Final presidential poll 2008 who will it be? - Page 21

Arby · #**121** (**permalink**) 10-20-2008, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bubba74

these people have no tax liability, so, they can expect a check right

If they can take advantage of the same credits and deductions as you, sure. I would much rather give $567 to the lowest 20% then see the top 1 in 1,000 see their after-tax incomes rise 11.6 percent, or about $680,000, more than ten times the relative gain of those in the bottom quintile.

who would benefit the most?

USA TRKR · #**122** (**permalink**) 10-20-2008, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arby

If they can take advantage of the same credits and deductions as you, sure. I would much rather give $567 to the lowest 20% then see the top 1 in 1,000 see their after-tax incomes rise 11.6 percent, or about $680,000, more than ten times the relative gain of those in the bottom quintile.

who would benefit the most?

Since when did tax law become about who benefits most. If you don't pay taxes you should get "nothing"

Of course you would much rather "give".

Whatever happened to "earned" And why do you hate the rich so much.

I said it before if you don't want to be in the bottom than you won't be. It really is as simple as that.

ptif219 · #**123** (**permalink**) 10-20-2008, 02:27 PM

[quote=Arby;435959]I suggest you take up your state and local taxes with them. Federal income tax is just that "Federal". I live in a state that doesn't have an income tax, but they tax the crap out of us with "sin tax" , "service fees", and "sales tax".
Also, isn't it true you deduct your state income taxes from your Federal return?
I don't pay state income tax in Florida but that only applies to 8 states.You avoid the point as to how much is to much tax

I missed your welfare rant, but I assume you'd be in favor of continuing the corporate welfare policies of Reaganomics?

NoNo you didn't you tried to blow it off because of the source so I said prove it.You seem avoid that.Here it is again now show where this is wrong.

The heart of Obama’s tax cut proposal is in his use of refundable tax credits, which the Center describes as “credits available to eligible households even if they have no income tax liability” -- in short, refunds available even to those who don’t pay taxes. These refunds are claimed on tax returns and are paid to all taxpayers who qualify for them, regardless of whether they owe taxes or not. These refunds have the ability of reducing a taxpayer’s liability below zero, meaning they can get a refund without actually paying taxes.

In real numbers, 60.7 million people who have no tax burden at all will receive refunds from Obama, while only 33.8 million people, who pay approximately 40 percent of income taxes, will get any kind of refund. Twenty percent of taxpayers, who pay 87.5 percent of total income taxes, will actually see after-tax income decline under Obama by nearly two percent, according to the Center.

By using these refunds, Obama is able to claim that he is giving a tax cut to 95 percent of households, although only 62 percent of households pay any income taxes at all. This means that Obama’s tax plan calls for giving money to some households that do not pay taxes, including a plan to make community college “essentially free” and pay 10 percent of the interest on all mortgages.

The problem with Obama’s characterization that his proposals are tax cuts is that refundable credits are calculated as outlays, or direct spending, not as reductions in tax rates, according to the Center. This means that, in budgetary terms, some of Obama’s tax cuts are actually spending increases.

The Tax Policy Center estimates that Obama’s spending proposals will be so large that they effectively eliminate income taxes for 15 million households, increasing the percentage of households that pay no taxes from 37.8 percent to 48.1 percent.

Well, if the "free market" works as it's supposed to, competition will keep cost low for the consumer... LOL

Thats crap we still will have a tax raise because buisness taxes are passed on to the us.Justify it if you wish it is still a tax on us

.

This is just nonsense...

ow your just be hypocritical. You want to deny others their rights/freedoms based on some theological doctrine you beleive, while at the same decrying that the SCOTUS would hypthetically deny you some of yours. Your argument doesn't make sense.

No if the libs want on talk radio then do it but don't force a company to put them on when it is not profitable.Thay is libs trying to silence the right and take away their free speech rights this buisness let supply and demand work.Stop the attempt of government to control media this is not russia.

From the NY Post

SHOULD Barack Obama win the presidency and Democrats take full control of Congress, next year will see a real legislative attempt to bring back the Fairness Doctrine - and to diminish conservatives' influence on broadcast radio, the one medium they dominate

Please elaborate on what freedoms the SCOTUS would take away...

Who knows they may make gay marriage legal and force churches to marry them.

Arby · #**124** (**permalink**) 10-20-2008, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by USA TRKR

Since when did tax law become about who benefits most. If you don't pay taxes you should get "nothing"

Of course you would much rather "give".

Whatever happened to "earned" And why do you hate the rich so much.

I said it before if you don't want to be in the bottom than you won't be. It really is as simple as that.

See here's the thing - I don't hate anyone. I do believe in helping those who need it and can benefit from assistance.

The working poor do pay taxes the same as everyone else. As I've said, if they can benefit from the same credits and deductions as you, then it's good for them just as it is for you.

BTW, when was the last time you received an 11.6% raise in your income just for being privledged?

