 |  | | | |  | |  |  | |  | |  |  | |
 Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 7:03 pm |
 |
|
| acousticmood |
| Member |
|
|
| Joined: 30 Aug 2008 |
| Posts: 29 |
|
|
|
|
| broommaster2000 wrote: |
Well, I'm happy that he's black. Everyone over here agrees that fact itself is a good sign.  |
Yep, I guess we can check that box off the list, although I am colorblind. And if he can if fact bring the country together that woudl be a good thing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |  |  | | | |  |  |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 9:40 pm |
|
|
| Keith99RS |
| New Member |
|
|
| Joined: 03 Nov 2008 |
| Posts: 8 |
| Location: Suffield, CT |
|
|
|
| cw wrote: |
Redistributing the wealth will not affect you unless you earn
over 250,000 a year, so I don't think that
anyone on this forum will be affected. |
IIRC It dropped to as low as $100k or $150k not long before the election. Obama and Biden both threw out lesser figures than the original $250k. BTW if it goes to $150k, my family will be affected, as will many others with joint income and good jobs.
I find it kind of funny all the celebs and pro athletes who backed Obama. Unless they know something the rest of us don't, they dtand to lose the most in Obama's grand tax and redistribute scheme. |
|
_________________
RWS Model 36 .177 cal. soon to be .22 cal.!!
RWS C mount
Gamo 4X32 scope |
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 9:55 pm |
|
|
| AirGunEric |
| Site Admin |
 |
|
| Joined: 20 Jan 2007 |
| Posts: 6929 |
| Location: "Out There" |
|
|
|
I think the thing people miss in all these "we're gonna tax the rich" schemes is that while, yes, the income tax against their stated annual income may go up- the tax shelters/breaks that exist still remain and sometimes even new ones are implemented.
For example, a family making a combined income of $40k a year couldn't save two nickels in most parts of the country- a family with a combined income of $400k a year has a good pile of change that will not be absorbed by their basic living expenses, so they can do things like buy "investments" like real estate that don't earn an 'annual return' but do have paper expenses (capital losses even)- they get the payoff when they eventually sell the property(-ies), they can also form small businesses that can build up expenses such as cell phones, car leases and so on- i.e. find "legitimate" ways to avoid taxes but still get the full benefit of/from their money.
So- the Hollywood celebs and such- do they care? Probably not- for all we know they are all getting paid out of banks in the Grand Bahamas and are considered citizens of Brazil and are merely US Citizens who have full time residences in the country but are not "income earners" per se.
I think people always forget this- the "rich" for the most part, generally don't pay alot of 'income' taxes and no raising of the percentage of their "annual income" to be owed as taxes is really going to change this. Basically, it's all just talk and BS (read that "politics"). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 11:50 pm |
|
|
| acousticmood |
| Member |
|
|
| Joined: 30 Aug 2008 |
| Posts: 29 |
|
|
|
|
| AirGunEric wrote: |
I think people always forget this- the "rich" for the most part, generally don't pay alot of 'income' taxes and no raising of the percentage of their "annual income" to be owed as taxes is really going to change this. Basically, it's all just talk and BS (read that "politics"). |
Eric - while you're correct about the loopholes and such that the rich have access to I think you're wrong about the amount of taxes that the rich pay. If you search youll find that the top 2 or 3% of the earners pay something like 80% of all taxes collected. The numbers I quote might be plus or minus but the actual numbers are out there if you google it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:22 am |
|
|
| thepaladin |
| Senior Member |
 |
|
| Joined: 12 Dec 2007 |
| Posts: 930 |
| Location: TN USA |
|
|
|
Again...you just called me, and those who think like me...prejudiced.
You mentioned we here should have some political debate. Well, if you don't mind some input from someone "not so smart as you"...
The $250,000 figure was mentioned first. Since then the numbers $200,000, $150,000 etc. were mentioned, get the trend? It has been claimed that president-elect Obama voted for taxes 92 times including a tax on people making as little as $42,000. "Fact Check" points out that most of those votes were actually against tax decreases rather than for increases, though around 40% were for increases.. The one on people making only $42,000 was actually a vote on a budget and not directly on taxing. BUT, they finally grudgingly admitted that Mr. Obama's record was one of tax increases and no votes for lower or decreased taxes.
