Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: Why I say 'Nobama"

  1. #1
    God/dess
    Joined
    May 2006
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    2,420
    Thanks
    36
    Thanked 291 Times in 210 Posts

    Default Why I say 'Nobama"

    from dickmorris.com

    <snip>

    • He would double the capital gains tax, saddling the 50 percent of Americans who own stock with dramatically higher taxes.

    • He’d double the dividend tax, hitting elderly coupon-clippers now retired and depending on fixed incomes.

    • He wants to cover 12 million illegal immigrants with federally subsidized health insurance, dramatically driving up costs and forcing federal rationing of healthcare. As in the U.K. and Canada, you will not be permitted certain medical procedures if the bureaucrats decide you are not worth it.

    • He proposes requiring Homeland Security operatives to notify terror suspects that they are under investigation within seven days of starting the investigation

    • He says that unless they can establish that there is “probable cause to believe that a certain individual is linked to a specific terrorist group,” Homeland Security cannot seize his documents and search his business. The current standard is only that the search be “relevant” to a terror investigation.

    • In effect, he would legislate a 60 percent tax bracket for upper-income Americans, killing all initiative and innovation. He’d raise the top bracket to 40 percent. He’d apply FICA taxes to all income, not just that under $100,000 as at present. So add 40 percent plus FICA’s 12.5 percent plus Medicare’s 2 percent plus state and local taxes averaging, after deduction, at 5-6 percent, and you have a 60 percent bracket.

    He does not oppose $5-per-gallon gasoline but only says that he wishes there had been a more “gradual adjustment” to the higher prices.

    Obama can talk about the Rev. Wright and flag lapel pins and his wife’s love of America all day long. But what he resists is a specific discussion of his own plans for our country. That’s the discussion he fears and he avoids. And it’s the discussion John McCain must force upon him if he is to have any realistic chance of winning the election.

    <snip>

    The future is grim.
    "never trust a big butt and a smile"-- Bell Biv DeVoe

    If you're in your twenties and aren't a liberal, you have no heart. If you're in you're forties and aren't a conservative, you have no brain - Winston Churchill

  2. #2
    God/dess Deogol's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,493
    Thanks
    120
    Thanked 50 Times in 35 Posts

    Default Re: Why I say 'Nobama"

    Once again, the dems are not offering up a plan - in particular an energy and transportation plan.

    In fact, it sounds a bit like last time - Don't vote for Bush (or rather McCain because is "Bush like.") I don't think that plan really worked out.

  3. #3
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Why I say 'Nobama"

    from

    (snip)"Under Obama, Total Taxes on Labor Could Reach 60 Percent?

    A couple of days ago, I added the numbers on Obama's tax proposals in a back-of-the-envelope manner and concluded "we're really looking at a top tax rate of 53.45 percent to 54.9 percent for top earners." (A few accountants wrote in and said the complications of the tax code make it tough to make a precise percentage like that.)

    Guys much smarter than me at the Tax Policy Center (via Instapundit, via Kaus) have come to a similar conclusion:

    Combine [Obama's Social Security tax proposal] with a top income tax rate of 39.6 percent, the phase-out of itemized deductions—which Obama would like to revive and which amounts to an implicit 1.2 percent surtax—and state income taxes, which typically run around 6 percent, and the total tax on labor would be close to 60 percent. In high-tax states like California and New York, the top rate would be even higher. Such high rates would provide an enormous incentive to hide income from the IRS or make earnings look like capital gains (which Obama would continue to tax at far lower rates than other income) or business profits (which are subject to income tax but exempt from payroll tax).


    (Note that Paul Krugman is wondering why Obama's proposal hasn't gotten more attention, as it would "push tax rates on some high-income Americans back to the levels of the 1970s." Paul Krugman! I knew he preferred Hillary to Obama; looks like he hasn't jumped on the bandwagon yet.)


    As previously noted, the highest tax bracket kicks in at an annual taxable income level of $357,700 in 2008. Obviously, if you're making that salary, you're doing pretty darn well for yourself. But is the federal government entitled to take $196,377.30* or so?

    * UPDATE: Tax-savvy readers write in:

    I’m sure many, many readers will already be e-mailing you about this, but even if you make $350K + and your marginal tax rate is 60%, that doesn’t mean 60% of your income goes to taxes, only 60% of every dollar you make above $357K (in taxable income, net of deductions etc.). The distinction is between the marginal tax rate (60%) and the average tax rate (a dollar-weighted average of all marginal rates, and much lower).

