OT: Unbiased analysis of Obama and McCain tax plans

[afx114]

Let us also not forget that the current leader of the free world got to where he is because of his his family and their money, not his merits. And look what it has gotten us: the largest growth in income disparity in a long time. If that’s not a strong argument against aristocracy, then I don’t know what is.

[Coronita]

There's really no point in debating this because apparently some folks feel they are entitled to the earnings of others that make more than them… BUT, I'm trying to understand what this means….

Once you have a large amount of money, earning money is no longer about hard work or productivity; it's about being a financial parasite, because whatever you "earn" comes out of the productive economy.

 

I'm trying to understand how someone's wealth has a direct impact on someone else not having money. The way I look at this, is it's a chicken or egg issue.

Relaxed lending lend to financially irresponsible people to overleverage and are now dirt poor. It takes two to tango. I find it hard to understand how your average j6p that overleveraged isn't somehow responsible for going to the poorhouse himself, and why government must do wealth redistribution to help them. Or that the very same people that the gov is attempting to bailout (or at least that's what they are selling it under) and which those very americans want the government to do are inevitably are directly/indirectly the reason why Fed lowered rates, trying to bailout the homowners, and in the process, wrecking the dollar and creating inflation that is making it difficult for a lot more americans.

 

I do admit that there are a very very very very tiny percentage of the population that make an insane amount of money. I won't speculate whether that's right or wrong (personally, I see nothing wrong with it.) BUT, if obama really wanted to do this robin hood thing of taking from the rich and redistributing to the "poor(er)", why oh why is he drawing the line at the $250k household level…..and not targeting this specifically at those ubber rich people???

You can argue all you want whether people with household incomes in the $250k range is considered rich or not… But for a relatively decent profession of two households with technical professions, this isn't that hard to achieve, especially if you stuck with engineering or relevant science degree that commands this salary. There are plenty of households that have a dual income arrangement. And if you were to split the household up into two singles, this would be the equivalent of two singles making $125k each…So I would say, if obama does indeed impose the $250k limit per household but doesn't equally apply this to singles making $125k or more, it really just is another marriage tax penalty, because a couple could skirt this by simply getting a divorce…(Hmmmmm…) If on the other hand, he really means $250k household and $125k singles, I have a feeling a lot more you would suddenly start to complain about this, because this isn't really taxing just the rich anymore, is it???

Frankly, me thinks obama is drawing the line at the $250k level is so he can avoid really putting on a hefty tax on those ubber rich people….you know, the very same type people that are funding BOTH obama and mccain's campaign…and these politicians obviously don't want to piss off these really rich people…So the next best thing is to tax the living hell out of higher salaried employees because (a) there's more of them (b) they have relatively more money to redistribute relative to the rest of the middle class and "poor" and (c)yet they really don't have the financial influence do any damage to one's political campaign. Meanwhile, it's a great sell to the more middle class and lower income earners as "I'm taxing the rich".

I'm willing to bet money CEO's and bigwigs will like always skirt some of these new taxes, such as giving up salaries ($0 salaries) and being exclusively compensated by stocks such that they don't have to pay the higher social security taxes, which Obama is proposing, that are levied on W-2s with no upper cutoff ….but not on capital gains …Don't get me wrong, I think the ubber rich still pay a lot of taxes, but these Obama "changes" me thinks are going to hurt those salaried professions the most who don't have access to the company's board of directors to rewrite their compensation packages….

So… If this new "rich" tax that Obama is proposing is only for $250k households, and not $125k singles, one can conclude Obama doesn't care about family values, right? And if it does imply "rich" defined as singles making $125k, a lot more of you are screwed too. I wonder if Obama has clarified this (or is he going to pull a fast one once elected)

 

Like I always said, the best government, is always an ineffective one that doesn't get stuff done.

 

 

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

There's really no point in debating this because apparently some folks feel they are entitled to the earnings of others that make more than them… BUT, I'm trying to understand what this means….

Once you have a large amount of money, earning money is no longer about hard work or productivity; it's about being a financial parasite, because whatever you "earn" comes out of the productive economy.

 

I'm trying to understand how someone's wealth has a direct impact on someone else not having money. The way I look at this, is it's a chicken or egg issue.