You see, the income disparity and wealth distribution in this country is in my opinion criminal. Most of the newly rich did not attain their status by performance, but rather by manipulation and crookery at the expense of the rest of us. When 1% of a population controls 80% of the wealth then you cannot have a Democracy or a middle class... What you end up with are cheap-labor-conseratives farming out jobs, destroying the countries infrastructure, using their monies to create a completely one-sided credit system used to keep the people in debt, and an unregulated market ripe with corruption. And they then blame everything they disagree with on "big government" and the poor. Sound familiar? And yes, I know that's a bit over the top...

Your argument for self-determination is simplistic at best, and just plan ignorant at its worst. Darwinian thought does not apply to fair and just soceities.

Why do you hate the poor?

Arby · #**125** (**permalink**) 10-20-2008, 03:58 PM

[quote=ptif219;435973]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arby

I suggest you take up your state and local taxes with them. Federal income tax is just that "Federal". I live in a state that doesn't have an income tax, but they tax the crap out of us with "sin tax" , "service fees", and "sales tax".
Also, isn't it true you deduct your state income taxes from your Federal return?
I don't pay state income tax in Florida but that only applies to 8 states.You avoid the point as to how much is to much tax

Too much tax is when you can't afford to live a lifestyle based on your income due to taxation. Nothing even close is being proposed. How much debt is too much? When we're running a country on credit, more tax is necessary. You therefore tax those individuals and corporations with means to support the tax. And yes, you do need to cut spending too... Pretty simple stuff.

I missed your welfare rant, but I assume you'd be in favor of continuing the corporate welfare policies of Reaganomics?

NoNo you didn't you tried to blow it off because of the source so I said prove it.You seem avoid that.Here it is again now show where this is wrong.

The heart of Obama’s tax cut proposal is in his use of refundable tax credits, which the Center describes as “credits available to eligible households even if they have no income tax liability” -- in short, refunds available even to those who don’t pay taxes. These refunds are claimed on tax returns and are paid to all taxpayers who qualify for them, regardless of whether they owe taxes or not. These refunds have the ability of reducing a taxpayer’s liability below zero, meaning they can get a refund without actually paying taxes.

AS I undertand it, the families who might have a tax burdon less than zero are in the lowest of the lower 20% of income earners. I do not have a problem with them getting assistance from our government. why are you so greedy and selfish?

In real numbers, 60.7 million people who have no tax burden at all will receive refunds from Obama, while only 33.8 million people, who pay approximately 40 percent of income taxes, will get any kind of refund. Twenty percent of taxpayers, who pay 87.5 percent of total income taxes, will actually see after-tax income decline under Obama by nearly two percent, according to the Center.

By using these refunds, Obama is able to claim that he is giving a tax cut to 95 percent of households, although only 62 percent of households pay any income taxes at all. This means that Obama’s tax plan calls for giving money to some households that do not pay taxes, including a plan to make community college “essentially free” and pay 10 percent of the interest on all mortgages.

The problem with Obama’s characterization that his proposals are tax cuts is that refundable credits are calculated as outlays, or direct spending, not as reductions in tax rates, according to the Center. This means that, in budgetary terms, some of Obama’s tax cuts are actually spending increases.

The Tax Policy Center estimates that Obama’s spending proposals will be so large that they effectively eliminate income taxes for 15 million households, increasing the percentage of households that pay no taxes from 37.8 percent to 48.1 percent.

I've readt the TPC report and I haven't seen this claim. If it is true, it supports the fact that the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, all at the expense of the middle...Obama's plan works on behalf of lower and middle income earners. It's far superior to McCain's continued "Reaganomics" of the past 30 years.

Well, if the "free market" works as it's supposed to, competition will keep cost low for the consumer... LOL

Thats crap we still will have a tax raise because buisness taxes are passed on to the us.Justify it if you wish it is still a tax on us

It's a BS claim and I stand by my assurtion. On the surface is appears to make sense, but in practice it's not supportable.

This is just nonsense...

now your just be hypocritical. You want to deny others their rights/freedoms based on some theological doctrine you beleive, while at the same decrying that the SCOTUS would hypthetically deny you some of yours. Your argument doesn't make sense.

No if the libs want on talk radio then do it but don't force a company to put them on when it is not profitable.Thay is libs trying to silence the right and take away their free speech rights this buisness let supply and demand work.Stop the attempt of government to control media this is not russia.

From the NY Post

SHOULD Barack Obama win the presidency and Democrats take full control of Congress, next year will see a real legislative attempt to bring back the Fairness Doctrine - and to diminish conservatives' influence on broadcast radio, the one medium they dominate

Here: The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials.

So you advocate ideology over substance and truth... Now who's undermining freedom.

Please elaborate on what freedoms the SCOTUS would take away...

Who knows they may make gay marriage legal and force churches to marry them.

More nonsense. It's against the Constitution for government to force itself on religion.

And here you go again, interfering with peoples personal freedoms and liberties. What kind of freedom fighter are you?
A Fascist? A Theocrat?

I have to say I'm so tired of conservative dogma and talking points based on hated and divisiveness. You've been duped! Duped by the ideolouges you listen to and your own hated for an America which strives to let "all" the citizenry achieve the "dream". I could go on, but there's no point. We will move forward in spite of those of your ilk... And we will respect your freedom to continue to believe the way you do as long as you don't attempt to infringe on our freedom to believe in and build a better America - Peace.