    There’s also one other point you can add to your excellent discussion of this issue (the point above is a quibble)- in addition to the negative economic impacts associated with a higher tax burden and fewer incentives to work and invest, there’s little doubt that the actual tax revenues resulting from higher tax rates will much lower than the government projects. High wage earners have lots of ways to move income around and keep it away from the taxman – being paid in stock options rather than cash, forming S corporations and calling your income “dividends” rather than earnings (thus getting around the higher social security and medicare taxes), almost unlimited contributions to 412i plans. Obama’s tax hikes will lead to a burst of entrepreneurial activity that is misdirected towards avoiding taxes rather than doing anything productive."
    (snip)


    Again the bottom line on Obama's tax proposals seem to boil down to this. Obama plans to hand 'low income' Americans a plate full of additional subsidies, from an expanded earned income tax credit to a new 'Making Work Pay' tax credit (which would be a de-facto government co-payment to low hourly pay rates), in addition to 'tweaks' in the existing IRS tax brackets covering low incomes. In theory, Obama plans to compensate for these tax reductions / IRS handouts to low income Americans by taxing the absolute S#!t out of the top earning 5% of Americans. However, in practice, those top earning 5% of Americans will definitely take action to minimize their tax liabilities in response to Obama's proposed draconian increase in the official tax rate - from non-cash compensation to stock options to S corp dividends to offshore investments to tax free muni bond investments. As a result, when it comes time to actually pay for Obama's proposed increased spending, it will absolutely be necessary to expand the draconian tax increases to encompass Americans earning amounts well below the top 5% level.

    Also, Obama's proposed tax increases and new / expanded tax credits would reinstate a LARGE MARRIAGE PENALTY ... i.e. a married couple with two children would pay far more in Obama taxes than a single father plus a head of household single mother with two children.

    lots of analysis at
    Last edited by Melonie; 06-27-2008 at 06:21 PM.

  4. #4
    God/dess Deogol's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,493
    Thanks
    120
    Thanked 50 Times in 35 Posts

    Default Re: Why I say 'Nobama"

    Eh. I will just stop employer contributions to 401Ks and the like and simply send it directly to the IRS as they wish. "Sorry folks, between health care and taxes cash flow is getting tight. By the way, pack up we are moving to India."

  5. #5
    God/dess
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    2,993
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: Why I say 'Nobama"

    Well what did you really expect, I mean he is a socialist, and an elitist, and a pacifist , oh and also a Marxist and a racist, and apparently a satanist too. Did I miss anything? Illiterate maybe???

  6. #6
    Tauries
    Guest

    Default Re: Why I say 'Nobama"

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard_Head View Post
    Well what did you really expect, I mean he is a socialist, and an elitist, and a pacifist , oh and also a Marxist and a racist, and apparently a satanist too. Did I miss anything? Illiterate maybe???

    Well actually...criminal and terrorist come to mind regarding his ill gotten mansion.

  7. #7
    God/dess Paris's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,345
    Thanks
    168
    Thanked 801 Times in 419 Posts

    Default Re: Why I say 'Nobama"

    Awwww, Fuck it. Let's all go be Amish.

    *Gas prices don't matter with your horse and buggy setup.
    *Food prices don't matter when you provide for yourself.
    *Education is done at home.
    *Retirement depends on how many children/ relatives you have
    *Construction jobs are plentiful.
    *The Amish are all solar, off the grid. (carbon neutral living)
    *War/violence is strictly forbidden.
    *No income= No income taxes
    *Free health care (prayer is free)


    Promote yourself and earn more money! This is a business that is owned by strippers for strippers. Let's make that money!


  8. #8
    Veteran Member alessandra's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    Location
    on the 13th floor
    Posts
    459
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post

    Default Re: Why I say 'Nobama"

    ^ LOL Paris! I love that last line "free health care (prayer is free)

  9. #9
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Why I say 'Nobama"

    ^^^ well, 'prayer' is all the 'free' health care that a million needy Canadians are receiving right now, as they 'wait their turn', and then hope that the official decision makers approve an effective course of treatment ... However, unlike the Amish, Canadians must also pay dearly for the privelege.

    (snip)"The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care
    David Gratzer

    Socialized medicine has meant rationed care and lack of innovation. Small wonder Canadians are looking to the market.

    Mountain-bike enthusiast Suzanne Aucoin had to fight more than her Stage IV colon cancer. Her doctor suggested Erbitux—a proven cancer drug that targets cancer cells exclusively, unlike conventional chemotherapies that more crudely kill all fast-growing cells in the body—and Aucoin went to a clinic to begin treatment. But if Erbitux offered hope, Aucoin’s insurance didn’t: she received one inscrutable form letter after another, rejecting her claim for reimbursement. Yet another example of the callous hand of managed care, depriving someone of needed medical help, right? Guess again. Erbitux is standard treatment, covered by insurance companies—in the United States. Aucoin lives in Ontario, Canada.

