k That's really plenty. If those above that level of income vote Republican I'd be really suspicious of the Republicans if I was you. Seems like it's a rich man's club preserving itself. I care more about the blue or white collar worker trying to make the mortgage payments of a month than someone on a big income. Don't get me wrong, I'm fine that they're richer than me and can afford things I can't. Cool. Maybe they're cleverer than me and deserve it. But, as I say, after about £50k ($100k?) it's all gravy.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Mar 13, 2010 21:17:52 GMT
P.S. The money that the small traders you refer to which is re-invested in their businesses wouldn't be taxed, would it? Unless the tax system in the USA is much more pro-the-elite than the tax system in the UK.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Mar 13, 2010 21:19:50 GMT
riotgrrl said, "'Socialist leaning' . . that's really dumb Bushad. I've been pointing out to you for several days now that you're mis-using political labels badly. Do you not read my posts, or do you not agree with me? I wish you would tell me, because it just feels like you're ignoring me."
Sorry I didn't see this post earlier riotgrrl.
We have him on tape. In the now famous conversation between then Senator Obama and Samuel Wurzelbacher, aka “Joe the Plumber”, Obama was recorded on film telling him that he was in favor of “spreading the wealth”. Obama’s actual quot was that he believed that “if the economy’s good from the bottom up, it’s good for everybody,” and that “right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
That's Socialism 101. Government meddling in personal finances, confiscating from Peter and giving Peter's money to Paul.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Mar 13, 2010 21:42:36 GMT
riotgrrl said, "'Socialist leaning' . . that's really dumb Bushad. I've been pointing out to you for several days now that you're mis-using political labels badly. Do you not read my posts, or do you not agree with me? I wish you would tell me, because it just feels like you're ignoring me." Sorry I didn't see this post earlier riotgrrl. We have him on tape. In the now famous conversation between then Senator Obama and Samuel Wurzelbacher, aka “Joe the Plumber”, Obama was recorded on film telling him that he was in favor of “spreading the wealth”. Obama’s actual quot was that he believed that “if the economy’s good from the bottom up, it’s good for everybody,” and that “right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” That's Socialism 101. Government meddling in personal finances, confiscating from Peter and giving Peter's money to Paul. Nonsense. Nonsense 101. 'Spreading the wealth' is one thing (and that thing is not 'socialism'.) Socialism is about ownership of the means of production. Obama is as far from being a Socialist as I am. What he is, is maybe, is a right-wing Social Democrat, who believes that some services can best be provided by the state. Hardly an original viewpoint; it was surely Adam Smith in the 1700s who first started talking about the need for the state to provide some basic services for the greater good? (Or maybe Jesus Christ, some years previously, albeit indirectly.) Of course the Govt. 'meddles in your private finance'. The very existence of a regulatory framework for banks and financiers shows that. Are you suggesting no regulatory framework? So that the poor and vulnerable can be ripped off without comeback? It's not socialism mate. But what you seem to be suggesting as being preferable is anarchy. The individual for the individual, with no community regulation or rules. Everybody makes what they can and keeps it. Fairly primitive.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 13, 2010 21:53:17 GMT
I'm going to put this out here - and I recognise that it's just an opinion - but I hope to hit the £50k level in the next ten years. And on that level, there is nothing on god's earth I want to do that I can't afford to do. They can tax me on every penny above that at 100%. That's more than enough money for anyone to live, and to live well on. I'm stuck on the moment about £35k, and even on that we live well. I've often thought that, more than a 'minimum wage', we need a maximum wage. Nobody needs a handbag at £1k (although I'd like one!!!). It's all gravy really after about £30k. Which is about, what, $60k? that's the reality. of course, it also comes with the fact that the majority of those who get that kind of money do NOT earn it in the first place. there is obviously NOTHING unfair about an individual who gets a million dollars a year paying a flat fifty percent in tax. that leaves him with ten times as much as the individual who gets $60,000 and and pays ten percent. ideally, there should be NO tax on those getting less than fifty thousand at all, and those getting ten million a year should be paying ninety percent. that is fair
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Mar 14, 2010 1:37:38 GMT
>>>there is obviously NOTHING unfair about an individual who gets a million dollars a year paying a flat fifty percent in tax.
Hahahahahaha
That's entirely ridiculous.
For the government to decide what he needs and how much of his own money he can keep is putrid to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Mar 14, 2010 1:40:12 GMT
>>>Socialism is about ownership of the means of production.
