Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
PatentGuy
ParticipantCan’t speak for everyone, but yes. Is your point that the U.S. should make the highest incomes pay for everyone else? OK. That’s Obama’s point, too. Let someone else pay. You deserve stuff that someone else deserves to pay for. The (new) American way!
ParticipantCan’t speak for everyone, but yes. Is your point that the U.S. should make the highest incomes pay for everyone else? OK. That’s Obama’s point, too. Let someone else pay. You deserve stuff that someone else deserves to pay for. The (new) American way!
ParticipantCan’t speak for everyone, but yes. Is your point that the U.S. should make the highest incomes pay for everyone else? OK. That’s Obama’s point, too. Let someone else pay. You deserve stuff that someone else deserves to pay for. The (new) American way!
ParticipantCan’t speak for everyone, but yes. Is your point that the U.S. should make the highest incomes pay for everyone else? OK. That’s Obama’s point, too. Let someone else pay. You deserve stuff that someone else deserves to pay for. The (new) American way!
ParticipantSDR – I certainly agree. I am registered as a libertarian for voting purposes, but it’s pointless, especially in California.
I can stand going back to the Clinton tax rates to help appease the “renterclint” types out there who unabashedly want to take as much money from “the rich” as they can. Does not matter what for, or whether good policy in the long run. Just simple-minded class jealously. But, the comment about how the unlimited payroll tax will “save” social security?!? Yeah, right. It will “save” nothing, and will cost a few jobs including people who were otherwise paying into social security. A tax is a tax. What you call it is meaningless. The money will simple be squandered or well-spent, depending on how you view the way government spends money, for example, on foreign wars).
I am certainly no McCain or GW fan. I might even vote for Obama if it weren’t his plan to raise my taxes so freaking much through the payroll tax increase (which only effects actual working people – mostly the self-employed; not those who are wealthy through passive means such as inheritance or investment, or executives cashing in on stock options).
At least Obama wears his socialism on his sleeve. No surprises. This is because more and more Americans are also socialists, and want wealth redistributed. We can emulate Sweden (they don’t produce much of value, but no one is allowed to get rich in order to keep everything government-provided). Obama is honest in that he wants to take from the upper earners and give it to his voter base. He panders to the “quasi-rich” dual income democrats, but just up to $250K. After all, he wants their support.
I have no idea if Obama will win. Nor do I know if Congress will support the payroll tax hike (can’t lay it all on Obama – Congress has to pass the law; he just signs it). The saddest part is that if Obama losses, it will not be because of his wealth redistribution proposals; it will be because of the color of his skin and the closet racist vote in swing states (hello Florida, Ohio). While I will be happy for tax reasons if he losses, I wish it would be for the right reasons (bad tax/spend policies) and not because of his race.
ParticipantSDR – I certainly agree. I am registered as a libertarian for voting purposes, but it’s pointless, especially in California.
I can stand going back to the Clinton tax rates to help appease the “renterclint” types out there who unabashedly want to take as much money from “the rich” as they can. Does not matter what for, or whether good policy in the long run. Just simple-minded class jealously. But, the comment about how the unlimited payroll tax will “save” social security?!? Yeah, right. It will “save” nothing, and will cost a few jobs including people who were otherwise paying into social security. A tax is a tax. What you call it is meaningless. The money will simple be squandered or well-spent, depending on how you view the way government spends money, for example, on foreign wars).
I am certainly no McCain or GW fan. I might even vote for Obama if it weren’t his plan to raise my taxes so freaking much through the payroll tax increase (which only effects actual working people – mostly the self-employed; not those who are wealthy through passive means such as inheritance or investment, or executives cashing in on stock options).
At least Obama wears his socialism on his sleeve. No surprises. This is because more and more Americans are also socialists, and want wealth redistributed. We can emulate Sweden (they don’t produce much of value, but no one is allowed to get rich in order to keep everything government-provided). Obama is honest in that he wants to take from the upper earners and give it to his voter base. He panders to the “quasi-rich” dual income democrats, but just up to $250K. After all, he wants their support.
I have no idea if Obama will win. Nor do I know if Congress will support the payroll tax hike (can’t lay it all on Obama – Congress has to pass the law; he just signs it). The saddest part is that if Obama losses, it will not be because of his wealth redistribution proposals; it will be because of the color of his skin and the closet racist vote in swing states (hello Florida, Ohio). While I will be happy for tax reasons if he losses, I wish it would be for the right reasons (bad tax/spend policies) and not because of his race.
ParticipantSDR – I certainly agree. I am registered as a libertarian for voting purposes, but it’s pointless, especially in California.
