McCain”s moral compass

[SDEngineer]

[quote=asianautica]

I agree that it won’t be easy to cut spending but I think with a Democrat controlled congress, that might help vs a Republican controlled congress and Bush as president. It might not be easy but I think it must be done.

I agree that the extreme overtime and double can only be done for a short period of time and when kids come, that can’t happen. But there’s a broad paint stroke of all people making $250k are just leeches of society and don’t deserve the $ they earn. They don’t work for their $, so they shouldn’t be rewarded.

If you think 250k HH income is rich, then you must also consider an individual making $125k to be rich too, right?
[/quote]

I must have missed the post where anyone claimed that someone making 250K+/yr are leeches of society or that they don’t deserve the $$$ that they earn.

Has anyone here (or anywhere) advocated a 100% tax rate on earnings above 125K that I missed?

I think the general consensus on the liberal side is that anyone making that amount certainly does deserve an increased income – but at the same time, since they are clearly reaping the greatest benefits of our economic policies, they should bear a greater marginal share of supporting our economic policies.

[temeculaguy]

I think that we all need to figure out what the tax rammifications of Obama being president will be and work around them. Not picking one or the other but I have a relative who has successfully selected the winner in every election since JFK during the primaries and she picked Obama before the California primary, so in my book it’s over. She’s not a scholar or an idealouge of any note but she accurately depicts the masses and I gauge things based on her choice, she is the Oracle in that respect. Reagan, JFK and Clinton (kinda, she still has her reservations because of his scandals) were the only three she really liked until Obama. The rest were just her picks but she isn’t happy with them in retrosepct (nixon, carter, ford, bush x 2, yet she picked them). If vegas took bets I would have wagered months ago, she’s undefeated.

I personally am a little afraid of both for different reasons and don’t think anyone will do very well no matter who they are because this is a down cycle overall to take the helm, but I think it’s pretty much over, start hiding your money, look at the bright side, national health care is long overdue.

I’m still mad that Mitt is out, the country was ready for a woman or an African American president but a Morman was just too much for them, pity, he was the best economist of the bunch.

[temeculaguy]

I think that we all need to figure out what the tax rammifications of Obama being president will be and work around them. Not picking one or the other but I have a relative who has successfully selected the winner in every election since JFK during the primaries and she picked Obama before the California primary, so in my book it’s over. She’s not a scholar or an idealouge of any note but she accurately depicts the masses and I gauge things based on her choice, she is the Oracle in that respect. Reagan, JFK and Clinton (kinda, she still has her reservations because of his scandals) were the only three she really liked until Obama. The rest were just her picks but she isn’t happy with them in retrosepct (nixon, carter, ford, bush x 2, yet she picked them). If vegas took bets I would have wagered months ago, she’s undefeated.

I personally am a little afraid of both for different reasons and don’t think anyone will do very well no matter who they are because this is a down cycle overall to take the helm, but I think it’s pretty much over, start hiding your money, look at the bright side, national health care is long overdue.

I’m still mad that Mitt is out, the country was ready for a woman or an African American president but a Morman was just too much for them, pity, he was the best economist of the bunch.

[temeculaguy]

I think that we all need to figure out what the tax rammifications of Obama being president will be and work around them. Not picking one or the other but I have a relative who has successfully selected the winner in every election since JFK during the primaries and she picked Obama before the California primary, so in my book it’s over. She’s not a scholar or an idealouge of any note but she accurately depicts the masses and I gauge things based on her choice, she is the Oracle in that respect. Reagan, JFK and Clinton (kinda, she still has her reservations because of his scandals) were the only three she really liked until Obama. The rest were just her picks but she isn’t happy with them in retrosepct (nixon, carter, ford, bush x 2, yet she picked them). If vegas took bets I would have wagered months ago, she’s undefeated.

I personally am a little afraid of both for different reasons and don’t think anyone will do very well no matter who they are because this is a down cycle overall to take the helm, but I think it’s pretty much over, start hiding your money, look at the bright side, national health care is long overdue.

