|
McCain's VP pick (pg. 17)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Skipper |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dj Smitty20
The only people's taxes who will go up are those who make over $250,000 annually. How many of us here make that? How many Americans make that per year? About five percent, to be exact. Do you know how much people's taxes will go up who make between 250,000 and 600,000 per year? About twelve dollars.
|
Source? 42 million bucks is not enough to make an election issue, especially when a good chunk of America's wealthy are republicans...that number seems far too low. |
|
|
| Dj Smitty20 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orko
So you are saying that just because people earn more money they should have to pay more taxes? People who earn more are less entitled to keep their money? A lot of 'rich' people saved, went to college, and got training to earn that extra bit. They WORKED for it. Just the same a lot of poor people are working to earn their smaller wages. Nobody is less entitled to their money, just because they had the opportunity or foresight to get an education and increase their earning potential.
Greedy people? The majority of rich people I have met have been extremely kind and generous people. And, you are forgetting that they are ALREADY paying more in that progressive tax system. Some of those rich elite pay more in taxes than most people even make in a year. How is that not fair? They are carrying their load.
Before you start spewing out your leftist/rightist/liberal/conservo labels, I voted liberal last time, and my family has spent most of their lives in poverty, here and in India. But, now that my family members are making more, in a higher tax bracket, I feel they should be allowed to keep it. They worked their asses off for that income range, so it was money well earned.
As for Clinton being an economic savior, and Bush's being the bad news bears; do you at all look at economic cycles? Clinton was not the guru you think he was. He pretty much inherited an economy that was bound to rebound. After a recession, where does the country go? UP! I agree that Bush Jr. has farther spent the country into a recession that was bound to happen. But, just do not chalk it up to one government's policies vs the next. The economy and their forces are too big, and too international to be so wholly affected by the sitting party's economic policies. |
yes, I am saying that people who make upwards of half to 1 million dollars a year should pay more taxes. Why? Because they can afford it. So basically what you're saying is that your parents became millionaires so they shouldn't have to pay taxes...? Your family made it big so the rest of the people still struggling to get by in every day life eh?:conf: Hmmm....well I'm happy that you've "risen" in society beyond us common folk and lived the canadian dream or whatever it is you're going on about. It really does all boil down to greed in the end anyway.
And just so you know, I too have worked hard over the last ten years to get where I am. I have three degrees and will probably top out at just under a six figure salary by the time I'm settled. Respectable, upper middle salary class I suppose. But I will never abandon my principles in order for a difference of a few thousand dollars in tax...I really doubt I will.
Besides, under Obama's plan in the US, someone like me would stand to get a bigger tax cut ANYWAY so I'm not sure where you were going with all of this in relation to the American election.
So wait a second here...you're saying that it was just coincidence that Reagan presided over a recession (it was all Carter's fault?) and then Bush couldn't do anything with Reagan's mess, but when Clinton took over, the problem fixed itself, but now has gone bad again on its own? Hmmm..... |
|
|
| Skipper |
| He did not say that wealthy should pay NO taxes, he said they should pay the same taxes as everyone else. (I assume on a % basis) |
|
|
| Dj Smitty20 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
Source? 42 million bucks is not enough to make an election issue, especially when a good chunk of America's wealthy are republicans...that number seems far too low. |
both Obama and McCain's tax plans were broken down last night on Anderson Cooper 360 on CNN. I'm sure you can google it and something will come up. The only income level REALLY affected in the US by a tax increase were those who made over $600,000 a year, while, of course, those people stood to have a HUGE amount of tax cut under McCain's plan.
Working/middle classes who earned under $250,000 stood to have a tax break of about $500 to $1000 compared to McCain's cut of just over 300 dollars. |
|
|
| Dj Smitty20 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
He did not say that wealthy should pay NO taxes, he said they should pay the same taxes as everyone else. |
oh come on, a flat tax? Didn't Preston Manning propose that back in the 1990s?:rolleyes: |
|
|
| Dj Smitty20 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
Source? 42 million bucks is not enough to make an election issue, especially when a good chunk of America's wealthy are republicans...that number seems far too low. |
I really have no idea what you're talking about here. |
|
|
| Skipper |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dj Smitty20
I really have no idea what you're talking about here. |
350million americans x 1% x 12 bucks each tax increase = 42M
Why even bother raising taxes and making it an election issue for such a small amt of money?
And I beileve Orko was talking about paying the same % of taxes, not the same $. |
|
|
| Orko |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dj Smitty20
yes, I am saying that people who make upwards of half to 1 million dollars a year should pay more taxes. Why? Because they can afford it. So basically what you're saying is that your parents became millionaires so they shouldn't have to pay taxes...? Your family made it big so the rest of the people still struggling to get by in every day life eh?:conf: Hmmm....well I'm happy that you've "risen" in society beyond us common folk and lived the canadian dream or whatever it is you're going on about. It really does all boil down to greed in the end anyway.