I can stand going back to the Clinton tax rates to help appease the “renterclint” types out there who unabashedly want to take as much money from “the rich” as they can. Does not matter what for, or whether good policy in the long run. Just simple-minded class jealously. But, the comment about how the unlimited payroll tax will “save” social security?!? Yeah, right. It will “save” nothing, and will cost a few jobs including people who were otherwise paying into social security. A tax is a tax. What you call it is meaningless. The money will simple be squandered or well-spent, depending on how you view the way government spends money, for example, on foreign wars).
I am certainly no McCain or GW fan. I might even vote for Obama if it weren’t his plan to raise my taxes so freaking much through the payroll tax increase (which only effects actual working people – mostly the self-employed; not those who are wealthy through passive means such as inheritance or investment, or executives cashing in on stock options).
At least Obama wears his socialism on his sleeve. No surprises. This is because more and more Americans are also socialists, and want wealth redistributed. We can emulate Sweden (they don’t produce much of value, but no one is allowed to get rich in order to keep everything government-provided). Obama is honest in that he wants to take from the upper earners and give it to his voter base. He panders to the “quasi-rich” dual income democrats, but just up to $250K. After all, he wants their support.
I have no idea if Obama will win. Nor do I know if Congress will support the payroll tax hike (can’t lay it all on Obama – Congress has to pass the law; he just signs it). The saddest part is that if Obama losses, it will not be because of his wealth redistribution proposals; it will be because of the color of his skin and the closet racist vote in swing states (hello Florida, Ohio). While I will be happy for tax reasons if he losses, I wish it would be for the right reasons (bad tax/spend policies) and not because of his race.
ParticipantSDR – I certainly agree. I am registered as a libertarian for voting purposes, but it’s pointless, especially in California.
I can stand going back to the Clinton tax rates to help appease the “renterclint” types out there who unabashedly want to take as much money from “the rich” as they can. Does not matter what for, or whether good policy in the long run. Just simple-minded class jealously. But, the comment about how the unlimited payroll tax will “save” social security?!? Yeah, right. It will “save” nothing, and will cost a few jobs including people who were otherwise paying into social security. A tax is a tax. What you call it is meaningless. The money will simple be squandered or well-spent, depending on how you view the way government spends money, for example, on foreign wars).
I am certainly no McCain or GW fan. I might even vote for Obama if it weren’t his plan to raise my taxes so freaking much through the payroll tax increase (which only effects actual working people – mostly the self-employed; not those who are wealthy through passive means such as inheritance or investment, or executives cashing in on stock options).
At least Obama wears his socialism on his sleeve. No surprises. This is because more and more Americans are also socialists, and want wealth redistributed. We can emulate Sweden (they don’t produce much of value, but no one is allowed to get rich in order to keep everything government-provided). Obama is honest in that he wants to take from the upper earners and give it to his voter base. He panders to the “quasi-rich” dual income democrats, but just up to $250K. After all, he wants their support.
I have no idea if Obama will win. Nor do I know if Congress will support the payroll tax hike (can’t lay it all on Obama – Congress has to pass the law; he just signs it). The saddest part is that if Obama losses, it will not be because of his wealth redistribution proposals; it will be because of the color of his skin and the closet racist vote in swing states (hello Florida, Ohio). While I will be happy for tax reasons if he losses, I wish it would be for the right reasons (bad tax/spend policies) and not because of his race.
ParticipantSDR – I certainly agree. I am registered as a libertarian for voting purposes, but it’s pointless, especially in California.
I can stand going back to the Clinton tax rates to help appease the “renterclint” types out there who unabashedly want to take as much money from “the rich” as they can. Does not matter what for, or whether good policy in the long run. Just simple-minded class jealously. But, the comment about how the unlimited payroll tax will “save” social security?!? Yeah, right. It will “save” nothing, and will cost a few jobs including people who were otherwise paying into social security. A tax is a tax. What you call it is meaningless. The money will simple be squandered or well-spent, depending on how you view the way government spends money, for example, on foreign wars).
I am certainly no McCain or GW fan. I might even vote for Obama if it weren’t his plan to raise my taxes so freaking much through the payroll tax increase (which only effects actual working people – mostly the self-employed; not those who are wealthy through passive means such as inheritance or investment, or executives cashing in on stock options).
At least Obama wears his socialism on his sleeve. No surprises. This is because more and more Americans are also socialists, and want wealth redistributed. We can emulate Sweden (they don’t produce much of value, but no one is allowed to get rich in order to keep everything government-provided). Obama is honest in that he wants to take from the upper earners and give it to his voter base. He panders to the “quasi-rich” dual income democrats, but just up to $250K. After all, he wants their support.
I have no idea if Obama will win. Nor do I know if Congress will support the payroll tax hike (can’t lay it all on Obama – Congress has to pass the law; he just signs it). The saddest part is that if Obama losses, it will not be because of his wealth redistribution proposals; it will be because of the color of his skin and the closet racist vote in swing states (hello Florida, Ohio). While I will be happy for tax reasons if he losses, I wish it would be for the right reasons (bad tax/spend policies) and not because of his race.
