RE: Joe The Plumber: Obama Tax Plan 'Infuriates Me'

RE: Joe The Plumber: Obama Tax Plan 'Infuriates Me' (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Elisabella -> RE: Joe The Plumber: Obama Tax Plan 'Infuriates Me' (10/16/2008 9:40:12 PM)
quote: Wow! I'm not even sure where to begin in responding to this. Are we debating tax policy here or your bitterness at some bad college experiences? It wasn't me, really. I didn't have any "artsy friends". Nah, I was the artsy chick. Once I grew a brain and a conscience I lost all my artsy friends [:(]

slvemike4u -> RE: Joe The Plumber: Obama Tax Plan 'Infuriates Me' (10/16/2008 10:09:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella The richest among us pay 35% of their income in taxes.y The poorest among us pay 10% (though it seems like they get it all refunded? At least I always did. I'm not sure how that works.) So yes I would think it's better that the person paying a disproportionately HIGH percentage should get a break instead of the person paying a disproportionately LOW percentage. And what is all this nonsense about "the little guy could use a break"?? Do you know how awful and divisive that sounds? It's classic socialist rhetoric - the people who earn a lot of money are bad, and greedy, and "fat cats" while the people who earn very little money are "the little guy, the good guy, the average guy" - the poor helpless waif who needs the Socialist Robin Hood to save him from the awfulness of his predicament. We're all Americans. Why do we think it's okay to raise taxes on one group of citizens yet lower them on another group of citizens? How is that equal? It's not like the people who pay higher taxes get more of a say in how the taxes are spent. If people want to be charitable, they can give money to charity. In fact, in the past few decades many people are more hesitant to give to charity because they felt they already 'gave at the office' - and they're right. I can see where you're coming from. I'm a "little guy" too - I'd be lying if I said it wouldn't be really fucking awesome to have my health care, my university bills, my daycare expenses if I have kids, etc. paid for by the government. That would be seriously nice. If I had less of a conscience I'd vote for Obama and not only ask what my country can do for me, but then demand more on top of it. And why shouldn't "those rich guys" pay for it? They aren't worried about their bills. They aren't poor. They've already laid a secure foundation for their future - surely taking a bit off the top won't hurt that foundation? In fact, come to think of it, I don't have a car. Those rich people down the block have four cars and only 3 of them are able to drive. Taking one of their cars won't hurt them a bit. I deserve it, after all, I don't HAVE a car. And they have more cars than they NEED. What's next? Taking their summer home because they OWN it and I pay RENT on my apartment? I don't think I have the right to do that. I think that's stealing, and I think it's wrong. Even though I'm just the little guy, the poor suffering working class peon who has to take the train to get somewhere and has to postpone dental surgery until I have the money. Woe is me, but it's neither that rich family down the street's fault nor is it their responsibility. That's what my conscience tells me. The only difference between Obama socialism and a bank robber is that the bank robber admits he's taking what isn't his to take. Funny thing about Obama's socialism is that Warren Buffet is one of his supporters,you don't suppose Mr. Buffet is a socialist do you.How about Bill Gates?...and in no way was my use of the term 'give the little guy a break" awful or divisive,that is your characterization not to mention your spin... Tell you what I'll do, and Sanity this goes for your "unanswered" question too....I will supply a link the two of you at your leisure feel free to go there and disabuse yourselfs of all your misconceptions about socialism and Obama...Obama.org/tax plan.....good luck....one last thing make sure you write a whole bunch of angry letters to that socialist currently residing at 1600 Penn. Ave...goodnight,I am way past tired and going round and round tends to make me dizzy.

Owner59 -> RE: Joe The Plumber: Obama Tax Plan 'Infuriates Me' (10/16/2008 10:12:46 PM)
So far, Plumper Joe has done more interviews than Sister Sarah. Vehh-dy int-a-lesting........