So wait a second here...you're saying that it was just coincidence that Reagan presided over a recession (it was all Carter's fault?) and then Bush couldn't do anything with Reagan's mess, but when Clinton took over, the problem fixed itself, but not has gone back again on its own? Hmmm..... |
Nope, sorry. My family members not rich, we just are not poor anymore (middle class). I said nothing about being rich, just about breaking into a new tax bracket. But what I am saying is that they are no less entitled to keep their money. Very simple. If somebody has found a more efficient and effective way of sustaining them selves, they should not be peanalised for it. That is the whole idea behind a capitalist society. People who find the more efficient way are rewarded.
For the economic cycles, it is not automatic. Read what I said:
| quote: | | I agree that Bush Jr. has farther spent the country into a recession that was bound to happen. But, just do not chalk it up to one government's policies vs the next. The economy and their forces are too big, and too international to be so wholly affected by the sitting party's economic policies. |
I said the exact opposite of what you are accusing me of. It is not one thing. It is many things. The government can in fact work with or work against market forces, for good and bad. Don't be so quick to blame JUST the party, or to promote JUST the party. Look at the economy as a whole, and look at other market forces. You know..like a d.com bubble crash? Or the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 80's. The local government is not 100% responsible for the current state of economic affairs.
| quote: | | He did not say that wealthy should pay NO taxes, he said they should pay the same taxes as everyone else. (I assume on a % basis) |
I'm not even saying that. I was just refuting the position that the rich should automatically pay more because others cannot afford to live. As if, it is the rich people's fault for being rich. that. I do agree with the progressive tax system. I just hate when people stipulate that all rich people are greedy and should have their money taxed to hell.
| quote: | Originally posted by Dj Smitty20
I have three degrees and will probably top out at just under a six figure salary by the time I'm settled. |
While we are at it. :haha: :haha: :haha: Three degrees and you will top out there? lol |
|
|
| Dj Smitty20 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
350million americans x 1% x 12 bucks each tax increase = 42M
Why even bother raising taxes and making it an election issue for such a small amt of money?
And I beileve Orko was talking about paying the same % of taxes, not the same $. |
well I never majored in economics, but I think it's a little bit more complicated than just adding in 42 million. Besides, the top 1% earn over $600,000, while the top 5% earn $250,000 or above. Hence Obama's pledge that everyone who makes under $250,000 will have their taxes go down.
A flat tax is the "same % of taxes". It would be something similar to everyone getting taxed about %17 across the board. It might sound appealing, but only conservative nutjobs like Preston Manning actually have put something like that forward in their campaign. |
|
|
| Skipper |
| Did you not just say 12 bucks a head increase in taxes? |
|
|
| Dj Smitty20 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orko
Nope, sorry. My family members not rich, we just are not poor anymore (middle class). I said nothing about being rich, just about breaking into a new tax bracket. But what I am saying is that they are no less entitled to keep their money. Very simple. If somebody has found a more efficient and effective way of sustaining them selves, they should not be peanalised for it. That is the whole idea behind a capitalist society. People who find the more efficient way are rewarded.
For the economic cycles, it is not automatic. Read what I said:
I said the exact opposite of what you are accusing me of. It is not one thing. It is many things. The government can in fact work with or work against market forces, for good and bad. Don't be so quick to blame JUST the party, or to promote JUST the party. Look at the economy as a whole, and look at other market forces. You know..like a d.com bubble crash? Or the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 80's. The local government is not 100% for the current state of economic affairs.
I'm not even saying that. I was just refuting the position that the rich should automatically pay more because others cannot afford to live. As if, it is the rich people's fault for being rich. that. I do agree with the progressive tax system. I just hate when people stipulate that all rich people are greedy and should have their money taxed to hell.
While we are at it. :haha: :haha: :haha: Three degrees and you will top out there? lol |
wow dude poking fun at someone's education? High class. Is there something wrong with being an educator...? No I'm not rich, but I enjoy what I do and, more importantly, I am not over worked. I have more than enough to get by and I am truly content. Can you say the same?
I find your view on our "capitalist society" very disturbing. So, once you get to a certain tax bracket, it's ok not to care about anyone else anymore? Canadian society is becoming increasingly selfish and individualistic and people like are the reason. You can't look beyond your cheque book and how much taxes you pay. It's really sad to see that people can't look beyond that anymore.
I never said the local government is in 100% control of their economy. Only an idiot would suggest that. But the Americans currently are still the world's wealthiest nation and their government has made blatantly wrong decisions since Bush took over. Both distastrous economic AND foreign policy have contributed to this. I have never bought into the theory that the economy is this mysterious thing that shouldn't be ed with. When it's not working properly (as it clearly is not for millions of Americans right now), something needs to be done. |
|
|
| Dj Smitty20 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
Did you not just say 12 bucks a head increase in taxes? |
yes, for those who make over $250,000. It's those who make over $600,000 who see a significant increase. Again, I'm not the expert...I just have seen it broken down on various American news agencies. I"m sure it's available to read somewhere. |
|
|
|
|