Mr. Obama has proposed another "trillion" dollars in "Deficit spending" the national debt right now stands at $10,637,834,271, 467.63...that's ten trillion, six hundred and thirty-seven billion, eight hundred and thirty-four million, two hundred seventy-one thousand, four hundred sixty-seven dollara and sixty-three cents. Know who's financing that for us? I mean you and all your buddies are so much smarter than us. Well, it used to be mainly the Japanese, but now...it's mainly the Chinese with some covered by the Indains (not Native Americans, Indians, in India). Think they'll just, you know carry us on their books for a while out of generosity and the goodness of their hearts?
Another "fact-let". Mr. Obama intends another "stimulus check". It's to "stimulate" the economy as the idea behind the last one was to stimulate the economy. Well, that one did and this one WILL stimulate an economy, unfortunatly it's just not "our" economy. Americans got or will get the check and they'll (we'll) run out to Wal-Mart, or K-mart, or somewhere and we'll buy those products...from China. Of course first China will loan us the money to write those stimulus checks. The Chinese economy will be greatly stimulated.
Like I said elsewhere, I hope I'm wrong, but I believe that the new president's policies will be disasterous for this country, but I hope I'm proved wrong. I won't wish for the country or it's people to suffer so I can be right, but I believe I am. In 1932 a president (a republican) tried to "help out" in a recession by raising taxes. That and a few other blunders in trade and business policy brought about the great depression. Raising taxes will always supress an economy.
Try reading "Atlas Shrugged". Do you think the "so called rich" will simply sit here and pay hugely increased tax rates? No, will they take their ball and their bat (their companies and the jobs they provide) and go elsewhere. Big tax increases will cause an increas in jobs south of the border, in India, and a lot of other places. it will mean a loss of jobs and a tightening of the economy here. It will mean an increas in the number of "rich people" who live in mexico, the Kamin Islands or other "tax shelter" countries.[/i] |
|
_________________
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke) |
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:23 am |
|
|
| thepaladin |
| Senior Member |
|
|
| Joined: 12 Dec 2007 |
| Posts: 930 |
| Location: TN USA |
|
|
|
| By the way the above post was addressed to cw, there were just a few posts that showed up netween his and mine. |
|
_________________
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke) |
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 2:09 am |
|
|
| AirGunEric |
| Site Admin |
|
|
| Joined: 20 Jan 2007 |
| Posts: 6929 |
| Location: "Out There" |
|
|
|
| acousticmood wrote: |
| If you search youll find that the top 2 or 3% of the earners pay something like 80% of all taxes collected. The numbers I quote might be plus or minus but the actual numbers are out there if you google it. |
I believe the real statistic you are attempting to talk about is that the richest 2-3% of Americans own 90% of the nation's "wealth" and the top 1% own 80% (meaning the "rich" in the 1-3 percentile own about 10%). This absolutely does not translate into them paying 80% of the taxes. If you look at the numbers, yes, the top 25% of wage-earners pay 80% of the taxes- 25 per cent, not 2-3 per cent.
Yes, we can argue that the highest wage-earners pay the most tax in dollar -in- (their income) vs. dollars -out- (taxes)- but, as it turns out, the highest end of the scale in income (i.e. the 'billionaire' or "hundreds of million-aire" club) pay virtually no tax- less than those even on the threshold of poverty. Of course, the people in this class number only a few hundred people in the US.
Alot of people- journalists, economists and so on love to believe in the theory that tax cuts to the better-off elements of society lead to new jobs and more money floating in the system (i.e. Reaganomics). Their belief is not entirely unbased, as the last 25 years have shown, tax cuts in that segment result in millions of new jobs. Unfortunately, the vast vast majority of these jobs were at minimum-wage or close-to minimum-wage, with the higher-paying industries leaving the country to places like Mexico, India and China.
If we look at taxes on the rich vs. the overall national debt- an interesting correlation appears. When the "rich" shouldered the majority of income taxes (91% of the taxes were paid by the top 10% of wage earners) prior to the Kennedy-Johnson tax cuts of the early 1960s, the national debt had been stable since the end of WWII. After the 60's tax cuts for the "rich" the national debt started to climb. Then in 1980 Reagan came into power and cut taxes a large amount for the "rich" and the national debt went through the roof. Clinton further cut taxes to the "rich" and the national debt went ever higher in leaps and bounds. Dubya actually raised taxes on the moderate-to-high "rich" slightly but the national debt was already out of control. Seems to me that when the "rich" get tax cuts, they don't really invest it in America, they invest it somewhere else and the decent jobs leave America along with a pile of extra debt.