Gadfly · #**126** (**permalink**) 10-20-2008, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurt

Yes. I do know that. The republicans have done nothing about this problem either. Corps. want cheap labor; corps control our govnmt. We need get corps out of govnmt.

[quoe]Less than 3% of Americans work for minimum wage.

That is becuase for 30 years conservative have fought/refused to let the minimum wage keep up with inflation.

I aggree. the conservatives (both democratic and republican conservatives) have made a joke of minimum wage.

No. It increases purchasing power when it is raised to a level that actually matters in the real world. McCain voted against this.
*********************************************
And when the minimum wage is raised, it reaches a level that the companies cannot or WILL not pay, so the job they person MIGHT have had does not even EXIST. They simply won't hire somebody and pay $9.00/hr for a job that is worth
$7.00, so the job vanishes.

The more money people have, the more money they spend, the more moeny they spend, the more jobs are created. The economy is based on lots and lots of people spending money. When the mass of people have their wages lowered and stop spending, the economy shriks and people get laid off. This is why Buch & co. are borrowing money and cutting checks to mail to you and me. Does that make any sense? Use Nafta, de-unionization, anti-minimum wage laws to lower our wages and than borrow money from the Chinese and the Saudis to give to us so we will go out and spend it? you want to vote for more of that??????????????

[quote]Social Security a negative return on investment that needs a massive overall.

Quote:

Social Security is not an investment. It is pay as you go. Current working people pay into it to help those who currently can't work, either because of poor health or age and who are not independly wealthy.

*********************************************
If the socialists of the 1930's had set it up differently, or ovehauled it when the Depression was basically over, the recipients would have had, at retirement, TWICE the amount of monthly income they get now. Socialist IN-Security buys votes and keeps the elderly under their control. That is why the leftists are desparate to keep it from being changed to a REAL retirement that would actually benefit the elderly.

Social Security is just fine and does not need an overall. It is Republican fear mongering. If Bill Gates had to pay the same Social Security tax that you and me have to pay, Social Security would have huge surplusses.
*********************************************
HORSE SH___!!!!!!! The way to cause "surplusses" in Socialist IN-security is to let the contributors INVEST in a diversified portfolio (No, they can't touch it until retirement) that truly grows, AND the govenment is prohibited from borrowing from it.
*********************************************

Really? It's odd that idea didn't work in the 1930s. Most households have negative saving -- owe money to credit cards for the rest of their lives, becuase their wages will not support a middle class lifestyle in the same way that their parent's wages did. How are they going to save? They can't even pay off their cards or thier perpetual auto loans? Social Security is fine. So fine that the borrow-and-spend Republicans use it to lower the national deficits they run ever year.

Great comeback. But not true.

So becuase the Dems are not for the working man enough, you are going to vote for Republicans who have been attacking the working man's wages for 30 years? The Dems don't do enough to stop the Cons, therefore you vote for the cons????????

SAY WHAT? Becuase corps have stripped all the wealth off of America that means they never controled America? Come now.

The banks WERE deregulated. It is just nonsense to say the weren't. The majority of the risky loans were given to people who didn't meet Fannie May's for Freddy Mac's terms for loan qualification. I know becuase I got one of those risky loans after the feds disqualified me on a fixer upper house I bought in the mid 90s. It didn't have central heat so fanny may refused it and my credit was too young for freddy mac. so a fly-by-night mortgage company loaned me the money. If you goggle this you can find out what presentage of loans were below fanny may standards. It is less than 10% if I remember right.
*********************************************

UHM..................................It was the CLINTON administration, you know: those bleeding heart wild-eyed leftists that told the banks they HAD to make risky loans that the "poor' couldn't pay for!.

Trying to help poor, uneducated people who don't know how things work -- that's just awful. So unamerican. Let them live and die in the streets; the lazy bastards. They diserve it; they are poor.

*********************************************
It wouldn't be a bad thing if those people doing the helping have commie sympathies and their REAL agenda is about control. Control that comes from manipulating those who, indeed, don't know better. Intelligent people don't FALL for it!

Thanks to deregulation, they COULD make money on bad investments. That is the hole point of deregulation, allow people to hoodwink other people and get away with it. It is temporarily good for business. It makes rich people in the know fantasticly wealthy, and other people fantasticaly poor.

********************************************
Remember the CLINTONS again that gave us those bad investments and loan bailouts!
*********************************************

How is making rich people pay their fair share of supporting our infrastructure and thereby spreading the wealth of America (which is created by American infrastruture and made possible by America infrastuture to everyone who uses American infrastructure, most notably the wealthy to creat more wealth) going to leave you with change?

*********************************************

Because you CAN'T, and never will, make "rich" people pay taxes in any significant amount. They move the wealth where it can't be touched. Taxes do NOT create jobs; they stifle them. It SOUNDS good to the uninformed, but it never works. Those rich people have the wherewithal to keep their money OUT of the hands of gov't, the clout to do it!

J