Relaxed lending lend to financially irresponsible people to overleverage and are now dirt poor. It takes two to tango. I find it hard to understand how your average j6p that overleveraged isn't somehow responsible for going to the poorhouse himself, and why government must do wealth redistribution to help them. Or that the very same people that the gov is attempting to bailout (or at least that's what they are selling it under) and which those very americans want the government to do are inevitably are directly/indirectly the reason why Fed lowered rates, trying to bailout the homowners, and in the process, wrecking the dollar and creating inflation that is making it difficult for a lot more americans.

 

I do admit that there are a very very very very tiny percentage of the population that make an insane amount of money. I won't speculate whether that's right or wrong (personally, I see nothing wrong with it.) BUT, if obama really wanted to do this robin hood thing of taking from the rich and redistributing to the "poor(er)", why oh why is he drawing the line at the $250k household level…..and not targeting this specifically at those ubber rich people???

You can argue all you want whether people with household incomes in the $250k range is considered rich or not… But for a relatively decent profession of two households with technical professions, this isn't that hard to achieve, especially if you stuck with engineering or relevant science degree that commands this salary. There are plenty of households that have a dual income arrangement. And if you were to split the household up into two singles, this would be the equivalent of two singles making $125k each…So I would say, if obama does indeed impose the $250k limit per household but doesn't equally apply this to singles making $125k or more, it really just is another marriage tax penalty, because a couple could skirt this by simply getting a divorce…(Hmmmmm…) If on the other hand, he really means $250k household and $125k singles, I have a feeling a lot more you would suddenly start to complain about this, because this isn't really taxing just the rich anymore, is it???

Frankly, me thinks obama is drawing the line at the $250k level is so he can avoid really putting on a hefty tax on those ubber rich people….you know, the very same type people that are funding BOTH obama and mccain's campaign…and these politicians obviously don't want to piss off these really rich people…So the next best thing is to tax the living hell out of higher salaried employees because (a) there's more of them (b) they have relatively more money to redistribute relative to the rest of the middle class and "poor" and (c)yet they really don't have the financial influence do any damage to one's political campaign. Meanwhile, it's a great sell to the more middle class and lower income earners as "I'm taxing the rich".

I'm willing to bet money CEO's and bigwigs will like always skirt some of these new taxes, such as giving up salaries ($0 salaries) and being exclusively compensated by stocks such that they don't have to pay the higher social security taxes, which Obama is proposing, that are levied on W-2s with no upper cutoff ….but not on capital gains …Don't get me wrong, I think the ubber rich still pay a lot of taxes, but these Obama "changes" me thinks are going to hurt those salaried professions the most who don't have access to the company's board of directors to rewrite their compensation packages….

So… If this new "rich" tax that Obama is proposing is only for $250k households, and not $125k singles, one can conclude Obama doesn't care about family values, right? And if it does imply "rich" defined as singles making $125k, a lot more of you are screwed too. I wonder if Obama has clarified this (or is he going to pull a fast one once elected)

 

Like I always said, the best government, is always an ineffective one that doesn't get stuff done.

 

 

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

There's really no point in debating this because apparently some folks feel they are entitled to the earnings of others that make more than them… BUT, I'm trying to understand what this means….

Once you have a large amount of money, earning money is no longer about hard work or productivity; it's about being a financial parasite, because whatever you "earn" comes out of the productive economy.

 

I'm trying to understand how someone's wealth has a direct impact on someone else not having money. The way I look at this, is it's a chicken or egg issue.

Relaxed lending lend to financially irresponsible people to overleverage and are now dirt poor. It takes two to tango. I find it hard to understand how your average j6p that overleveraged isn't somehow responsible for going to the poorhouse himself, and why government must do wealth redistribution to help them. Or that the very same people that the gov is attempting to bailout (or at least that's what they are selling it under) and which those very americans want the government to do are inevitably are directly/indirectly the reason why Fed lowered rates, trying to bailout the homowners, and in the process, wrecking the dollar and creating inflation that is making it difficult for a lot more americans.

 

I do admit that there are a very very very very tiny percentage of the population that make an insane amount of money. I won't speculate whether that's right or wrong (personally, I see nothing wrong with it.) BUT, if obama really wanted to do this robin hood thing of taking from the rich and redistributing to the "poor(er)", why oh why is he drawing the line at the $250k household level…..and not targeting this specifically at those ubber rich people???

