166 replies to this topic

[Callao]

I found this table from National Taxpayers Union for Tax Year 2006:

_Percentiles_________Percentage of Federal__
Ranked by AGI______Personal Income Tax Paid

Top 1%_________________39.89%
Top 5%_________________60.14%
Top 10%________________70.79%
Top 25%________________86.27%
Top 50%________________97.01%
Bottom 50%______________2.99%

I don't want to hear anybody talk about how middle Americans or poor people need a tax cut. Obama's plan, more and more, sounds like a campaign strategy designed simply to entice the largest body of voters, and has attempted to create a caste system in this country by making this country's wealthy into the bad guys.

Just remember, those bad guys are paying YOUR taxes. Unfortunately, they also have to pay YOUR wages.
An economic principle suggests that even rich people have a limited budget. You already know that their income and capital gains will remain the same: rich people are also very smart people and know how to do this. Therefore, any extra taxes they have to pay will come out of YOUR check.

[Peter]

Callao, on Sep 18 2008, 09:09 PM, said:

I found this table from National Taxpayers Union for Tax Year 2006:

_Percentiles_________Percentage of Federal__
Ranked by AGI______Personal Income Tax Paid

Top 1%_________________39.89%
Top 5%_________________60.14%
Top 10%________________70.79%
Top 25%________________86.27%
Top 50%________________97.01%
Bottom 50%______________2.99%

I don't want to hear anybody talk about how middle Americans or poor people need a tax cut. Obama's plan, more and more, sounds like a campaign strategy designed simply to entice the largest body of voters, and has attempted to create a caste system in this country by making this country's wealthy into the bad guys.

Just remember, those bad guys are paying YOUR taxes. Unfortunately, they also have to pay YOUR wages.
An economic principle suggests that even rich people have a limited budget. You already know that their income and capital gains will remain the same: rich people are also very smart people and know how to do this. Therefore, any extra taxes they have to pay will come out of YOUR check.

1. Your data is from the National Taxpayers Union, a group that sounds objective, but is really a small lobbying organization that is trying to enact Mike Huckabee's "Fair Tax." How about some data from the IRS?

2. You're trying to make it sound like socialism, just like Rudy Guiliani did last week on Meet The Press. People like Warren Buffett and T. Boone Pickens would not be supporting Obama if they thought it was socialism. Buffett has said that he thinks he can pay more and should pay more.

3. "rich people are also very smart people" Really, all of them?

4. "any extra taxes they have to pay will come out of YOUR check." Not so sure it's that simple.

[cjb]

Skier, on Sep 19 2008, 08:07 AM, said:

1. Your data is from the National Taxpayers Union, a group that sounds objective, but is really a small lobbying organization that is trying to enact Mike Huckabee's "Fair Tax." How about some data from the IRS?

2. You're trying to make it sound like socialism, just like Rudy Guiliani did last week on Meet The Press. People like Warren Buffett and T. Boone Pickens would not be supporting Obama if they thought it was socialism. Buffett has said that he thinks he can pay more and should pay more.

3. "rich people are also very smart people" Really, all of them?

4. "any extra taxes they have to pay will come out of YOUR check." Not so sure it's that simple.

1. I bet this is accurate, seems to jibe with other #'s I have read.

2. Definition of scialism is below; so taking money from one person and giving it to another IS socialism.
Socialism: A. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
B. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
C. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

3. You are right, most of the rich in Hollywood can be eliminated, along with a few lucky lotto winners, and trust funders. The rest earned their money through discipline, hard work, smart decisions, and the courage to take chances. 66% of the people on forbes richest (400?) list have fortunes that were ENTIRELY self made. While only 19% enherited their entire fortune.
If Buffet wants to pay more then that is what charities are for, but he should not be forcing others to pay more, especially when Rich means people making a couple HUNDRETHS of what he does per year.

4. It is that simple, their tax costs go up and they will try to reduce expenses down by cutting benefits, hiring, wages, investments (perhaps in a product that you make) etc. You will also lose as a consumer because prices on goods will also go up to help offset the higher tax burdens.

