Biden's 'fairness' for kids

[mindseye]

We already have progressive taxes. I've never complained about progressive taxes. Its going to a new level.

False. It's going to an old level. Specifically, he's proposed repealing Bush's tax cuts from 2001 and 2003, so the tax rates will be back at the level they were at when we last had a balanced federal budget.

Not a new level.

It isn't Robin Hood, its rape.

The guy who calls women "whores" also thinks paying taxes is comparable to rape. Oink, oink.

 

[lucky8]

Well, the D- student will get propped up. Thanks, Barry.

Why can't you understand we aren't experiencing a normal American economic situation right now? A LOT of people who are struggling right now are struggling for reasons beyond their control. They can't help the fact that their money is now worth less than it has been in their entire lives; they can't help the fact that prices for almost every product and service have increased dramatically; they can't help the fact a good portion of their retirement money went down the drain; they can't help the fact that employers won't increase their wages; and they can't help the fact that governmental mismanagement is what lead to all of these problems. Our crisis goes far beyond the burst of the housing bubble. This is a problem the government has created, and now we expect the government to fix it. Thanks Dubya, you've really divided our country and made the lives of the majority of our population a living hell. I expect suicide rates will be on the rise shortly. Again, thanks Dubya.

 

[B_starinvestor]

Why can't you understand we aren't experiencing a normal American economic situation right now? A LOT of people who are struggling right now are struggling for reasons beyond their control. They can't help the fact that their money is now worth less than it has been in their entire lives; they can't help the fact that prices for almost every product and service have increased dramatically; they can't help the fact a good portion of their retirement money went down the drain; they can't help the fact that employers won't increase their wages; and they can't help the fact that governmental mismanagement is what lead to all of these problems. Our crisis goes far beyond the burst of the housing bubble. This is a problem the government has created, and now we expect the government to fix it. Thanks Dubya, you've really divided our country and made the lives of the majority of our population a living hell. I expect suicide rates will be on the rise shortly. Again, thanks Dubya.

I do understand that, Lucky8. But gouging dollars from the small business community isn't the answer. I'm not suggesting that the working class should be targeted, but the working class will be the first to go when businesses are pushed into a corner by Barry/Obiden. Small business owners are already preparing for employee cuts, benefit/holiday cuts and space reductions thanks to the Barry effect.

 

[B_starinvestor]

False. It's going to an old level. Specifically, he's proposed repealing Bush's tax cuts from 2001 and 2003, so the tax rates will be back at the level they were at when we last had a balanced federal budget.

Not a new level.

The repeal of the Bush tax cuts is only a small part of the new plan. He's raising the ceiling on FICA taxes from 100K to 250K. The FICA burden is 15.3%. For a small business owner - the additional FICA exposure is [15.3% x 150k] = $22k additional...on top of the increased progressive tax table. That's at least 1 employee out of a job for each small business.

If the small business owner isn't making $250k, he's most likely out of business anyway.

Fuck it. I hope something works. Right now this whole situation just sucks beyond belief.

The guy who calls women "whores" also thinks paying taxes is comparable to rape. Oink, oink

Ah, my bad. Women that are fucking married men deserve a much more respectful term.

 

[lucky8]

Well, I guess that 5% of people are going to have to rethink the size of their house, and purchase a new one that they can actually afford, you know, live within their means.:wink:

It is sad that they would rather lay people off than adjust their personal lives, while expecting everyone else to adjust so they can benefit.

By the way, small businesses who don't offshore their activities will be receiving tax breaks for every new employee hired. This should help to offset those "astronomical" tax hikes that most small businesses WON'T incur since the majority of small business owners DON'T make over $250,000.

 

[mindseye]

That's at least 1 employee out of a job for each small business.

You made this claim yesterday, and were asked to cite it, but haven't done so yet.

 

[B_starinvestor]

Well, I guess that 5% of people are going to have to rethink the size of their house, and purchase a new one that they can actually afford, you know, live within their means.:wink:

It is sad that they would rather lay people off than adjust their personal lives, while expecting everyone else to adjust so they can benefit.