candystripper -> RE: Joe The Plumber: Obama Tax Plan 'Infuriates Me' (10/16/2008 10:20:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella quote: ORIGINAL: candystripper Sanity, Joe does not seem to grasp the fact that the US has a progressive tax system...not a flat tax....and has had since the passage of the constitutional amendment which permitted the income tax. Why should a wealty person pay a higher percent of income in tax than a poor one? Because it has always been felt that it was unfair for the poor to bear an undue share of the burden. See I don't get this. How is a flat tax making the poor bear an undue share of the burden? If every income were taxed at 10% (easy number to do the math with) then people making $50k would pay $5k and people making $2B would be paying, yeah you guessed it, $200M in taxes a year. Seems to me that the person paying $200M bears a bit more of a burden than the person paying $5k. That's just the way percentages work. IMO it's discriminatory to expect higher incomes to pay a higher percentage. If you really want to be fair, they should pay a lower percentage, because 5% of 100K is the same as 10% of 50K, but FWIW I think the tax percentage should be the same for all individual taxpayers. Businesses on the other hand are a different story. Well, first, no one seriously proposes a true flat tax....all the writers I have read propose a minimum income level which would be taxed at a lower rate or not at all, out of sensitivity to the needs of the very poor. Once you have any change from a single percent imposed on everyone, it is no longer a flat tax. Bear in mind a flat tax allows no deductions, exclusions, credits, etc. Most people believe that a rate of 14% would be necessary to develop the income government now derives from the income tax. The reality is this would entail a huge tax increase for the poor and middle class and a concurrent decrease in the tax burden for the wealthy. Few people believe that such an increase on the lower levels of income is fair, therefore, little actual support for a flat tax exists. candystripper [sm=pole.gif]

OneMoreWaste -> RE: Joe The Plumber: Obama Tax Plan 'Infuriates Me' (10/16/2008 10:26:14 PM)
This is a rare case where I post without reading all of the preceding posts, but my hand to God, I just don't have the stomach for it. "Joe the Plumber" Of all the cynical shit. It would be too much to believe if I hadn't seen all the shit leading up to it. This is what we've been reduced to? Really? REALLY? This is the Republic that Thomas Jefferson wrote of? Watching this ridiculous, half-bit, writer's-strike dog-and-pony-show BULLSHIT? Fuck a duck, people. Change the fucking channel already.

candystripper -> RE: Joe The Plumber: Obama Tax Plan 'Infuriates Me' (10/16/2008 10:30:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit I simply don't want a President who agrees with the idea of "sharing the wealth", because it comes right around to this bullshit socialist agenda of "economic fairness". Everything has to be "fair". No, we sure wouldn't want an outrageous idea like fairness spreading around. I'm all for fairness. Fairness would be taxing every American the same percentage of his income. The rich would pay more, the poor would pay less - they would all pay the same proportion though. That's fair. What's unfair is raising the percentage of tax paid based on income. Especially considering that those high income people would pay more in taxes anyway. How is it fair, by any definition of the word, to tell those people "yeah you know, there are a lot of people who want what you have, so I think we're going to take it from you and give it to them. We're talking about income here, not inherited wealth. Income is money earned. Considering that most people who earn a lot of money got there through hard work (high grades in HS, taking SAT prep instead of partying, maintaining scholarship-level grades in university (whether or not they were on scholarship), internships, entry level positions, and proving their worth enough to be promoted over maybe 20, 30 years) I think it's the epitome of UNfair to expect those people to subsidize people who didn't take that track. It's all well and good to get a liberal arts degree in philosophy instead of an MBA, but when you're making $40k and That Designer Blonde Bitch your artsy friends made fun of, who is now a CFO of a major corporation, is pulling in nearly $300k, you have NO right to whine and expect socialist policies to make things "fair" by some twisted definition of the word. FAIR is accepting consequences for your life decisions. That is the epitome of JUSTICE. MERCY on the other hand, is quite unfair. Lenience and sympathy? Also unfair. Compassionate clemency? Ditto. You can call socialism merciful, lenient, sympathetic, compassionate, etc. but in no way is it either just or fair. There are some good arguments for the progressive tax system (which both McCain and Obama support). * Wealthy citizens consume a disproportionate amount of governmental resources compared to poor and middle class people. It'd be hard to say the SEC benefits me, but it certainly benefits the wealthy investor who wants a fair shot at making money in the market. Their homes are more expensive, consuming more fire protection and police protection. Their children attend better funded schools, based on the inequality of the property tax. Etc. * Only under a progressive tax can you allow deductions, credits or exclusions. While I'm sure there are tax loopholes we'd all like to see plugged, few probably take issue with the deduction for dependents or the exclusion of certain social security income for seniors. Fewer still probably take issue with the deduction for child care or the exclusion of certain income set aside for retirement. * Only under a progressive tax system can you legislate changes to the tax code which may stimulate the economy or offset inflation, which many feel is a key function of the federal government. candystripper [sm=pole.gif]