I’m still mad that Mitt is out, the country was ready for a woman or an African American president but a Morman was just too much for them, pity, he was the best economist of the bunch.

[temeculaguy]

I think that we all need to figure out what the tax rammifications of Obama being president will be and work around them. Not picking one or the other but I have a relative who has successfully selected the winner in every election since JFK during the primaries and she picked Obama before the California primary, so in my book it’s over. She’s not a scholar or an idealouge of any note but she accurately depicts the masses and I gauge things based on her choice, she is the Oracle in that respect. Reagan, JFK and Clinton (kinda, she still has her reservations because of his scandals) were the only three she really liked until Obama. The rest were just her picks but she isn’t happy with them in retrosepct (nixon, carter, ford, bush x 2, yet she picked them). If vegas took bets I would have wagered months ago, she’s undefeated.

I personally am a little afraid of both for different reasons and don’t think anyone will do very well no matter who they are because this is a down cycle overall to take the helm, but I think it’s pretty much over, start hiding your money, look at the bright side, national health care is long overdue.

I’m still mad that Mitt is out, the country was ready for a woman or an African American president but a Morman was just too much for them, pity, he was the best economist of the bunch.

[temeculaguy]

I think that we all need to figure out what the tax rammifications of Obama being president will be and work around them. Not picking one or the other but I have a relative who has successfully selected the winner in every election since JFK during the primaries and she picked Obama before the California primary, so in my book it’s over. She’s not a scholar or an idealouge of any note but she accurately depicts the masses and I gauge things based on her choice, she is the Oracle in that respect. Reagan, JFK and Clinton (kinda, she still has her reservations because of his scandals) were the only three she really liked until Obama. The rest were just her picks but she isn’t happy with them in retrosepct (nixon, carter, ford, bush x 2, yet she picked them). If vegas took bets I would have wagered months ago, she’s undefeated.

I personally am a little afraid of both for different reasons and don’t think anyone will do very well no matter who they are because this is a down cycle overall to take the helm, but I think it’s pretty much over, start hiding your money, look at the bright side, national health care is long overdue.

I’m still mad that Mitt is out, the country was ready for a woman or an African American president but a Morman was just too much for them, pity, he was the best economist of the bunch.

[orthofrancis]

When I saw who McCain hired as his fundraising chirperson, I saw that his moral compass was headed towards no good land.

He hired Carly Fiorina, the forced out ex-chair of Hewlett-Packard, who reduced the company’s wealth by 50%, continually outsourced jobs overseas, and was implicated in the compay’s internal spying/bugging scandal.

Dumps first wife after car accident, remaries one month after divorce,
Keating Five.

No thanks.

[orthofrancis]

When I saw who McCain hired as his fundraising chirperson, I saw that his moral compass was headed towards no good land.

He hired Carly Fiorina, the forced out ex-chair of Hewlett-Packard, who reduced the company’s wealth by 50%, continually outsourced jobs overseas, and was implicated in the compay’s internal spying/bugging scandal.

Dumps first wife after car accident, remaries one month after divorce,
Keating Five.

No thanks.

[orthofrancis]

When I saw who McCain hired as his fundraising chirperson, I saw that his moral compass was headed towards no good land.

He hired Carly Fiorina, the forced out ex-chair of Hewlett-Packard, who reduced the company’s wealth by 50%, continually outsourced jobs overseas, and was implicated in the compay’s internal spying/bugging scandal.

Dumps first wife after car accident, remaries one month after divorce,
Keating Five.

No thanks.

[orthofrancis]

When I saw who McCain hired as his fundraising chirperson, I saw that his moral compass was headed towards no good land.

He hired Carly Fiorina, the forced out ex-chair of Hewlett-Packard, who reduced the company’s wealth by 50%, continually outsourced jobs overseas, and was implicated in the compay’s internal spying/bugging scandal.

Dumps first wife after car accident, remaries one month after divorce,
Keating Five.

No thanks.

[orthofrancis]

When I saw who McCain hired as his fundraising chirperson, I saw that his moral compass was headed towards no good land.