    When Aucoin appealed to an official ombudsman, the Ontario government claimed that her treatment was unproven and that she had gone to an unaccredited clinic. But the FDA in the U.S. had approved Erbitux, and her clinic was a cancer center affiliated with a prominent Catholic hospital in Buffalo. This January, the ombudsman ruled in Aucoin’s favor, awarding her the cost of treatment. She represents a dramatic new trend in Canadian health-care advocacy: finding the treatment you need in another country, and then fighting Canadian bureaucrats (and often suing) to get them to pick up the tab.

    But if Canadians are looking to the United States for the care they need, Americans, ironically, are increasingly looking north for a viable health-care model. There’s no question that American health care, a mixture of private insurance and public programs, is a mess. Over the last five years, health-insurance premiums have more than doubled, leaving firms like General Motors on the brink of bankruptcy. Expensive health care has also hit workers in the pocketbook: it’s one of the reasons that median family income fell between 2000 and 2005 (despite a rise in overall labor costs). Health spending has surged past 16 percent of GDP. The number of uninsured Americans has risen, and even the insured seem dissatisfied. So it’s not surprising that some Americans think that solving the nation’s health-care woes may require adopting a Canadian-style single-payer system, in which the government finances and provides the care. Canadians, the seductive single-payer tune goes, not only spend less on health care; their health outcomes are better, too—life expectancy is longer, infant mortality lower.

    Thus, Paul Krugman in the New York Times: “Does this mean that the American way is wrong, and that we should switch to a Canadian-style single-payer system? Well, yes.” Politicians like Hillary Clinton are on board; Michael Moore’s new documentary Sicko celebrates the virtues of Canada’s socialized health care; the National Coalition on Health Care, which includes big businesses like AT&T, recently endorsed a scheme to centralize major health decisions to a government committee; and big unions are questioning the tenets of employer-sponsored health insurance. Some are tempted. Not me.

    I was once a believer in socialized medicine. I don’t want to overstate my case: growing up in Canada, I didn’t spend much time contemplating the nuances of health economics. I wanted to get into medical school—my mind brimmed with statistics on MCAT scores and admissions rates, not health spending. But as a Canadian, I had soaked up three things from my environment: a love of ice hockey; an ability to convert Celsius into Fahrenheit in my head; and the belief that government-run health care was truly compassionate. What I knew about American health care was unappealing: high expenses and lots of uninsured people. When HillaryCare shook Washington, I remember thinking that the Clintonistas were right.

    My health-care prejudices crumbled not in the classroom but on the way to one. On a subzero Winnipeg morning in 1997, I cut across the hospital emergency room to shave a few minutes off my frigid commute. Swinging open the door, I stepped into a nightmare: the ER overflowed with elderly people on stretchers, waiting for admission. Some, it turned out, had waited five days. The air stank with sweat and urine. Right then, I began to reconsider everything that I thought I knew about Canadian health care. I soon discovered that the problems went well beyond overcrowded ERs. Patients had to wait for practically any diagnostic test or procedure, such as the man with persistent pain from a hernia operation whom we referred to a pain clinic—with a three-year wait list; or the woman needing a sleep study to diagnose what seemed like sleep apnea, who faced a two-year delay; or the woman with breast cancer who needed to wait four months for radiation therapy, when the standard of care was four weeks."(snip)

  10. #10
    God/dess Paris's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,345
    Thanks
    168
    Thanked 801 Times in 419 Posts

    Default Re: Why I say 'Nobama"

    ^^And that's different from US urban hospitals, how? Oh, yeah, they won't bill the patient for the urine soaked cot usage.

    Canada isn't without it's own social problems. The primary problem there is a labor shortage in the health care field. Same with many European countries, most notably Italy. If you have a training in a medical field, you could have an instant job with good wages and benefits in many other countries besides this one. These countries are begging for nurses, doctors, respiratory therapists, Physical therapists, anesthesiologists and the list goes on and on.


    Promote yourself and earn more money! This is a business that is owned by strippers for strippers. Let's make that money!


  11. #11
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Why I say 'Nobama"

    ^^^ it's different from US urban hospitals in that a non-citizen entering a US urban hospital ER will be provided 'free' treatment, whereas a non-citizen entering a Canadian urban hospital ER will not ( thus ). It's also different in that low earning Americans are not taxed to pay for their 'free' treatment in a US urban hospital, whereas low earning Canadians ARE taxed to pay for their 'free' treatment in a Canadian hospital.


    ^^^ arguably, the shortage of 'willing' labor in the health care fields in these countries is a direct result of their public health care systems. Gov't regulations in regard to the types of treatments which the gov't will approve payment for, and gov't regulations in regard to the payment levels for those treatments, places a lot of pressures on hospitals and clinics to control costs. Thus doctors / nurses etc. are not only limited in terms of the treatment options open for them to utilize, they are also limited in earnings potential. As a result, the 'best and brightest' talent is encouraged to take those talents outside the country ! Same is true of Canada versus the US (snip)"Statistics Canada and the Canadian Medical Association both have identified that for every 1 American doctor that moves to Canada, 19 (nineteen) Canadian doctors move to the United States! Doctors in Canada are overworked and underpaid, and there is a cap on their salaries. "(snip)



    However, national health care is just one of many potential issues where Obama proposes to shift / increase costs - as well as increasing tax rates ( on SOME Americans ) to pay for those increased costs.
    Last edited by Melonie; 06-29-2008 at 05:51 AM.