This post has been edited by cjb: 19 September 2008 - 09:00 AM

[skier691]

I hate paying taxes. Everyone does. Voting just based on lowering taxes is a bad idea, but catchy for some. Cutting taxes will not help anything but is good PR for the Obama/McCain camps. Cutting funding, dries up important money that could be spent on things of importance, like fixing roads, railroads. The nation spends to much on frivless things and spends too much time helping everyone but its own people. People should take responsibility for their own f-ups. States need more money for education, and to spend that money on real education, not just to fund a new outdoor track or 3 hour bus trips to play football. Lets build roads that last more than 3-5 years, and fund railroads that are becoming a more efficient way to move things. Missing tax money will come from somewhere. Maybe if we just taxed all imports, and used that money to support American ideas and business, thing could improve. Buying into China, which I have to do a lot of, builds their economy, not ours. When the flow of money out is greater than in, you end up in situations like this. I say if they taxed every text message that is sent, and tax all the bottled water that is sold, we'd be golden.

This post has been edited by skier691: 19 September 2008 - 09:43 AM

[aug]

Taxes fund the war in Iraq and the weapons contractors . Your tax dollars hard at work helping murder inocent civilians in Iraq and Afganistan.( Some may call it collatoral damage to justify it) I am trying to think of what good has come to America from this war effort??? Just think what the politicians could do with all of that money ...... If only there was not this war on terror. One of these days we are going to get all of those evil doers and eliminate terror world wide.

[mikest2]

Canada's election is on a slightly smaller scale, but you can only imagine what good could be done with all of the money and energy that goes into an election campaign !

[Andoman]

aug, on Sep 19 2008, 01:38 PM, said:

Taxes fund the war in Iraq and the weapons contractors . Your tax dollars hard at work helping murder inocent civilians in Iraq and Afganistan.( Some may call it collatoral damage to justify it) I am trying to think of what good has come to America from this war effort??? Just think what the politicians could do with all of that money ...... If only there was not this war on terror. One of these days we are going to get all of those evil doers and eliminate terror world wide.

innocent??? Are you one of those people that thinks Adolf was innocent too?

[Callao]

Skier, on Sep 19 2008, 09:07 AM, said:

1. Your data is from the National Taxpayers Union, a group that sounds objective, but is really a small lobbying organization that is trying to enact Mike Huckabee's "Fair Tax." How about some data from the IRS?

2. You're trying to make it sound like socialism, just like Rudy Guiliani did last week on Meet The Press. People like Warren Buffett and T. Boone Pickens would not be supporting Obama if they thought it was socialism. Buffett has said that he thinks he can pay more and should pay more.

3. "rich people are also very smart people" Really, all of them?

4. "any extra taxes they have to pay will come out of YOUR check." Not so sure it's that simple.

All your arguments are valid, albeit, arguably irrelevant. Sure enough, most of my comments were simplifications of very complicated ideas. Not all rich people are smart. Comment 4 is definitely not so simple. Comment 2, although I did not use the word socialism, that apparently is what it sounds like to you. I agree! And for the National Taxpayer Union, you are right. They cite the IRS, but they are not the IRS. Please though, moderator, if you dis my source, there is no better way to spread correct information than by replacing it with a better source of your own. Since you have not, I will gladly do it for you. This time.
You can find more raw tax income data stuff at
http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/ar...=133521,00.html
Surf down to the "Tax Generated" row, and click on the 2006 Excel file.

[aug]

Andoman, on Sep 19 2008, 05:04 PM, said:

innocent??? Are you one of those people that thinks Adolf was innocent too?

I am not talking about insurgents but innocent people who just got in the way of our war on terrorisim. And you are way off base with the innocent Adolf comment.