That's true Riotgrrl, but that's not the whole picture. Government control of a person's income and redistribution of same is also Socialism. If you can't keep the money that you've earned because your government wants to confiscate and give your money to someone else then you are being screwed by an unreasonable government.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Mar 14, 2010 11:48:59 GMT
>>>Socialism is about ownership of the means of production. That's true Riotgrrl, but that's not the whole picture. Government control of a person's income and redistribution of same is also Socialism. If you can't keep the money that you've earned because your government wants to confiscate and give your money to someone else then you are being screwed by an unreasonable government. Well that would be both unreasonable and disagreeable. But Obama doesn't seem to want to take any more of your money than George W Bush did. I disagree that taxation is per se socialism; that would make most of the world (and everywhere civilised) 'socialist', which is clearly nonsense. Is there someone in particular that Obama wants to give your money to, or is it just the usual suspects like public health, highways, education, etc.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 14, 2010 15:38:05 GMT
>>>there is obviously NOTHING unfair about an individual who gets a million dollars a year paying a flat fifty percent in tax. Hahahahahaha That's entirely ridiculous. For the government to decide what he needs and how much of his own money he can keep is putrid to say the least. you want to preach fairness. okay, i'll play. how about you sharing how it is in any way fair for a ceo, sitting on his dead azz doing nothing, to be paid four hundred times as much as the chap on the assembly line, who is actually working, and creating income for the company. please be rational
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Mar 14, 2010 17:09:36 GMT
Jumbo - There is a huge difference between a corporation making decisions about compensation for employees vs. government making decisions to redistribute income.
Corporations are accountable to their shareholders. Each corporation is different. One corporation may make decisions that you approve and another may not. Buy stock in the first and not the second.
Apple Computer and Google are two companies where the CEO's salary is just $1 per year. Yet those two CEO's are two of America's wealthiest men because their stock options have paid off handsomely. They chose to be rewarded based on the success of their two companies in the marketplace rather than with a huge salary. I like that model but it's up to the individual board of directors and stockholders to approve whatever plan a particular corporation has.
CEO's do have a lot more decision making ability than a worker on a production line. Their decisions re such things as new products, marketing strategies, etc. a key to the company's success. A successful CEO like Steve Jobs should earn a lot more than a production worker.
Perhaps a better question you could have asked would be: Why should an injury prone basketball player like Tracy McGrady be paid 26 Million $$ when the ticket taker out front makes a comparative pittance?
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Mar 14, 2010 17:13:38 GMT
Riotgrrl asked: "Is there someone in particular that Obama wants to give your money to, or is it just the usual suspects like public health, highways, education, etc.?"
Riotgrrl I don't think you've been reading my posts or you would not be asking that question. For the third or fourth time:
Our Democrats have only one plan. It's the only plan they've ever had for gaining and holding onto power. Unfortunately, it has been successful for them and that's why they continue to stick with it.
There plan is to confiscate funds from their political opponents, the Republicans, via skewed taxation. These funds are then to be redistributed mainly to their own voting blocs of supporters which include labor unions, minorities, etc for the purpose of obtaining votes and thereby retaining power. It's all about buying power by raiding your opponent's bank accounts.
|
|
|
Post by mikemarshall on Mar 14, 2010 23:37:14 GMT
BA, your 'analysis' of the Democrats is broadly a description of the way in which the Republican Party has operated whenever they have been in power.
The Republicans have only one plan - to take money from the poor and give it to the rich - a kind of reversed socialism.
The Democrats have only one plan - to take money from everyone and find ways to waste it - a kind of reversed capitalism.
Since you appear to favour the Republican method, BA, that makes your political views CLOSER to socialism than those of the Democrats are!
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Mar 15, 2010 1:58:24 GMT
No Mike, I don't know where you came up with those views but that's incorrect. Republicans are champions of free enterprise. They want smaller government, less government intrusion in private affairs, lower taxes, fewer regulations, etc. Not all Republicans share the same views on every issue.
Republicans (myself included) have zero interest in taking money from the poor and giving to the rich. That wouldn't make sense anyway since the poor have no money. They wouldn't be poor if they did.
Republicans want our federal government to be very strong when it comes to national defense and security issues. They want the government to be very active in areas that improve the economy. Road building comes to mind.
Republicans have little interest in social programs. It is not a proper role for government to be involved in feeding, housing, medicating, or any form of income redistribution.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Mar 15, 2010 3:28:50 GMT
Obama has a terrible problem with the "Uh Word".
I've never heard any head of state stutter as much as he does!
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 15, 2010 16:57:02 GMT
No Mike, I don't know where you came up with those views but that's incorrect. Republicans are champions of free enterprise. They want smaller government, less government intrusion in private affairs, lower taxes, fewer regulations, etc. Not all Republicans share the same views on every issue. Republicans (myself included) have zero interest in taking money from the poor and giving to the rich. That wouldn't make sense anyway since the poor have no money. They wouldn't be poor if they did. Republicans want our federal government to be very strong when it comes to national defense and security issues. They want the government to be very active in areas that improve the economy. Road building comes to mind. Republicans have little interest in social programs. It is not a proper role for government to be involved in feeding, housing, medicating, or any form of income redistribution. no matter how many times you regurgitate the lies that you hear from nutjobs such as rush, sean, ann, and glenn, there will NEVER be a word of truth to it. you should think for yourself for a change instead of just parroting inane lunatic fringe propaganda
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Mar 16, 2010 1:29:52 GMT
Jumbo please stop it with the nonsense. I'm not regurgitating anything. I never listen to Rush or Glenn Beck. Never. I like Sean Hannity but seldom watch his program. I really admire Ann Coulter but I'm only an occasional listener/reader. My views are my own.
|
|