You can argue all you want whether people with household incomes in the $250k range is considered rich or not… But for a relatively decent profession of two households with technical professions, this isn't that hard to achieve, especially if you stuck with engineering or relevant science degree that commands this salary. There are plenty of households that have a dual income arrangement. And if you were to split the household up into two singles, this would be the equivalent of two singles making $125k each…So I would say, if obama does indeed impose the $250k limit per household but doesn't equally apply this to singles making $125k or more, it really just is another marriage tax penalty, because a couple could skirt this by simply getting a divorce…(Hmmmmm…) If on the other hand, he really means $250k household and $125k singles, I have a feeling a lot more you would suddenly start to complain about this, because this isn't really taxing just the rich anymore, is it???

Frankly, me thinks obama is drawing the line at the $250k level is so he can avoid really putting on a hefty tax on those ubber rich people….you know, the very same type people that are funding BOTH obama and mccain's campaign…and these politicians obviously don't want to piss off these really rich people…So the next best thing is to tax the living hell out of higher salaried employees because (a) there's more of them (b) they have relatively more money to redistribute relative to the rest of the middle class and "poor" and (c)yet they really don't have the financial influence do any damage to one's political campaign. Meanwhile, it's a great sell to the more middle class and lower income earners as "I'm taxing the rich".

I'm willing to bet money CEO's and bigwigs will like always skirt some of these new taxes, such as giving up salaries ($0 salaries) and being exclusively compensated by stocks such that they don't have to pay the higher social security taxes, which Obama is proposing, that are levied on W-2s with no upper cutoff ….but not on capital gains …Don't get me wrong, I think the ubber rich still pay a lot of taxes, but these Obama "changes" me thinks are going to hurt those salaried professions the most who don't have access to the company's board of directors to rewrite their compensation packages….

So… If this new "rich" tax that Obama is proposing is only for $250k households, and not $125k singles, one can conclude Obama doesn't care about family values, right? And if it does imply "rich" defined as singles making $125k, a lot more of you are screwed too. I wonder if Obama has clarified this (or is he going to pull a fast one once elected)

 

Like I always said, the best government, is always an ineffective one that doesn't get stuff done.

 

 

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

There's really no point in debating this because apparently some folks feel they are entitled to the earnings of others that make more than them… BUT, I'm trying to understand what this means….

Once you have a large amount of money, earning money is no longer about hard work or productivity; it's about being a financial parasite, because whatever you "earn" comes out of the productive economy.

 

I'm trying to understand how someone's wealth has a direct impact on someone else not having money. The way I look at this, is it's a chicken or egg issue.

Relaxed lending lend to financially irresponsible people to overleverage and are now dirt poor. It takes two to tango. I find it hard to understand how your average j6p that overleveraged isn't somehow responsible for going to the poorhouse himself, and why government must do wealth redistribution to help them. Or that the very same people that the gov is attempting to bailout (or at least that's what they are selling it under) and which those very americans want the government to do are inevitably are directly/indirectly the reason why Fed lowered rates, trying to bailout the homowners, and in the process, wrecking the dollar and creating inflation that is making it difficult for a lot more americans.

 

I do admit that there are a very very very very tiny percentage of the population that make an insane amount of money. I won't speculate whether that's right or wrong (personally, I see nothing wrong with it.) BUT, if obama really wanted to do this robin hood thing of taking from the rich and redistributing to the "poor(er)", why oh why is he drawing the line at the $250k household level…..and not targeting this specifically at those ubber rich people???

You can argue all you want whether people with household incomes in the $250k range is considered rich or not… But for a relatively decent profession of two households with technical professions, this isn't that hard to achieve, especially if you stuck with engineering or relevant science degree that commands this salary. There are plenty of households that have a dual income arrangement. And if you were to split the household up into two singles, this would be the equivalent of two singles making $125k each…So I would say, if obama does indeed impose the $250k limit per household but doesn't equally apply this to singles making $125k or more, it really just is another marriage tax penalty, because a couple could skirt this by simply getting a divorce…(Hmmmmm…) If on the other hand, he really means $250k household and $125k singles, I have a feeling a lot more you would suddenly start to complain about this, because this isn't really taxing just the rich anymore, is it???

Frankly, me thinks obama is drawing the line at the $250k level is so he can avoid really putting on a hefty tax on those ubber rich people….you know, the very same type people that are funding BOTH obama and mccain's campaign…and these politicians obviously don't want to piss off these really rich people…So the next best thing is to tax the living hell out of higher salaried employees because (a) there's more of them (b) they have relatively more money to redistribute relative to the rest of the middle class and "poor" and (c)yet they really don't have the financial influence do any damage to one's political campaign. Meanwhile, it's a great sell to the more middle class and lower income earners as "I'm taxing the rich".