slvemike4u -> RE: Joe The Plumber: Obama Tax Plan 'Infuriates Me' (10/16/2008 10:37:44 PM)
Wow Candstripper,in 2 post's you have done more with the flat tax nonsense than I have been able to do in 1 hour's worth of posting,I am either very tired or very stupid....thanks...I'm glad I checked in one last time before going to sleep...good night.....God I love smart strippers only joking ,please take no offence....mike.

candystripper -> RE: Joe The Plumber: Obama Tax Plan 'Infuriates Me' (10/16/2008 10:47:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Here's one link I found, and it looks pretty legit. The top 10% of taxpayers pay almost 71% of the taxes, while the bottom 50% only pays about 3%. http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6 So, tell me again mike - what is Obama going to do exactly to make that more fair? Sanity, that link displays some information on what is known as the effective tax rate -- the rate of tax after the adjusted gross income is computed. However, because it does not consider the effect of any 'below the line deductions' it is not a true represenatation what people actually paid.. In any event, the link does not display what portion of total government revenue from income tax is derived from any one tax bracket. What makes this even more complex is that every taxpayer in the top bracket has income by logical necessity has income in every bracket. It is only the last dollars earned which are taxed at the highest rate. candystripper [sm=pole.gif]

candystripper -> RE: Joe The Plumber: Obama Tax Plan 'Infuriates Me' (10/16/2008 10:54:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u And yet of the 41 states that have an income tax 35 use a graduated (re:progressive)tax plan.The federal income tax has been a graduated(re:progressive)since 1913....and still the rich manage to get rich and do well..is there a possibility this happens to work....or has it been unfair to all those entrepanuers and millionaires all these years.BTW you do realise the rich hire very competant tax lawyers to reduce their burden has much as possible...and they are quite good at it.....Somehow Elisabella we have muddled along with a Graduated tax plan for almost one hundred years....it seems to be working. Personally I don't see our (or rather, the US's, as I guess in a few months I'll be officially considered an expat) current economy as 'working.' I think our economy needs a lot of changes, and a flat tax would only be one of them. I think it would be better for our economy to tax high levels of savings rather than high levels of income - that would ensure that the money continues to fluctuate in the economy. A person making $2B a year isn't a problem in itself - it's when he saves $1.5B and removes it from the economy that things get muddy. I do have a question for you - if you think our current system is working so well, why are you voting for someone who bases his platform on 'change'? Remember, a flat tax allows no deductions, etc. It imposes a single percent of tax on income from any source. One of the ways the federal government historicially stimualted the economy or supressed inflation was to change the capital gains tax rate...however, under a flat tax system this would not be possible. candystripper [sm=pole.gif]

Naga -> RE: Joe The Plumber: Obama Tax Plan 'Infuriates Me' (10/16/2008 11:03:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDaveGuy69 In reply to Naga: "Over regulation"? Really? Then I guess every news source and politician in congress, even the president, got it all wrong over the past few weeks. They've all been telling me that it was a lack of regulation/oversight that caused the financial meltdown we're all enjoying. And to think I beleived them... Silly me. Yep, silly you. Trying looking at the history of economy especially what caused and constituted sustainable growth. Listening to a liberal media and liberal politicians and a president who is trying to keep things smooth and minimize panic through the election season is not going to edify you. Just because it is printed in the media, it means it is truth? Silly you.......