  12. #12
    God/dess
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    2,993
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: Why I say 'Nobama"

    Quote Originally Posted by bem401 View Post
    • He would double the capital gains tax, saddling the 50 percent of Americans who own stock with dramatically higher taxes.
    Wrong, it would only be increased for those making over $250K/year. It should thus have no effect on 98% of the U.S. population. Plus since when is an increase from 15% to 20-28% a doubling of the capital gains tax (wouldn't 30% be a doubling)? http://www.factcheck.org/askfactchec..._tax_rate.html


    Quote Originally Posted by bem401 View Post
    • He’d double the dividend tax, hitting elderly coupon-clippers now retired and depending on fixed incomes.
    Wrong, again, he wouldn't hit those elderly coupon-clippers unless they are pulling in over $250K year (and if that's the case why are they clipping coupons).

    Quote Originally Posted by bem401 View Post
    • He wants to cover 12 million illegal immigrants with federally subsidized health insurance, dramatically driving up costs and forcing federal rationing of healthcare.
    He has said he wants to cover all AMERICANS with health coverage. Where are you getting this plan to cover illegal immigrants from?

    Quote Originally Posted by bem401 View Post
    • He proposes requiring Homeland Security operatives to notify terror suspects that they are under investigation within seven days of starting the investigation.
    This one is comical, where did this one come from?

    Quote Originally Posted by bem401 View Post
    • He says that unless they can establish that there is “probable cause to believe that a certain individual is linked to a specific terrorist group,” Homeland Security cannot seize his documents and search his business. The current standard is only that the search be “relevant” to a terror investigation.
    So you're not a fan of the 4th ammendment of the constitution? Here it is: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized". And you're against this why?

    Quote Originally Posted by bem401 View Post
    • In effect, he would legislate a 60 percent tax bracket for upper-income Americans, killing all initiative and innovation. He’d raise the top bracket to 40 percent. He’d apply FICA taxes to all income, not just that under $100,000 as at present. So add 40 percent plus FICA’s 12.5 percent plus Medicare’s 2 percent plus state and local taxes averaging, after deduction, at 5-6 percent, and you have a 60 percent bracket.
    Technically he wouldn't be raising rates he would just let the Bush tax cuts expire. That would take us back to the rates that they were for Clinton. The economy did pretty well under Clinton didn't it? As of the math, 40% + 6.2 for FICA (it aint 12.5) + 1.45% for Medicare (sorry, not 2%), that gives you roughly 48% not 60% (state tax rates vary and the president has no control over them so IMO it's not really fair to include them).

    Quote Originally Posted by bem401 View Post
    He does not oppose $5-per-gallon gasoline but only says that he wishes there had been a more “gradual adjustment” to the higher prices.
    I'm sure that he'd love lower gas prices again but being a realist I'm guessing that he realizes that we must lower our dependence on foreign oil, I don't see an issue here (neither do many republicans from what I've read).

    Quote Originally Posted by bem401 View Post
    Obama can talk about the Rev. Wright and flag lapel pins and his wife’s love of America all day long. But what he resists is a specific discussion of his own plans for our country. That’s the discussion he fears and he avoids. And it’s the discussion John McCain must force upon him if he is to have any realistic chance of winning the election.
    I really don't think it's Obama bringing up topics like Rev Wright or flag lapel pins or his wife's love of america, it's the right trying to paint him as some sort of unpatriotic racist who is unqualified to hold the position of president. What benefit would he have by bringing these topics up? As for his positions on the issues, he has been very forcoming about his stance on the issues, did you see any of the dozen or so debate that he participated in? I guess that just doesn't go very well with the right wing rhetoric that he has no stand on the issues though does it?

  13. #13
    Featured Member BrodieLux's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    938
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 21 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: Why I say 'Nobama"

    One thing I can't seem to understand about Republicans is this vehement yet invalid line of reasoning that taxes go to make life cushy for the poor. In reality most of our taxes go to inefficient bureacracies and big wars and subsidies for already-rich corporations (see the farm bill?) and stupid local projects that help politicians get re-elected. If you hate high taxes, get angry at all of the real money suckers.