[k2skier]

WHY DID WE INVADE IRAQ WHEN 15 OF THE 19 TERRORISTS WERE FROM SAUDI ARABI

Bill Moyer's Journal

BAD MONEY: RECKLESS FINANCE, FAILED POLITICS, AND THE GLOBAL CRISIS OF AMERICAN CAPITALISM.
by Kevin Phillips

http://www.pbs.org/m...008/watch2.html

Watch the video, very frank, scary, and eye opening. He hammers both parties and both candidates. Check it out at 21:10, he comments on Bush.
BTW, yes, by the definition of "terrorism" by the Patriot Act, George W Bush is a terrorist. He made most Americans associate Muslim and Islam with terrorism, (he made us scared and prejudice=terrorism) when Islam is no more violent than Christianity. He inflicted fear and terror in the majority of Americans.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/ge...publ056.107.pdf
The patriot Act
SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.

‘‘(B) appear to be intended—
"[i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population
‘‘(ii) to influence the polciy of a government by
intimidation or coercion;

WHY DID WE INVADE IRAQ WHEN 15 OF THE 19 TERRORISTS WERE FROM SAUDI ARABI

[Andoman]

aug, on Sep 20 2008, 12:13 AM, said:

I am not talking about insurgents but innocent people who just got in the way of our war on terrorisim. And you are way off base with the innocent Adolf comment.

I probably went a little far with the Adolf comment and I apologize but most (if not all) of the innocent people killed in Iraq have been killed by the insurgents, and other fractions of their own country. I hope your not one of those people that believes our troops have killed 75,000 "innocent" people.

k2skier, on Sep 20 2008, 01:30 AM, said:

WHY DID WE INVADE IRAQ WHEN 15 OF THE 19 TERRORISTS WERE FROM SAUDI ARABI

Bill Moyer's Journal

BAD MONEY: RECKLESS FINANCE, FAILED POLITICS, AND THE GLOBAL CRISIS OF AMERICAN CAPITALISM.
by Kevin Phillips

http://www.pbs.org/m...008/watch2.html

Watch the video, very frank, scary, and eye opening. He hammers both parties and both candidates. Check it out at 21:10, he comments on Bush.
BTW, yes, by the definition of "terrorism" by the Patriot Act, George W Bush is a terrorist. He made most Americans associate Muslim and Islam with terrorism, (he made us scared and prejudice=terrorism) when Islam is no more violent than Christianity. He inflicted fear and terror in the majority of Americans.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/ge...publ056.107.pdf
The patriot Act
SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.

‘‘(B) appear to be intended—
"[i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population
‘‘(ii) to influence the polciy of a government by
intimidation or coercion;

WHY DID WE INVADE IRAQ WHEN 15 OF THE 19 TERRORISTS WERE FROM SAUDI ARABI

Wasn't the shoe bomber a brit? So are you saying we should bomb england?

This post has been edited by skiersage: 20 September 2008 - 09:15 AM

[k2skier]

Andoman, on Sep 20 2008, 10:03 AM, said:

I probably went a little far with the Adolf comment and I apologize but most (if not all) of the innocent people killed in Iraq have been killed by the insurgents, and other fractions of their own country. I hope your not one of those people that believes our troops have killed 75,000 "innocent" people.

No, the numbers of civilian "collateral damage" is higher.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Iraq was never a hot bed for terrorists, there were other dictators as bad or worse than Saddam.

Why did we invade Iraq when the majority of the hi-jacker from 9-11 were from Saudi Arabia. Can no one answer this question? We now know it had nothing to do with WMD's, because the intelligence was falsified so we could get congressional approval to invade since we didn't get UN approval.

Andoman, on Sep 20 2008, 10:11 AM, said:

Wasn't the shoe bomber a brit? So are you saying we should bomb england?

No. My point is; Do we invade Mexico because Canada bombs us?

Who did we attack after Pearl Harbor? Did we attack Switzerland? Brazil? No we attacked the country that attacked us. So why aren't we going after Saudi Arabia, instead of Iraq, for avenging 9-11?