ParticipantActually, the biggest Obama tax increase (at least that would effect me) is having SS payroll taxes no longer limited (after the pure pandering $250K “bubble” for the democrat mainstream – after all, not fair to tax them, just other peoiple).
I am self-employed, so I pay double. This is effectively something on par of 9% increase (assuming SE taxes remain deductible against “regular” income taxes)! Much bigger than the return to Clinton brackets.
The MSM is unchallenged when it claims the “rich” (I believe defined as anyone earning more than the reporter) pay no taxes. What BS. (I think Wesley Snipes tried that, but it did not work out very well for him.)
Between the Fed and Calif, we pay more than 43% of our income in taxes. There are property and sales taxes on top of that. Why is that not enough? “Class jealousy”? Maybe. I dunno. The Obama tax increases will likely cost a couple of jobs in our small business. I know, I know, even better for the “government takes care of everyone” crowd if even more people are unemployed.
ParticipantActually, the biggest Obama tax increase (at least that would effect me) is having SS payroll taxes no longer limited (after the pure pandering $250K “bubble” for the democrat mainstream – after all, not fair to tax them, just other peoiple).
I am self-employed, so I pay double. This is effectively something on par of 9% increase (assuming SE taxes remain deductible against “regular” income taxes)! Much bigger than the return to Clinton brackets.
The MSM is unchallenged when it claims the “rich” (I believe defined as anyone earning more than the reporter) pay no taxes. What BS. (I think Wesley Snipes tried that, but it did not work out very well for him.)
Between the Fed and Calif, we pay more than 43% of our income in taxes. There are property and sales taxes on top of that. Why is that not enough? “Class jealousy”? Maybe. I dunno. The Obama tax increases will likely cost a couple of jobs in our small business. I know, I know, even better for the “government takes care of everyone” crowd if even more people are unemployed.
ParticipantActually, the biggest Obama tax increase (at least that would effect me) is having SS payroll taxes no longer limited (after the pure pandering $250K “bubble” for the democrat mainstream – after all, not fair to tax them, just other peoiple).
I am self-employed, so I pay double. This is effectively something on par of 9% increase (assuming SE taxes remain deductible against “regular” income taxes)! Much bigger than the return to Clinton brackets.
The MSM is unchallenged when it claims the “rich” (I believe defined as anyone earning more than the reporter) pay no taxes. What BS. (I think Wesley Snipes tried that, but it did not work out very well for him.)
Between the Fed and Calif, we pay more than 43% of our income in taxes. There are property and sales taxes on top of that. Why is that not enough? “Class jealousy”? Maybe. I dunno. The Obama tax increases will likely cost a couple of jobs in our small business. I know, I know, even better for the “government takes care of everyone” crowd if even more people are unemployed.
ParticipantActually, the biggest Obama tax increase (at least that would effect me) is having SS payroll taxes no longer limited (after the pure pandering $250K “bubble” for the democrat mainstream – after all, not fair to tax them, just other peoiple).
I am self-employed, so I pay double. This is effectively something on par of 9% increase (assuming SE taxes remain deductible against “regular” income taxes)! Much bigger than the return to Clinton brackets.
The MSM is unchallenged when it claims the “rich” (I believe defined as anyone earning more than the reporter) pay no taxes. What BS. (I think Wesley Snipes tried that, but it did not work out very well for him.)
Between the Fed and Calif, we pay more than 43% of our income in taxes. There are property and sales taxes on top of that. Why is that not enough? “Class jealousy”? Maybe. I dunno. The Obama tax increases will likely cost a couple of jobs in our small business. I know, I know, even better for the “government takes care of everyone” crowd if even more people are unemployed.
ParticipantActually, the biggest Obama tax increase (at least that would effect me) is having SS payroll taxes no longer limited (after the pure pandering $250K “bubble” for the democrat mainstream – after all, not fair to tax them, just other peoiple).
I am self-employed, so I pay double. This is effectively something on par of 9% increase (assuming SE taxes remain deductible against “regular” income taxes)! Much bigger than the return to Clinton brackets.
The MSM is unchallenged when it claims the “rich” (I believe defined as anyone earning more than the reporter) pay no taxes. What BS. (I think Wesley Snipes tried that, but it did not work out very well for him.)
Between the Fed and Calif, we pay more than 43% of our income in taxes. There are property and sales taxes on top of that. Why is that not enough? “Class jealousy”? Maybe. I dunno. The Obama tax increases will likely cost a couple of jobs in our small business. I know, I know, even better for the “government takes care of everyone” crowd if even more people are unemployed.
-
AuthorPosts