    Other may disagree with me on this, but I believe it is morally suspect to claim that you essentially "deserve" to eat caviar while others starve. If you make $10 million, you should give away $6 million to other people, if the lack of it means they suffer. You don't need $4 million. You don't even need $1 million. So to argue otherwise is frankly beyond selfish in any society (bad luck and bad genetics and accidents happen to people everywhere), but especially here, where we have a vast inequality of opportunity. But you absolutely DO deserve not to be cheated and lied to and deceived and stolen from by your government simply to fill self-interested, rich people's coffers.
    Quote Originally Posted by CuriousSeeker View Post
    ^Pssssttttt, your stripper is showing.

  14. #14
    God/dess cinammonkisses's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Some Fat guys Lap!
    Posts
    9,647
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked 90 Times in 67 Posts

    Default Re: Why I say 'Nobama"

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard_Head View Post
    Wrong, it would only be increased for those making over $250K/year. It should thus have no effect on 98% of the U.S. population. Plus since when is an increase from 15% to 20-28% a doubling of the capital gains tax (wouldn't 30% be a doubling)? http://www.factcheck.org/askfactchec..._tax_rate.html


    Wrong, again, he wouldn't hit those elderly coupon-clippers unless they are pulling in over $250K year (and if that's the case why are they clipping coupons).

    He has said he wants to cover all AMERICANS with health coverage. Where are you getting this plan to cover illegal immigrants from?

    This one is comical, where did this one come from?

    So you're not a fan of the 4th ammendment of the constitution? Here it is: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized". And you're against this why?

    Technically he wouldn't be raising rates he would just let the Bush tax cuts expire. That would take us back to the rates that they were for Clinton. The economy did pretty well under Clinton didn't it? As of the math, 40% + 6.2 for FICA (it aint 12.5) + 1.45% for Medicare (sorry, not 2%), that gives you roughly 48% not 60% (state tax rates vary and the president has no control over them so IMO it's not really fair to include them).

    I'm sure that he'd love lower gas prices again but being a realist I'm guessing that he realizes that we must lower our dependence on foreign oil, I don't see an issue here (neither do many republicans from what I've read).

    I really don't think it's Obama bringing up topics like Rev Wright or flag lapel pins or his wife's love of america, it's the right trying to paint him as some sort of unpatriotic racist who is unqualified to hold the position of president. What benefit would he have by bringing these topics up? As for his positions on the issues, he has been very forcoming about his stance on the issues, did you see any of the dozen or so debate that he participated in? I guess that just doesn't go very well with the right wing rhetoric that he has no stand on the issues though does it?
    Right on Richard!!!







    Some Douchebag: "[Pimp C] 12:43 am: its true we got to stick together the black people on SW CK you is teh condoleeza of SW"


  15. #15
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Why I say 'Nobama"

    ^^^ Richard may be 'right on' but that doesn't make him 'right' !!! The $250,000 figure thrown out by Obama was only in the context of the Social Security tax cap. This was a concession to middle class Americans ... meaning that if enacted as suggested a person with a 1/2 million dollar income would pay current rates for social security tax up to the current $97,500 earnings threshold. Then from $97,500 to $250,000 no additional social security taxes would be collected. But once earnings exceeded $250,000 the social security tax would again be charged.

    This $250,000 threshold has absolutely NOTHING to do with Obama's call for increasing the capital gains tax rate, absolutely NOTHING to do with Obama's call for increasing the federal income tax rate, or any other type of proposed tax increase except the proposed removal of the current social security cap on earnings subject to social security tax !!! This means that if an investor sells X shares of ABC Corp at a $1000 profit, they will wind up paying $280 in cap gains tax instead of the present $150 regardless of whether their total income is $50k or $500k or $5 million per year. And in reality, at the $5 million dollar level, they could probably sell those ABC Corp shares through a shell corporation via a foreign stock exchange without paying any tax to the USA at all ( just ask the UBS Warburg executives who are under investigation for 'hiding' just such investments / transactions by rich Americans)

    Technically he wouldn't be raising rates he would just let the Bush tax cuts expire.
    most Americans would tell you that if the gov't takes $2000 more in federal income taxes than it did last year, that this constitutes a major tax increase (regardless of your convenient technicality)

    As of the math, 40% + 6.2 for FICA (it aint 12.5) + 1.45% for Medicare (sorry, not 2%)
    that is only true if you 'ignore' the employer's 6.2% matching tax payment ... something that is impossible for self-employed dancers who get to pay the entire 12.5%. And even for employees, the 6.2% employer SSI tax payment will rear its ugly head in one form or another ... via smaller / nonexistant future pay raises for example, or via higher prices for the company's product, or via a 6% cut in the workforce to hold the employers' total SSI tax payments to the same dollar amount.
    Last edited by Melonie; 06-30-2008 at 05:35 PM.