This post has been edited by k2skier: 20 September 2008 - 09:24 AM

[aug]

Andoman, on Sep 20 2008, 10:03 AM, said:

I probably went a little far with the Adolf comment and I apologize but most (if not all) of the innocent people killed in Iraq have been killed by the insurgents, and other fractions of their own country. I hope your not one of those people that believes our troops have killed 75,000 "innocent" people.

Indirectly our country is responsible for all of the war related deaths in Iraq. We chose to use their country as the battlefield for our war on terror (Maybe because we would like to have more control of their oil resources? Not because of WMDs that never existed. ). As for how I would feel if a foriegn country occupied the United States , toppled my government , screwed up the infrastructure , etc, etc. I would definitly be very upset and be an insurgent myself .... ohh excuse me that would be better defined as a Patriot standing up against tyranny.. and defending my country . You see the word patriot is very interchangable with words like , insurgent , freedom fighter , contra .... go wolverines! It is all a matter of what side of the fence you are on. Apology accepted Aug

This post has been edited by aug: 20 September 2008 - 09:41 AM

[k2skier]

Some of you younger folk might not remember who the US military helped supply weapons to during the late 70's through the mid 80's to help out Afghanistan during Russia's invasion of Afghanistan.

Who was this group, and who was the groups' leader?

[aug]

k2skier, on Sep 20 2008, 10:28 AM, said:

Some of you younger folk might not remember who the US military helped supply weapons to during the late 70's through the mid 80's to help out Afghanistan during Russia's invasion of Afghanistan.

Who was this group, and who was the groups' leader?

something binladen..... taliban ... religious extremists ..... freedom fighters trying to dispose of those evil commie bastards who wrongfully invaded thier country .. the pot calling the kettle black ... I really question the moral objectives of our government democratic or republican...

This post has been edited by aug: 20 September 2008 - 09:34 AM

[Andoman]

aug, on Sep 20 2008, 01:20 PM, said:

Indirectly our country is responsible for all of the war related deaths in Iraq. We chose to use their country as the battlefield for our war on terror (Maybe because we would like to have more control of their oil resources?). As for how I would feel if a foriegn country occupied the United States , toppled my government , screwed up the infrastructure , etc, etc. I would definitly be very upset and be an insurgent myself .... ohh excuse me that would be better defined as a Patriot standing up against tyranny.. and defending my country . You see the word patriot is very interchangable with words like , insurgent , freedom fighter , contra .... it is all a matter of what side of the fence you are on. Apology accepted Aug

I guess i see it a little differently, given your scenario, if our country was toppled (i'm not going to get into the whole argument about why we're there i just want to address this point) and my fellow countrymen took up arms against an invasive force that's fine. But if that force was all Canadians(or Mexicans) running across the boarder and killing innocent people or my fellow countrymen were slaughtering innocent people then i wouldn't blame the "invasive country" for those problem i would blame the insurgents and help fight those people. I don't care if the iraqi people took up arm against the usa over there, really it would show signs of the Iraqi people growing a set, signaling the time for us to leave which i believe is coming soon. The people in Iraq are starting to stabilize the country themselves and just like WWII we still have troops in germany and japan, I'm sure some small level of troops will be there for some time but I think the majority of our troops will leave the country within the next year or two.

[aug]

Andoman, on Sep 20 2008, 10:44 AM, said:

I guess i see it a little differently, given your scenario, if our country was toppled (i'm not going to get into the whole argument about why we're there i just want to address this point) and my fellow countrymen took up arms against an invasive force that's fine. But if that force was all Canadians(or Mexicans) running across the boarder and killing innocent people or my fellow countrymen were slaughtering innocent people then i wouldn't blame the "invasive country" for those problem i would blame the insurgents and help fight those people. I don't care if the iraqi people took up arm against the usa over there, really it would show signs of the Iraqi people growing a set, signaling the time for us to leave which i believe is coming soon. The people in Iraq are starting to stabilize the country themselves and just like WWII we still have troops in germany and japan, I'm sure some small level of troops will be there for some time but I think the majority of our troops will leave the country within the next year or two.