OneMoreWaste -> RE: Joe The Plumber: Obama Tax Plan 'Infuriates Me' (10/16/2008 11:05:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: candystripper few probably take issue with the deduction for dependents (snip) Fewer still probably take issue with the deduction for child care waves Breeders can pay for their own decisions. Don't you dare try sucking my wallet into your womb. You want to use the .gov's power to tax as a tool to further your social agenda? So do I.. Porn should be tax-deductible for married men! Tax credits for adopting wayward motorcycles of less than 1000 ccs! "Progressive" is a very media-friendly word for it. It's wealth redistribution via the Men With The Guns. Everybody's in favor of it as long as the dollars are sliding their way. Pfft.

candystripper -> RE: Joe The Plumber: Obama Tax Plan 'Infuriates Me' (10/16/2008 11:08:50 PM)
LMAO. No one, in any tax bracket, wants a flat tax. Where would wealthy people hide their income if there were no loopholes? Sorry you has issues with UMs. It seems to me you'd like a few younger taxpayers around for the time when you draw on government resources but are no longer working. candystripper [sm=pole.gif]

Naga -> RE: Joe The Plumber: Obama Tax Plan 'Infuriates Me' (10/16/2008 11:10:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u This post in its entirety has to be a joke.The theory the market can regulate itself ha been proven false,and anyone paying any attention at all knows this....As far as obscene risks,what risks...they just got bailed out to the tune of 750 billion dollars of taxpayer money.....please tell me you are being sarcastic here..please. Not at all. Where has it been proven false? Sources please. Your remarks fly in the face of every economic class I have taken and if you think about it, you can find examples at a personal level. Do you really think the bailout will really help? It doesn't and they are already talking about further economic "infusions" to try and fix things. But it is like pouring more water into a damn without fixing the hole; it just pours out again. Leave the election time rhetoric behind and you will see them singing a different tune after the election. It will be interesting to see what they pull out of their collective asses when it happens.

Naga -> RE: Joe The Plumber: Obama Tax Plan 'Infuriates Me' (10/16/2008 11:35:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife Really? Over-regulation? Is that why we have Bernanke, Bush, Paulson, and McCain, all historic deregulators now calling for more government regulation? Did I ever say they were right? I did say Obama was worse in his plans, however. quote: Exactly what massive Democratic spending plans did he rubberstamp? You mean things like the Medicare drug benefit, which was proposed by Bush and passed by a Republican Congress. The Republicans, in case you haven't been paying attention, have controlled the White House for almost 8 years and Congress for almost 12 of the last 14 years. The massive spending falls on their shoulders. Besides all of them? Bush set a record for the least vetoes of any American President. And none of those vetoes were budgetary in nature. He approved all of them. Every earmark, every pet project, every budget proposal. quote: Bush came into office with a budget surplus. The worst economic problem we had at the time was deciding what to do with the extra money. He has run a deficit in every single year he has been in office. In doing so he has managed to double the national debt in less than 8 years. Think about that for a minute. The total debt this country has accumulated since its founding has been doubled under Bush's two terms. False. There was no budget surplus. Period. The national debt was $4.351 trillion prior to the first fiscal budget authorized by President Clinton in 1994. When he left office in 2001, the debt was $5.770 trillion at the end of that fiscal year. Where is the surplus? It is a myth that liberals like to brag about, but you have to be inhaling quite a bit to swallow it. quote: Which, believe it or not, happened with Reagan too. That's the wonderful thing about these supply-side economic theories. You can do great by increasing your debt and everything just seems fine. Until the bills come due. Guess what's happening to our economy right now? How do you figure? When we look at the ten key economic variables, on eight of the ten variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years. Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years. Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years. Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency. The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s. The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years. Not too bad for the guy who liberals want to label a failure, eh?