  16. #16
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    244
    Thanks
    134
    Thanked 186 Times in 84 Posts

    Default Re: Why I say 'Nobama"

    Quote Originally Posted by BrodieLux View Post
    Other may disagree with me on this, but I believe it is morally suspect to claim that you essentially "deserve" to eat caviar while others starve. If you make $10 million, you should give away $6 million to other people, if the lack of it means they suffer.
    This is just Communist nonsense that sounds nice and sweet on paper but has turned every country it's touched into a third world hell hole.

    If you've earned your wealth, you're entitled to every last penny of your income. Period.

    Quote Originally Posted by BrodieLux View Post
    You don't need $4 million. You don't even need $1 million.
    Says who?

    Quote Originally Posted by BrodieLux View Post
    So to argue otherwise is frankly beyond selfish in any society (bad luck and bad genetics and accidents happen to people everywhere), but especially here, where we have a vast inequality of opportunity.
    There are many things wrong with America, but when it comes to inequality of opportunity, most of the planet lags far behind us. America is one of the very few countries in the world where the sons of Janitors can end up Millionaires if they apply themselves. In most parts of the world, you're pretty much condemned to the class you're born into. Please get some perspective.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nini Nieb View Post
    It is OK to have different opionens in my opionen

  17. #17
    God/dess FBR's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2003
    Posts
    8,351
    Thanks
    85
    Thanked 342 Times in 244 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Mellow

    Default Re: Why I say 'Nobama"

    As much as I hate being old, in a way I am glad so that I won't live to see the Marxist experiment that is coming to this country

    FBR
    Once again I have embraced my addiction and have put off the moral dilemma to another day.

  18. #18
    God/dess
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    2,993
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: Why I say 'Nobama"

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    This $250,000 threshold has absolutely NOTHING to do with Obama's call for increasing the capital gains tax rate, absolutely NOTHING to do with Obama's call for increasing the federal income tax rate, or any other type of proposed tax increase except the proposed removal of the current social security cap on earnings subject to social security tax !!! This means that if an investor sells X shares of ABC Corp at a $1000 profit, they will wind up paying $280 in cap gains tax instead of the present $150 regardless of whether their total income is $50k or $500k or $5 million per year.
    Why do I even bother??? Did you even look at the link I posted??? Here it is again. Here's a direct quote for you to make it even easier:

    "The fact is that Obama's proposal exempts all making under $250,000 a year from paying any increase in the capital gains rate, according to campaign economic adviser Austan Goolsbee."

  19. #19
    God/dess
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    2,993
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: Why I say 'Nobama"

    Quote Originally Posted by TarsTone View Post
    If you've earned your wealth, you're entitled to every last penny of your income. Period.
    Period??? End of story??? So you want to give up your access to police and fire protection? Access to highways and a functioning infrastructure? Fuck the millitary we don't need one of those, or jails and prisons, we don't really need to lock up convicts do we? Clean water is highly overrated. Public education, kids don't need no edukaton. The national debt will pay itself off they don't need my money, I earned it all by myself with no help from anybody. If you don't want to pay taxes I suggest you get the fuck out.

  20. #20
    God/dess
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    2,993
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: Why I say 'Nobama"

    Quote Originally Posted by FBR View Post
    As much as I hate being old, in a way I am glad so that I won't live to see the Marxist experiment that is coming to this country

    FBR
    You're really becoming a grumpy old man FBR, embrace it already.

  21. #21
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    244
    Thanks
    134
    Thanked 186 Times in 84 Posts

    Default Re: Why I say 'Nobama"

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard_Head View Post
    Period??? End of story??? So you want to give up your access to police and fire protection? Access to highways and a functioning infrastructure? Fuck the millitary we don't need one of those, or jails and prisons, we don't really need to lock up convicts do we? Clean water is highly overrated. Public education, kids don't need no edukaton. The national debt will pay itself off they don't need my money, I earned it all by myself with no help from anybody. If you don't want to pay taxes I suggest you get the fuck out.
    Hey Skippy, try reading people's posts before you respond to them. I know that's not a priority for loony ideologues, but it does help avoid making an ass out of yourself.

    My post had nothing to do with Taxes. It was a response to the communist drivel being posted by BrodieLux, specifically regarding the idea that people should be required to just give their money away simply because they have more of it. If you agree with that insanity, you're the one who needs to "get the fuck out". Your socialist heaven is only a ferry ride from Miami.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nini Nieb View Post
    It is OK to have different opionens in my opionen

  22. #22
    God/dess
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    2,993
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: Why I say 'Nobama"

    Quote Originally Posted by TarsTone View Post
    Hey Skippy, try reading people's posts before you respond to them. I know that's not a priority for loony ideologues, but it does help avoid making an ass out of yourself.