I'm willing to bet money CEO's and bigwigs will like always skirt some of these new taxes, such as giving up salaries ($0 salaries) and being exclusively compensated by stocks such that they don't have to pay the higher social security taxes, which Obama is proposing, that are levied on W-2s with no upper cutoff ….but not on capital gains …Don't get me wrong, I think the ubber rich still pay a lot of taxes, but these Obama "changes" me thinks are going to hurt those salaried professions the most who don't have access to the company's board of directors to rewrite their compensation packages….

So… If this new "rich" tax that Obama is proposing is only for $250k households, and not $125k singles, one can conclude Obama doesn't care about family values, right? And if it does imply "rich" defined as singles making $125k, a lot more of you are screwed too. I wonder if Obama has clarified this (or is he going to pull a fast one once elected)

 

Like I always said, the best government, is always an ineffective one that doesn't get stuff done.

 

 

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

There's really no point in debating this because apparently some folks feel they are entitled to the earnings of others that make more than them… BUT, I'm trying to understand what this means….

Once you have a large amount of money, earning money is no longer about hard work or productivity; it's about being a financial parasite, because whatever you "earn" comes out of the productive economy.

 

I'm trying to understand how someone's wealth has a direct impact on someone else not having money. The way I look at this, is it's a chicken or egg issue.

Relaxed lending lend to financially irresponsible people to overleverage and are now dirt poor. It takes two to tango. I find it hard to understand how your average j6p that overleveraged isn't somehow responsible for going to the poorhouse himself, and why government must do wealth redistribution to help them. Or that the very same people that the gov is attempting to bailout (or at least that's what they are selling it under) and which those very americans want the government to do are inevitably are directly/indirectly the reason why Fed lowered rates, trying to bailout the homowners, and in the process, wrecking the dollar and creating inflation that is making it difficult for a lot more americans.

 

I do admit that there are a very very very very tiny percentage of the population that make an insane amount of money. I won't speculate whether that's right or wrong (personally, I see nothing wrong with it.) BUT, if obama really wanted to do this robin hood thing of taking from the rich and redistributing to the "poor(er)", why oh why is he drawing the line at the $250k household level…..and not targeting this specifically at those ubber rich people???

You can argue all you want whether people with household incomes in the $250k range is considered rich or not… But for a relatively decent profession of two households with technical professions, this isn't that hard to achieve, especially if you stuck with engineering or relevant science degree that commands this salary. There are plenty of households that have a dual income arrangement. And if you were to split the household up into two singles, this would be the equivalent of two singles making $125k each…So I would say, if obama does indeed impose the $250k limit per household but doesn't equally apply this to singles making $125k or more, it really just is another marriage tax penalty, because a couple could skirt this by simply getting a divorce…(Hmmmmm…) If on the other hand, he really means $250k household and $125k singles, I have a feeling a lot more you would suddenly start to complain about this, because this isn't really taxing just the rich anymore, is it???

Frankly, me thinks obama is drawing the line at the $250k level is so he can avoid really putting on a hefty tax on those ubber rich people….you know, the very same type people that are funding BOTH obama and mccain's campaign…and these politicians obviously don't want to piss off these really rich people…So the next best thing is to tax the living hell out of higher salaried employees because (a) there's more of them (b) they have relatively more money to redistribute relative to the rest of the middle class and "poor" and (c)yet they really don't have the financial influence do any damage to one's political campaign. Meanwhile, it's a great sell to the more middle class and lower income earners as "I'm taxing the rich".

I'm willing to bet money CEO's and bigwigs will like always skirt some of these new taxes, such as giving up salaries ($0 salaries) and being exclusively compensated by stocks such that they don't have to pay the higher social security taxes, which Obama is proposing, that are levied on W-2s with no upper cutoff ….but not on capital gains …Don't get me wrong, I think the ubber rich still pay a lot of taxes, but these Obama "changes" me thinks are going to hurt those salaried professions the most who don't have access to the company's board of directors to rewrite their compensation packages….