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Joe The Plumber: Obama Tax Plan 'Infuriates Me' (10/16/2008 11:54:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Wow Candstripper,in 2 post's you have done more with the flat tax nonsense than I have been able to do in 1 hour's worth of posting,I am either very tired or very stupid....thanks...I'm glad I checked in one last time before going to sleep...good night.....God I love smart strippers only joking ,please take no offence....mike. Really! fabulous, innit? Let me make a couple other points regarding the "flat tax". Can anyone argue that Socialo Security and Medicare are not taxes? OK. Dunno what the current cutoff is now; let's say 100K. SS is, what, 7%? SO the guy who makes 99,999 has a higher tax rate, by 7%, than the gal who makes 100,001. That's how it works, currently. What is fair about that? Actually, it's quite a bit more than 7%. If the guy pays 25K, and the gal pays 32K, and their incomes are only 2 bucks apart, well, she's really paying, as a percentage of taxes paid, 28% more thasn the guy. Now, about how muh the top 5% pays, or whateer. Those stats are based on the number of returns filed. I'll just use some ballpark numbers beaus I don't feel like looking up the real numbers. It's the concept. So, 100MM (million) returns are filed. Of those, 40% pay nothing. They are NOT taxpayers. So 60MM pay something. Let's say the top 5% pay 50% of all personal income taxes. 5MM people. But 5/60 = 8.3% of those who pay taxes. A little different, yes? Also, does anyone know if all of those returns counted in those stats are personal returns? If corporate returns are included, the numbers are seriously skewed. Sales, gas, ad valorem, etc. are regressive taxes. If a family pays, say, $1000 a year in salews taxes, and makes 100K, they pay 1% of their income. If a family making 50K a year pays $1000, they are paying 2% of their income. How is THAT fair? A progressive tax system offsets that bias towards the wealthy, or at least helps narrow the total tax percentage gap. And candystripper is correct about the wealthy using more govt services. Not only the SEC, but also things like civil courts, Customs and Immigration (the rich travel abroad more), airports (they fly more, if they don't fly privately) (and if they fly privately, all these little airfields around the country require staffing. Poor folk don't fly Beavers), and a host of other goernment series.

douinjoisukenkak -> RE: Joe The Plumber: Obama Tax Plan 'Infuriates Me' (10/17/2008 12:39:58 AM)
I fully support a flat tax. I also believe that if people were required to actually pay taxes they would be a lot less likely to support idiotic ideas like federal health care programs and a nationalized education system. That shouldn't be taken to mean that I don't support health care or education I just think we would all be better served if the federal government was not involved in either.

LadyEllen -> RE: Joe The Plumber: Obama Tax Plan 'Infuriates Me' (10/17/2008 4:23:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella It's not like the people who pay higher taxes get more of a say in how the taxes are spent. I regard that as extremely questionable Elisabella; whilst politicians determine how taxes are spent, the politicans get elected on the strength of funding they receive to garner votes in their campaigns, and those with higher incomes can donate more to whichever candidate suits them better. That there is a quid pro quo in effect from the very outset (ie as a wealthy person I shall donate to the candidate whose tax plans will suit me most) would seem clear. And if I am one of those the candidate relies on for most of his/her funding, I am going to have his/her ear to amend policies such that they will suit me more. How it works in the US I'm not sure, but certainly over here the two parties that receive the most funding from the wealthy and from business have "leader's groups"; these are special groups for the largest donors only, whereby these donors get exclusive access to the party leaders in a way that grants them enormous influence on what a party might develop as policy. E

farglebargle -> RE: Joe The Plumber: Obama Tax Plan 'Infuriates Me' (10/17/2008 4:58:31 AM)
Know what really surprises me? No-one's observed that NOBODY reports 250k of income. TOPS is around 150, and you bury the rest in 'Deferred Compensation' or a trust. And if you're not, you need a new CPA.

Musicmystery -> RE: Joe The Plumber: Obama Tax Plan 'Infuriates Me' (10/17/2008 7:57:25 AM)
lol EXCELLENT point!

LaTigresse -> RE: Joe The Plumber: Obama Tax Plan 'Infuriates Me' (10/17/2008 8:35:29 AM)
Using fast reply......... Our accountant was just here for her monthly perusal of the books. Now, we pay ALOT of money to use the best and biggest accounting firm in the corridor area for a reason. They take very good care of us. Also, keep in mind that their clients are generally the wealthiest people in the two cities, many small businesses, and quite a few larger companies. After she was finished with her work, we began discussing politics. I really wanted her professional opinion on this tax issue and if she felt that Obama's plan really was going to be a problem for her clients. She laughed. Then she explained that one of her clients, a fairly well off gentleman that makes an average of $500,000.00 a year, said he was voting for McCain specifically because of this tax issue. Now, this is a woman that A. knows HIS finances and B. knows tax issues inside and out. She said to him , "Under Obama's plan, IF he got it through congress......big IF, you sir would pay $2,000.00 more a year. You are telling me that with an annual income of $500,000.00 you cannot handle $2,000.00?? I do your books, you spend more than that on one month's car payment." ANYONE that is basing their vote strictly on this issue is just a putz. That's all I can say on the matter.

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.602051E-02