    My post had nothing to do with Taxes. It was a response to the communist drivel being posted by BrodieLux, specifically regarding the idea that people should be required to just give their money away simply because they have more of it. If you agree with that insanity, you're the one who needs to "get the fuck out". Your socialist heaven is only a ferry ride from Miami.
    Sorry Slick, I guess I jumped the gun there didn't I, I just assumed you were spewing more of your right wing rhetoric. For the record, no I don't think anybody should be forced to donate money.

  23. #23
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Why I say 'Nobama"

    "The fact is that Obama's proposal exempts all making under $250,000 a year from paying any increase in the capital gains rate, according to campaign economic adviser Austan Goolsbee."
    This was thrown out after Obama's original proposal was slammed. To date Obama has not officially confirmed this either. In fact, this is a perfect example of why Obama's economic proposals are so scary ... because the 'devil is in the details' and the details keep changing depending on the particular interest of the audience du jour. This is apparently the financial equivalent of Obama's position on the middle east ... telling a Jewish group that the US will stand behind its ally Israel to the end, while telling other groups that he's willing to unilaterally and unconditionally negotiate with the Iranians !


    (snip)"Obama Has Provided Varied Numbers On Who Would See Higher Tax Rates:

    This Week, Obama Told Reporters He Would Raise Taxes On The Top 5 Percent Of
    Earners. "Speaking to reporters in St. Louis, he said he would eliminate the
    capital gains tax 'for the small businesses and startups that are the backbone
    of our economy.' His income tax plans, Obama said, would cut taxes for 95
    percent of U.S. workers, while rolling back the Bush administration's tax
    reductions for the highest-earning 5 percent." (Matt Apuzzo and Charles
    Babington, "McCain, Obama Trade Jabs On Economy, Taxes," The Associated Press,
    6/11/0

    -- In 2005, The Cut Off For The Top 5 Percent Of Earners Began At $145,283
    - Well Below Obama's $250,000. "Including all tax returns that
    had a positive AGI, those taxpayers with an AGI of $145,283 or more in
    2005 constituted the nation's top 5 percent of
    earners."(Gerald Prante, "Summary Of Latest Federal Individual
    Income Tax Data," , 10/5/07)


    Obama Said Americans Earning $100,000 Or Less Don't Deserve To Pay Higher
    Taxes; Implied Americans Earning More Could See Higher Taxes. Obama: "And what
    I have said is, I will institute a middle-class tax cut. So, if you're making
    $75,000, if you're making $50,000 a year, you will see an extra $1,000 a year
    offsetting on your payroll tax." CNN's Wolf Blitzer: "Define middle class."
    Obama: "Well you know I think the definitions are a little bit rough, but
    let's just take it this way, if you're making $100,000 a year or less then
    you're pretty solidly middle class and you deserve relief right now as opposed
    to paying higher taxes. On the other hand, if you're making more than n
    $100,000, and certainly if you're making more than $200,000 or $250,000, then
    you're doing pretty well." (CNN's "The Situation Room," 5/8/0"(snip)

    from


    In the final analysis, Obama is proposing to increase spending for a new national health insurance program, for new / expanded tax credits for the 'working poor', for additional spending on existing social welfare programs, for additional spending on alternative energy programs etc. - which together will cost many hundreds of billions of additional dollars. This additional revenue has to be raised somewhere. If Obama attempts to go with the $250,000 threshold for tax increases in order to avoid alienating the middle class voting segment, it's a simple fact of life that those high earners are going to alter their financial 'behavior' to legally minimize their tax liabilities - meaning that Obama's treasury will not collect anywhere near the anticipated tax revenues from the 'rich' that they planned on and have already spent money on.

    So after the first year, with those hundreds of billions of dollars already spent and with tax revenues coming in way short of 'projected' levels, Obama will then face the choice of cutting spending on these programs (not !) or hitting up a wider group of taxpayers with tax increases in order to actually collect the necessary tax revenues. This is the 'slippery slope' that you and other 'tax the hell out of the 'rich' supporters begin to slide down the minute you advocate / support tax policies that affect 'someone else' ... initially $250k is considered 'rich' but next year $100k might be considered 'rich' and the 'someone else' will be you !!! Or, like the AMT, high inflation will cause the $250k threshold that affects 1% of Americans today, or a $145k threshold that affects 5% of Americans today (or whatever cutoff level Obama actually winds up getting into his tax increase legislation after he is elected) to eventually affect 25% of Americans tomorrow without congress having to pass any tax increase. The basic point is that you're willing to accept Obama's non-specific proposals to vastly increase spending and vastly increase taxes on the 'rich' to pay for that spending on a 'faith based' basis !!!


    (snip)"A Return to the Bad Old Days

    Historically, Senator Obama's tax rate would be the highest individual tax rate since the Jimmy Carter days. Tax shelters and tax avoidance strategies were common when the top marginal rate was 70 percent or higher. This new top tax rate will again encourage these gimmicks, reducing investment and economic growth as resources are squandered in an attempt to avoid punitive taxation.