He hired Carly Fiorina, the forced out ex-chair of Hewlett-Packard, who reduced the company’s wealth by 50%, continually outsourced jobs overseas, and was implicated in the compay’s internal spying/bugging scandal.

Dumps first wife after car accident, remaries one month after divorce,
Keating Five.

No thanks.

[EconProf]

I’m seeing a lot of familiar arguments hurdled back and forth in the above posts about the “fairness” of our progressive income tax system, our distribution of income in America, and income mobility over time. We are getting bogged down in anecdotal evidence, sweeping generalizations, and ad hominem attacks. Here are a few empirically verifiable observations that should contribute to our understanding:
1. There is a huge, largely unpublicized, correlation between family income and hours worked annually.
Sounds simple, and it is. The poor simply work less, for a variety of reasons.
2. The income tax rate structure is already extremely “progressive” if measured by the % paid by each quintile. The lowest two quintiles pay less than 5% of the revenues, the top quintile pays over half.
3. Historically, increases in marginal tax rates NEVER bring in the predicted tax revenues. People can simply work less or arrange their affairs to legally (or illegally) pay less. Indeed, regarding the capital gains tax rate, there is a perfect record going back decades of lower rates bringing in more tax revenue, and higher rates less revenue.

[EconProf]

I’m seeing a lot of familiar arguments hurdled back and forth in the above posts about the “fairness” of our progressive income tax system, our distribution of income in America, and income mobility over time. We are getting bogged down in anecdotal evidence, sweeping generalizations, and ad hominem attacks. Here are a few empirically verifiable observations that should contribute to our understanding:
1. There is a huge, largely unpublicized, correlation between family income and hours worked annually.
Sounds simple, and it is. The poor simply work less, for a variety of reasons.
2. The income tax rate structure is already extremely “progressive” if measured by the % paid by each quintile. The lowest two quintiles pay less than 5% of the revenues, the top quintile pays over half.
3. Historically, increases in marginal tax rates NEVER bring in the predicted tax revenues. People can simply work less or arrange their affairs to legally (or illegally) pay less. Indeed, regarding the capital gains tax rate, there is a perfect record going back decades of lower rates bringing in more tax revenue, and higher rates less revenue.

[EconProf]

I’m seeing a lot of familiar arguments hurdled back and forth in the above posts about the “fairness” of our progressive income tax system, our distribution of income in America, and income mobility over time. We are getting bogged down in anecdotal evidence, sweeping generalizations, and ad hominem attacks. Here are a few empirically verifiable observations that should contribute to our understanding:
1. There is a huge, largely unpublicized, correlation between family income and hours worked annually.
Sounds simple, and it is. The poor simply work less, for a variety of reasons.
2. The income tax rate structure is already extremely “progressive” if measured by the % paid by each quintile. The lowest two quintiles pay less than 5% of the revenues, the top quintile pays over half.
3. Historically, increases in marginal tax rates NEVER bring in the predicted tax revenues. People can simply work less or arrange their affairs to legally (or illegally) pay less. Indeed, regarding the capital gains tax rate, there is a perfect record going back decades of lower rates bringing in more tax revenue, and higher rates less revenue.

[EconProf]

I’m seeing a lot of familiar arguments hurdled back and forth in the above posts about the “fairness” of our progressive income tax system, our distribution of income in America, and income mobility over time. We are getting bogged down in anecdotal evidence, sweeping generalizations, and ad hominem attacks. Here are a few empirically verifiable observations that should contribute to our understanding:
1. There is a huge, largely unpublicized, correlation between family income and hours worked annually.
Sounds simple, and it is. The poor simply work less, for a variety of reasons.
2. The income tax rate structure is already extremely “progressive” if measured by the % paid by each quintile. The lowest two quintiles pay less than 5% of the revenues, the top quintile pays over half.
3. Historically, increases in marginal tax rates NEVER bring in the predicted tax revenues. People can simply work less or arrange their affairs to legally (or illegally) pay less. Indeed, regarding the capital gains tax rate, there is a perfect record going back decades of lower rates bringing in more tax revenue, and higher rates less revenue.

[Author]

Posts