By the way, small businesses who don't offshore their activities will be receiving tax breaks for every new employee hired. This should help to offset those "astronomical" tax hikes that most small businesses WON'T incur since the majority of small business owners DON'T make over $250,000.

$250k goes quickly in slow economic cycles. Take a car dealership, for example. The owner of the lot pledges personal assets to put inventory on the lot. If it doesn't sell, the owner is on the hook for the unsold inventory.

Take the convenience store owner. Hurricane Ike shuts down the gas distribution system. The store owner can't sell gas and has no customers. He/she loses food, pays employees and benefits, and has no revenue. Owner is covering everything out of his/her pocket.

How about restaurant owner? Nobody is going out to eat. He pays rent/mortgage, utils, staff, food costs - little to no revenue coming in. Now he has additional taxes? He's paying for food, chef, servers, etc. etc.

Life's really not that rosey for this business community. The banks are calling back loans, lines of credit. Its pretty bad, lucky8.

 

[lucky8]

Thanks for taking me back to my 1st Entrepreneurship class, I know all of these things. You're straying from the point. We're talking about taxes here, not hurricane Ike. I promise you that in most instances, that convience store owner is not making more than $250,000 a year. He may have over $250,000 in sales, but not in profit. Thus, the tax hike will not affect him.

Same goes for that restaurant owner. He may be making over $250,000 in sales, but probably not over $250,000 in profit. Thus, the tax hike will not affect him either.

As for the car dealer, well, fuck him, he's making over $250,000 in personal profit, he's already well off. His business is doomed regardless of tax hike or no tax hike, as long as he's trying to sell American cars that is.

 

[B_starinvestor]

Thanks for taking me back to my 1st Entrepreneurship class, I know all of these things. You're straying from the point. We're talking about taxes here, not hurricane Ike. I promise you that in most instances, that convience store owner is not making more than $250,000 a year. He may have over $250,000 in sales, but not in profit. Thus, the tax hike will not affect him.

Same goes for that restaurant owner. He may be making over $250,000 in sales, but probably not over $250,000 in profit. Thus, the tax hike will not affect him either.

As for the car dealer, well, fuck him, he's making over $250,000 in personal profit, he's already well off. His business is doomed regardless of tax hike or no tax hike, as long as he's trying to sell American cars that is.

Okay. You got it figured out.

 

[B_starinvestor]

You made this claim yesterday, and were asked to cite it, but haven't done so yet.

Obama's Social Security Fine Print - WSJ.com

I'm headed for bed. Here's one reference (above). Its a right-wing article, but it addresses the FICA issue. I'll find more tomorrow, but this is part of his proposal.

 

[lucky8]

I may not have it all figured out, but your examples actually argue against the point you're trying to make. If those business owners are having to invest their own capital into their business because they have no revenue prior to taxes(like business owners have been doing for centuries), then there is no way they are making over $250,000...thus, in reality, the tax hikes do not affect them. It's really a pretty simple concept to understand.

 

[mindseye]

Obama's Social Security Fine Print - WSJ.com

I'm headed for bed. Here's one reference (above). Its a right-wing article, but it addresses the FICA issue. I'll find more tomorrow, but this is part of his proposal.

This reference doesn't address your claim that small businesses will shed "at least 1 employee out of a job for each small business," which was the only sentence I asked you to cite.

 

[B_starinvestor]

This reference doesn't address your claim that small businesses will shed "at least 1 employee out of a job for each small business," which was the only sentence I asked you to cite.

It will be a difficult task to find a statistic for something that will occur in the future.

 

[mindseye]

It will be a difficult task to find a statistic for something that will occur in the future.

Will? For things that will happen, it's easy to find statistics. I can open up my almanac and tell you what time sunset will occur on Election Day, even though that hasn't happened. I can tell a recent graduate what the balance on their student loans will be after a year of payments.

We can even find information for future events that aren't 100% guaranteed: we have a good idea what the world population will be in 2010. We have a good idea which states will gain or lose seats in the House after the next census. We have tons of political polling that lead us to be virtually certain of the outcome of the presidential race in states like Rhode Island or Wyoming, and even with a high degree of confidence in states like Wisconsin and Colorado.

It's hard to find sources for things that aren't likely to happen: nobody's been able to specify the date when I'll win the lottery (...and therefore stop being lazy...). So if you're having trouble documenting the amazing volume of job losses you're claiming -- at least one per business! -- the reason may be that your claim is too pessimistic to be sourceable.

 

[B_starinvestor]

Will? For things that will happen, it's easy to find statistics. I can open up my almanac and tell you what time sunset will occur on Election Day, even though that hasn't happened. I can tell a recent graduate what the balance on their student loans will be after a year of payments.

We can even find information for future events that aren't 100% guaranteed: we have a good idea what the world population will be in 2010. We have a good idea which states will gain or lose seats in the House after the next census. We have tons of political polling that lead us to be virtually certain of the outcome of the presidential race in states like Rhode Island or Wyoming, and even with a high degree of confidence in states like Wisconsin and Colorado.

It's hard to find sources for things that aren't likely to happen: nobody's been able to specify the date when I'll win the lottery (...and therefore stop being lazy...). So if you're having trouble documenting the amazing volume of job losses you're claiming -- at least one per business! -- the reason may be that your claim is too pessimistic to be sourceable.

Instead of buying lottery tickets, why don't you donate those dollars to charity? Phil Ayesho will be very disappointed.

If Barry get elected and his tax plan is implemented, I'll get you statistics on job loss. No one is out there publishing potential future job losses attributable to Barry's tax plan yet. The numbers would be pure speculation, anyway. Nobody is polling the business owners on whether or not they will cut ee's; and the bus. owner wouldn't volunteer that info anyway.

 

[Flashy]

And since when is life fair? You're not for Obama taking your dollars, and I'm not for McCain taking mine, someone always gets the short end of the stick. The last 8 years it's been everyone but the wealthy, this next 4, possibly 8, it's going to be the wealthy, deal with it, we did.

well my friend, you or anyone can claim that "everyone but the wealthy is getting the short end of the stick"...

but i have to say, that when you are paying 33-35% in taxes, down from 36-39.6% in taxes and others are still paying half that and less, sorry, you are indeed, still getting the short end of the stick.

I do not have a problem with Obama or McCain taking my dollars, as long as it is fair and reasonable.

to suggest that the wealthy should "deal with it" because you did, is a lie...cause you didn't deal with it. If you were making 8,550 to 32,550 a year, you were paying 15% in taxes....so you didn't deal with shit.

You dealt with a low salary...big difference. Your short end of the stick was your own salary, not your taxes.

hell even someone not much wealthier than that level gets hosed compared to those getting the "short end of the stick"...

if you earned 32,000 a year, you pay 15% federal. you earn 38,000, you pay 25% federal....that's really fair! so even though you earned 6000 more than someone, you only get to keep 1300 more!!!!!!!!!!! That makes sense!

only the deranged can claim that people who are paying 2.33 times less in their federal taxes per year, (15%) are getting the short end of the stick at the expense of those paying 35%.

here is a tip...get over the class warfare BS.

It is pathetic.

Here is a *FACT*.

The Rich *ALWAYS GET RICHER*

they get richer for the most part because they earn more, then they invest more, and they can afford to hire professional managers to help grow that wealth.

The rich got richer under Clinton then at any time in history, even with higher rates of 36 and 39.6 in the top two brackets.

an angry person earning 40,000 a year, will simply never be able to deal with the fact that a person earning 400,000 a year, is going to get richer no matter what, so the question becomes, how badly do you and the angry others making that 40,000 or so want to try and punish and give the "short end of the stick" to that fellow?