So… If this new "rich" tax that Obama is proposing is only for $250k households, and not $125k singles, one can conclude Obama doesn't care about family values, right? And if it does imply "rich" defined as singles making $125k, a lot more of you are screwed too. I wonder if Obama has clarified this (or is he going to pull a fast one once elected)

 

Like I always said, the best government, is always an ineffective one that doesn't get stuff done.

 

 

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[an]

afx114, using your argument against aristocracy, then JFK but be a pretty bad president too then. Oh, and don’t forget, Caroline Kennedy is one of 3 in charge of our next potential #2 person. I’m sure she’s what you called aristocrat or old money or rich. Your bashing against Bush = saying 50+% of American are stupid for voting for him. I’m not a Bush supporter by any mean, but come on, that’s a pretty huge leap of faith argument. If a person have A & B trait and did a horrible job doesn’t mean all people will B trait will do a poor job. You can very well say, Bush is a man and he did a piss poor job, so all men will make horrible presidents. How does that sound?

[an]

afx114, using your argument against aristocracy, then JFK but be a pretty bad president too then. Oh, and don’t forget, Caroline Kennedy is one of 3 in charge of our next potential #2 person. I’m sure she’s what you called aristocrat or old money or rich. Your bashing against Bush = saying 50+% of American are stupid for voting for him. I’m not a Bush supporter by any mean, but come on, that’s a pretty huge leap of faith argument. If a person have A & B trait and did a horrible job doesn’t mean all people will B trait will do a poor job. You can very well say, Bush is a man and he did a piss poor job, so all men will make horrible presidents. How does that sound?

[an]

afx114, using your argument against aristocracy, then JFK but be a pretty bad president too then. Oh, and don’t forget, Caroline Kennedy is one of 3 in charge of our next potential #2 person. I’m sure she’s what you called aristocrat or old money or rich. Your bashing against Bush = saying 50+% of American are stupid for voting for him. I’m not a Bush supporter by any mean, but come on, that’s a pretty huge leap of faith argument. If a person have A & B trait and did a horrible job doesn’t mean all people will B trait will do a poor job. You can very well say, Bush is a man and he did a piss poor job, so all men will make horrible presidents. How does that sound?

[an]

afx114, using your argument against aristocracy, then JFK but be a pretty bad president too then. Oh, and don’t forget, Caroline Kennedy is one of 3 in charge of our next potential #2 person. I’m sure she’s what you called aristocrat or old money or rich. Your bashing against Bush = saying 50+% of American are stupid for voting for him. I’m not a Bush supporter by any mean, but come on, that’s a pretty huge leap of faith argument. If a person have A & B trait and did a horrible job doesn’t mean all people will B trait will do a poor job. You can very well say, Bush is a man and he did a piss poor job, so all men will make horrible presidents. How does that sound?

[an]

afx114, using your argument against aristocracy, then JFK but be a pretty bad president too then. Oh, and don’t forget, Caroline Kennedy is one of 3 in charge of our next potential #2 person. I’m sure she’s what you called aristocrat or old money or rich. Your bashing against Bush = saying 50+% of American are stupid for voting for him. I’m not a Bush supporter by any mean, but come on, that’s a pretty huge leap of faith argument. If a person have A & B trait and did a horrible job doesn’t mean all people will B trait will do a poor job. You can very well say, Bush is a man and he did a piss poor job, so all men will make horrible presidents. How does that sound?

[Anonymous]

Since Obama is proposing rescinding Bush’s tax cuts for those making over $250k, I have to ask the question if these people were really doing that much worse under Clinton? In any case I think that the $250k line is kind of misleading because for your taxable income to be $250k you are more than likely making much more than that.

[Anonymous]

Since Obama is proposing rescinding Bush’s tax cuts for those making over $250k, I have to ask the question if these people were really doing that much worse under Clinton? In any case I think that the $250k line is kind of misleading because for your taxable income to be $250k you are more than likely making much more than that.

[Anonymous]

Since Obama is proposing rescinding Bush’s tax cuts for those making over $250k, I have to ask the question if these people were really doing that much worse under Clinton? In any case I think that the $250k line is kind of misleading because for your taxable income to be $250k you are more than likely making much more than that.

[Anonymous]

Since Obama is proposing rescinding Bush’s tax cuts for those making over $250k, I have to ask the question if these people were really doing that much worse under Clinton? In any case I think that the $250k line is kind of misleading because for your taxable income to be $250k you are more than likely making much more than that.

[Author]

Posts