The native insurgents are killing their neighbors because they co-operate with the occupation force ... colaborators ... When the Germans invaded France the "underground" made sure that the colaborators paid the ultimate price for traitorous actions like co-operating with the occupation force. This is the insurgents motive for killing civilians. You could argue all you wanted about the reasons why we invaded Iraq. The fact still remains that because of our actions we have displaced an extraordinary number of peoples lives foriegn and domesticly. Just because we got caught with our pants down on 9/11/01 does not give us the carte blanche to spread terror ourselves. I do not agree with the Christian Crusades of the middle ages and I do not agree with this new version(Bush's) of it.

This post has been edited by aug: 20 September 2008 - 10:03 AM

[k2skier]

The war on terror is a war on peace. Power to the Peaceful. The war on terror will be as successful as the war on drugs.

http://spearheadvibr...s.com/watch.php

[Andoman]

aug, on Sep 20 2008, 02:02 PM, said:

The native insurgents are killing their neighbors because they co-operate with the occupation force ... colaborators ... When the Germans invaded France the "underground" made sure that the colaborators paid the ultimate price for traitorous actions like co-operating with the occupation force. This is the insurgents motive for killing civilians. You could argue all you wanted about the reasons why we invaded Iraq. The fact still remains that because of our actions we have displaced an extraordinary number of peoples lives foriegn and domesticly. Just because we got caught with our pants down on 9/11/01 does not give us the carte blanche to spread terror ourselves. I do not agree with the Christian Crusades of the middle ages and I do not agree with this new version(Bush's) of it.

I don't see blowing up buses, and school kids as collaborators I see it as a fear tactic to scare the people into not going against a group of just plain evil insurgents. Yes, I believe these people are truly evil, anyone to sends grade school age children, mentally handicapped people, and drugged women to suicide bomb innocent people are evil. Again, I won't argue why we're in Iraq, if you don't like it complain to your congress members they voted for it just like the brits.

k2skier, on Sep 20 2008, 02:12 PM, said:

The war on terror is a war on peace. Power to the Peaceful. The war on terror will be as successful as the war on drugs.

http://spearheadvibr...s.com/watch.php

So should we let drugs run ramped in the streets? I could care less about weed, but all the opioids and man made brain killers are not something we should let run ramped in our streets. It sounds to me like your a fan of giving up when things are difficult.

The peaceful are a group of people that are waiting to get dominated by the evil.

[aug]

Andoman, on Sep 20 2008, 11:57 AM, said:

I don't see blowing up buses, and school kids as collaborators I see it as a fear tactic to scare the people into not going against a group of just plain evil insurgents. Yes, I believe these people are truly evil, anyone to sends grade school age children, mentally handicapped people, and drugged women to suicide bomb innocent people are evil. Again, I won't argue why we're in Iraq, if you don't like it complain to your congress members they voted for it just like the brits.

This cycle must be stopped and we just perpetuate it by invading countrys against the will of the UN.

Quote

So should we let drugs run ramped in the streets? I could care less about weed, but all the opioids and man made brain killers are not something we should let run ramped in our streets. It sounds to me like your a fan of giving up when things are difficult.

The peaceful are a group of people that are waiting to get dominated by the evil.

The meek shall inherit the earth too bad it will be all f----d up by un peacefull evil people when we do. Yes all drugs should be legal. We should not let it run rampant in the streets. At least then the black market for drugs will be decreased if not all together eliminated. And think of the tax revenues that could be generated by the regulated sale and taxation of recreational drugs and it could be used for the national good or the funding of wars, instead of letting the drug lords reap all of the easy profits from the drug trade. Another added benefit that the jail and prison space would be freed up for real criminals and not just small time dealers and users. Darwinisim would also play a role and thin the gene pool of persons who are addicted to drugs easily. These people could get all the drugs they needed with out having to steal and they would ultimatly live very short lives and die of drug addiction. Now I know that it would be morally correct to send these sorts to a rehab center but the majority are going to relapse anyway so what is the point of trying to help them if they do not want to help themselves.