    Many individuals will attempt to transfer their compensation from wages to capital gains, since capital gains would only be taxed at 25 percent, or less than half of the top rate on wages. This would put a great deal of pressure on a company to do anything it could to make its stock quickly increase in value. Other individuals would try to incorporate so they could pay business taxes instead of having to pay taxes on their wages. Again, these resources would be diverted away from more productive uses and slow the economy.

    High tax rates also encourage capital and income flight to lower-taxed areas. There is ample evidence in the United States of individuals and businesses moving to states such as Florida or Delaware to take advantage of their tax-friendly laws. A higher federal tax rate would encourage individuals to move assets abroad to take advantage of lower tax rates in countries such as Canada, France, and Great Britain.

    These high tax rates could also have a large impact on the labor force. Many workers could choose to reduce their hours or simply retire in the face of such high taxation. Economists usually argue a great deal about what effect minor changes in the tax code will have on incentives to work. However, the Obama plan calls for a tax increase so large that economists will be focusing on the harm to the overall economy rather than just the isolated effects on labor and on capital.

    A Finite Source of Revenue

    Perhaps a larger worry than the damage to the economy is the long-run budget problem of the United States. While Senator Obama raises taxes a great deal on upper income individuals, the overall tax plan increases the national deficit. As a result, the country will be even less prepared to pay for current and future Social Security and Medicare obligations. When money is needed to pay for those programs, it will be hard to tax the rich even more, given that the top rate will already be so high. Instead, in order to pay the government's spending and entitlement shortfalls, taxes would fall most heavily on middle-income Americans. After all, even successful taxpayers are not an infinite source of revenue."(snip)

    from


    I highly recommend that everybody read the above link thoroughly, and attempt to envision the results by 2017 ... when the demographics of Social Security taxes vs payouts flip negative. As the author points out, if Obama's tax proposals have been put into effect 8 years earlier (i.e. 2009), and if as a result a number of the highest earning Americans (and American companies) have responded to those tax increases by leaving the USA, this can only result in massive tax increases on the middle class to continue those Social Security payouts OR a massive reduction in those payouts to retired Americans. There simply won't be any 'rich' pockets still available to pick to cover the shortfall !

    The author is also correct IMHO in regard to the high 'Moral Hazard' which will be created by Obama's increases in benefits for the 'poor' as well as by Obama's increases in taxes on the 'rich'. We've discussed Moral Hazard in many other threads, and Obama's proposals would only make the existing situation worse. Not only would Americans earning less than $30,000 per year (or whatever level preserves social welfare benefit / tax credit eligibility) be strongly incentivized to NOT increase their earnings, but now higher earning Americans would face the same situation if additional earnings would push them over the $250,000 or $145,000 (or whatever definition of 'rich' winds up becoming law) earnings mark where draconian tax rates would kick in. In the real world, this means businesses closing down and owners retiring (with associated loss of tax revenues and jobs) - or alternatively it means the redirection of private sector investment away from US companies and toward tax free muni bonds, towards tax credit laden farmland or ethanol refineries etc.

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 07-01-2008 at 03:39 AM.

  24. #24
    Featured Member BrodieLux's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    938
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 21 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: Why I say 'Nobama"

    I wasn't saying anyone should be forced to donate money. But when you consider specifically the portion of taxes that do go towards social programs, ie. helping the less fortunate, you are morally obligated.
    Quote Originally Posted by CuriousSeeker View Post
    ^Pssssttttt, your stripper is showing.

  25. #25
    Featured Member thechaosfairy's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Dear Gods plz send money to Oregon K luv you bye
    Posts
    1,780
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 13 Times in 12 Posts

    Default Re: Why I say 'Nobama"

    Two words: War spending.

    More than two words: The money the US currently spends on emergency room care is actually less than the full cost of providing all of America's poor with the preventative care that would avoid those emergency room visits.

    If you don't vote for Obama, you're throwing good money after bad.
    Quote Originally Posted by red red red View Post
    Like super-fast, frenetic, chipmunklike stylized humping with this look on her face like "Kill! Kill!"
    Quote Originally Posted by iseestars View Post
    i think people like going to parties and clubs and looking like douchebags.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. "Extras Girls" aka "The Finishers"- The REAL Breakdown
    By kikiwiki in forum Stripping (was Stripping General)
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 11-05-2017, 01:12 PM
  2. "Hun," "Baby," "Darlin'" and other endearing terms
    By Chicagoeditor in forum Customer Conversation
    Replies: 74
    Last Post: 10-29-2013, 04:02 PM
  3. Replies: 26
    Last Post: 09-29-2013, 12:45 AM
  4. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-24-2012, 05:34 PM
  5. The terms "mojo" and "nation sack" in blues music
    By PhaedrusZ in forum Music Mix
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-29-2008, 08:00 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •