Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by D_Pubert Stabbingpain, Oct 15, 2008.
Barack Obama and Joe Biden: Change We Need | Obama Tax Calculator
Don't you think these things are a bit premature...who knows what kind of scenario will happen between now and Apr of 09?
It's just a high tech way of getting his tax plan message out to the public where everyone can see how his plan would affect them personally. It is quite a good idea expecially if they start advertising the web site. Just out of curiosity, people from all sides will go there. And, oh, surprise, there you get to see all his policies! It is a fantastic idea.
If the McCain campaign actually had more than criticism, they would have thought up something like this too. Now, anything they do will be copycat.
pretty amusing...I typed in mine and it said
"You will PROBABLY not get a tax cut under the Obama-Biden Plan"
if you make 100-150k per year, you will get a 34$ tax cut savings...so i guess those folks are "rich" too.
75-100k per year...wow...you get $250...5 whole dollars a week.
it's all total BS when people like Obama talk about class warfare. I hate the rpublicans, but at least they are not phony enough to make class warfare the centerpiece.
Everything the democrats do is geared towards class warfare.
examples: when Bill Clinton used to talk about the rich paying mroe taxes he called it their "contribution". last i checked, surrendering money under threat of jailtime was not a "contribution".
it is similar to saying to people that pay little to no taxes that they are going to make the "rich" who already pay 34-39.6 federal (Clinton era) pay their "fair share".
Obama is from the same school...he knows how words are perceived...it is like when he says that nobody making "a quarter million dollars or more" will be getting a tax cut....
it is totally dishonest...it is the inclusion of the word "million"...even though a 1/4 million is nowhere near a million. The inclusion if that "million" sticks in the average voters mind much more than if he was to say "250 thousand dollars".
this is right out of the class warfare playbook.
he did it in the debate tonight to, talking about a "quarter of a billion dollars" or a "half trillion dollars"
sounds a lot different doesn't it?
same old shit.
oh and is plan is really "generous" to hard working families too, who earn a bit more...
If you are earning 250,000 a year jointly, have 3+ kids/dependents, and have child care expenses, are saving for retirement and have a $500,000 mortgage..."you probably will not get a tax cut under the Obama-Biden Plan"
cause i am sure that family is just rolling in dough, and are the "rich" and thus, the bad guys.
enter Phil Ayesho to tell us that this particular hypothetical family produces nothing, and they stop being so fucking selfish and thinking about their children first and start thinking about the "community" who needs their money too.
what a joke.
You are now "rich" in America if you earn $250,000 a year.
yeah...tell that to a family with 2-3 kids, a house, a mortgage and bills, and hopes of sending their kids to college.
In most major cities, $250K a year is not considered rich. What's conspicuously absent from any of these discussions on taxes is how are the going to balance the budget? Where are the cuts? Why is the military always off the table, especially as it takes almost 30% when "off-balance" sheet figures are brought into play. Most other nations spend about 1-5%.
McCain's lame across the board cuts is almost as bad a Nixonian price freezes. Obama's tax credits are a seriously skewed system, in which you can get a check from the government, even if you did not pay any taxes.
Why tinker on the edges forever? Get rid of the whole system. A three tiered flat tax, same for business would get rid of all the perks, pork, and perpetual perversion of the system. Then the only thing lobbyists could argue for is legal changes to benefit their industry.
With $700B as just the beginning of the bailout, there needs to be some serious restructuring of government, if we are not going to go the way of Argentina.
Very good points!
I like a flat rate tax, just for simplicity (because it sucks that you have to hire a pro to do your taxes correctly) however I do feel like a guy who earns $30K getting to take home only $27K while a guy that earns $300K getting to take home $270K is a little unfair only because $30K and $27K is hard to live on while $270K is easy.
But at the same time I HATE a tiered system because, for example, if there is a tax hike at $300K, then a guy that earned $299K is going to take home a hell of a lot more money than a guy that earned $301K and that is absolutely unfair.
My tax sytem would be a continuous exponential rate. That means that you rate would be slightly higher for every dollar more you earned. So for example a guy earning $30,000 may pay 3% tax while a guy making $300K may pay 30%. A guy that earns $301K may pay 30.1%
Strate - this is what we have now. The % increases just change at each table instead of each dollar.
$250,000 is considered rich, even in NYC, which is the most expensive place to live in the entire country. If you make more than 95% of people, you are rich. I'm willing to go out on a limb here.
I would save $500 which is a nice pair of Stuart Weitzman pumps or a weekend at a nice hotel with my beau, Truckertexman. Good thing I was already planning to vote for Obama/Biden.
That and my dick are premature!!! ba-dum---> Ching!
Thank you, Thank you... I'm here all week!!!
You have no clue how much it costs to live in NYC
and this article disputes what you would call rich, and certainly what others think is rich is based on what they earn.
Just how rich is rich, really? - MSN Money
you are from nowheresville Louisiana, and you are telling someone how much it costs to be rich in NYC?
trust me, you know zilch.
it costs twice as much to live in New York City then in Oregon.
so if you live in Oregon, are you rich making 125k a year?
sorry, not even close.
you are not rich if you live in NYC, and are making 250k. not even close.
after all your taxes you only keep 55% of your cash. that leaves you with 137K....before rents, food, and life expenses.
Sorry, you are nowhere close to rich if that is the case and your wealth is based on earnings.
Rich is a subjective term, so you can define it anyway you see fit. I think that if you're in the top 5%, you're rich, or wealthy, or well-to-do, however you want to mince words.
South Bay, LA, refers to the south bay area of Los Angeles, though I'd guess you'd have to actually have lived there to know that. I moved here from NY a year ago, so I'm well aware of how much it costs to live in NY. And if you're making $250k in NYC, you're doing well, unless you're an idiot.
my mistake. LA is louisiana in state abbreviation :smile: maybe you should put L.A. to avoid any future confusion :wink:
I would say being in the top 5% depends also on if you have a family or not.
i posted an interesting link earlier to a wiki graphic about three different studies on class in america....
(look about half way down the page to the section that says "social class" i found it rather interesting to glance at.)
Household income in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
indeed, you are doing well....but 250k in NYC does not make you rich, and since you lived here my friend, then you know that :smile:
perhaps, the definitions are subjective, but being in the top 5 % of everything does not mean you are rich, it simply means you belong to the highest 5%.
i would say the truly rich are the top 1-2%, and that is very different from the top 5%....
the top 5% is counted roughly at 250k per year/ and 1 million in total net worth in terms of home equity and investments, wheras the top 1% is generally 500k plus.
if you are single, it would definitely mean you are doing well, but you know a family of four in NYC on 250 k is not rich. (unless in addition, they have very substantial investments built up and own a home/apartment etc.)
Exactly. I don't see a lot of change, percentage wise, with Obama's plan. The major problem today is that the more people make the more they can afford an accountant to help them hide it in loopholes and offshore. The loopholes need to be plugged. And what's what all that shit "starting in this year, you do so and so percent, but in next year . . . . It is the most frustrating to see politicians put date restrictions on everything. JUST DO IT ALREADY!
Like what was with all this "We need this 700 billion now or disastor strikes" bullshit. It's passed already and have they put it to work? NOT. They don't have a fucking clue how to do it. Throw money at a problem and have no clue what to do with it! This are the people who are running out country folks, dtraight into the ground!
Still, mortgage interest rate goes up!!!!! Can somebody help me out here? Isn't the mortgage rate tied to the 30 Year Treasury Bond? Can't the government set that rate? Why don't they simply do whatever it takes to lower the mortgage rate. People will be buying up homes right and left. Is that too simple? Anybody know how the whole mortgage rate works? Is it directly or indeirectly like what they are trying to do with the 700 - 8?? bailout?
It would be nice if mortgage rates dropped, the problem is that the gov't has no influence on T-Bonds. The fed sets the discount and fed funds rates - but those only impact credit cards and HELOC's.
The Treasury Bond is traded like most any other security. If demand increases for the T-Bonds (they are extremely secure, and internationally very popular because they are backed by US Govt) - then the yield/rates will drop.
Mortgage rates are closely tied to the T-Bond. An investor sees a T-Bond at 4.2% yield with virtually no risk. If the investor wants to increase yield, he/she may choose to invest in mortgage-backed securites - but would need a higher yield to reward him/her for the increased risk. The market determines what yield that needs to be for investors to buy - and that, in a nutshell, is how the mortgage rates are arrived at.
I hope this helps.
The bailout, in theory, should make credit loosen up so that banks can start offering mortgages again. But they haven't done anything yet with that bailout money. I wish they've hurry the F up already.
can I get a refund of the cover charge?
um--why don't you check again. I'm in that bracket, no dependents, and I get $1800 under Obama's plan. $0 under McCain.
I just did
100 to 150 k bracket
- not over 65
- no child care expenses
- saving/not saving for retirement (immaterial, same result)
- college expenses (immaterial, same result)
- $500,000 outstanding mortgage (or 250k outstanding mortgage)
$800 dollar savings.
no mortgage and it is $1000 in savings
so if this calculator can not even give us a straight answer, i wonder why an Obama administration would? (not that McCain would do any better)
if his tax cut calculator gives people three different answers for virtually the same thing, I don't buy it.
i just checked on being single and earning 150k to 200k...34$ savings.
that person his middle class too...34$ is hardly a generous tax cut.