Why not just admit that you and many others are angry, and jealous, and you want to take that money.

at least be honest about it. You want what that guy has. Dosn't matter that he may be a good guy, with a wife and three kids, who works hard, worked his way up, has a house, mortgage, and a small business...you just want it, no ifs ands or butts, and the fact that he already pays 2.33 times as much in percentage to you is still unacceptable, because you want it, and you will use the government, and the minions you elect to go and get it under threat of force...sure hike his taxes by another 5%....his family will never miss it....only 20 thousand more a year from him right? take that from him for say 10 years and who cares? He'll never miss that 200k...the rest of us need it. Who cares if he wants to send his three kids to private schools and then on to college...after all, that will only cost him 25 grand a year per kid for the private schooling (75 k a year) and then three kids in college at 40 grand a year (120 k) ? sure that won't take a bite or anything.

but hey, he'll never miss it...so let him just "deal with it" since you are pissed off right?

what's next? Are you going to demand forced yard sales from the guy at reasonable prices so you can pick up some of his stuff that you want at a discount?

this is the lowest form of politics and society, based on fomented jealousy and anger about what some want and others have.

 

[Flashy]

I love how the new republican talking point is that progressive taxation is some kind of robin hood scheme. If you don't want the government redistributing your wealth, stop paying taxes altogether.

it is hardly a republican talking point.

so if it is not some "robin hood scheme" what is it? a fair and equitable solution? hardly.

i am for progressive taxation. but zapping people at the top 3 and 3.5 times the rate is hardly progressive, it is in fact punitive, nasty and bitter class warfare and the politics of envy.

at least have the guts to call it what it is.

 

[mindseye]

For a small business owner - the additional FICA exposure is [15.3% x 150k] = $22k additional...on top of the increased progressive tax table. That's at least 1 employee out of a job for each small business.

The numbers would be pure speculation, anyway.

Yes, they would. And if they were credible speculation, McCain would have been a fool for not using them last night.

 

[B_starinvestor]

Yes, they would. And if they were credible speculation, McCain would have been a fool for not using them last night.

He is a fool.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

I think people who are in the highest parts of the financial spectrum just have no idea what goes on in the minds of the people below them. Many times they want to talk about how it's thievery or how it's unfair that they have to pay more taxes than someone who is making much less than they are. From my eyes, it makes no sense.

From the viewpoint of someone who is middle class, makes the average family salary or even lower, they can't understand why people who are at the top need all of that money. Nobody is suggesting that they don't deserve what they have if they earned it, however, the average person wouldn't need even 1% of what the top people make in order to survive. It only seems fair to them that the people with the money pay more taxes, because they don't feel that anyone needs to have millions or billions of dollars in order to make their ends meet and live comfortably. Even with tax hikes, they'll still be living their lives of luxury. From the viewpoint at the top (and I'm guessing this because I'm nowhere near this), they view those as who only work to get by as lazy. Somehow they wanted to work hard (we hope) to develop their fortunes so why should they part ways with anyone who doesn't do what they do.

I tend to side with the people who are struggling... when can people learn to separate need from want? The people up above need to realize that those below them may be working just as hard as they are if not more to make the few wages they can. It's hard for anyone who are in the top 1-2% percentiles to fathom what a struggling person or family is going through. And all they want is to make enough money to take care of their needs, which is very little compared to the people who make the majority of the money in this country. Everyone wants to have millions of dollars. But most people, at least the little man, realize that they don't need it.

It's not thievery. It's not penalizing the rich for making all the cash. IMO, if they reserve the right to use our financial system to get as much money as they want, far surpassing what they essentially need in order to live comfortably like the rest of the nation, then they should accept all the responsibilities that come with it. Even if you analyze two different people in the middle class, someone who makes $60K/year is still going to pay more in taxes than someone who makes $40K/year. That's because the first person makes more money. It's just common sense. Why should this ideal be exempt from the truly wealthy?