Now, we could argue this a couple of different ways- either the rich get taxed too little and the system starts to fall apart, or that the rich get a tax break and the "middle" class doesn't take up the slack where it should and the system starts to fall apart. But, when we look at what happens- a "group specific" tax cut for the rich does end up creating more jobs at significantly lower wages, the actual dollars the IRS collects go up overall. I can only assume this means that 3 people making $20k a year pay more taxes together than does one person making $60k. It's a tough call- but any way you look at it, it's tough to correlate taxing the "rich" or anyone above $100k a year in income with a declining economy- the numbers actually seem to argue the opposite from a historical viewpoint.
But, perhaps we are all looking at this upside-down. The median household income in 2007 for the US (and this is via the US Census- meaning the extremely low-paid people- i.e. millions of illegal aliens- were not included) was $50,233.00
If this was the "median" and we know there are millions of people below the poverty line of around $17k a year, it appears as though companies like Wal-Mart are not just buyer-stupidity success stories with all their product coming from China, but almost a necessity for at least half the American population to survive, short term anyways. The catch-22 is that the more shopping done at Wal-Mart, the faster the higher-paying jobs leave the U.S.
Anyways- back to the point- it strikes me that most US Presidents over the last 40 years have made grievous errors that have had significant negative consequence for America and Americans overall: Johnson threw away the Viet Nam war after the Tet Offensive, Nixon removed the gold standard from the dollar, Carter didn't know how to "cure" a recession, Reagan went union-busting and de-regulated anything and everything he could dream up, Bush Sr. started giving the game away to Mexico, Clinton gave the remaining part of the game away to China, Bush Jr. ran up debt and undertook at least one 'war' that would not benefit anyone except maybe oil companies.
What more can the next President do? Collapse the armed forces? Start putting in Supreme Court Justices that will remove well-established "rights" from the people? Maybe. But it would be awfully tough to f-up the economy more. I think the "best" anyone can hope for in respect to the President and the economy is merely a stemming of the bloodletting and stopping the export of decent jobs. To talk about them "improving" the situation in any meaningful way over a 4-year period is fantasy, or really more "Mission Impossible" for anyone. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 6:29 am |
|
|
| billandbeaufort |
| Senior Member |
|
|
| Joined: 01 Apr 2008 |
| Posts: 563 |
| Location: Florida |
|
|
|
| broommaster2000 wrote: |
| Well, I'm happy that he's black. Everyone over here agrees that fact itself is a good sign. |
I just can not understand why anyone in the NL would care one way or the other what color our president is  Just saying what you just did is in fact racist, color should not matter! Perhaps you should live in the USA for a while and see what you think in a few years. After years of watching the news every night on TV will certainly make you fear minorities if not hate them. Perhaps a few years of not being able to travel in certain cities without being killed because of your color (if your white) would change your mind. I don't hate anyone due to race but I am realistic about the problem.
The idea that you can tax the rich without it affecting the "little guy" is laughable. When you tax a rich guy or his corporation, he simply passes on that cost through his company and the "little guy" buys that product at a higher rate (hidden tax anyone?) It is true that the rich now pay more than 80% of the taxes and that 40% of the rest of us (low pay) pay no tax at all! (if you pay payrole tax but use deductions to get a refund, you have not paid taxes!) All of these factors are going to make a bad recession into a possible depression, hang on to your seats it will get much worse.
Actually the only fair tax is income tax (not sales tax or property tax) a flat tax system where everyone pays the same percentage rate would be best. Even if you only earn $200 a week, if you pay say 26% tax just like the guy that makes $2000 a week you will have not only the pride of doing your part but you will also have the right to complain how it is spent by "your" government!
It might also be a good thing to have EVERYONE registered to vote with a photo identification and to pass a civics test before being allowed to vote. Accorn and the NAACP would hate that, they actualy got people to register "thier park bench" as a ressidence. Progressive? Bullsh*t |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 7:13 am |
|
|
| broommaster2000 |
| Moderator |
 |
|
| Joined: 10 Mar 2007 |
| Posts: 5714 |
| Location: City of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands |
|
|
|
Why are you calling me a racist. I don't hate anyone either. If McCain would've won, I bet a lot of people would have said "He lost because he's black". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 9:09 am |
|
|
| AirGunEric |
| Site Admin |
|
|
| Joined: 20 Jan 2007 |
| Posts: 6929 |
| Location: "Out There" |
|
|
|
| billandbeaufort says alot of disturbing things... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 9:20 am |
|
|
| broommaster2000 |
| Moderator |
|
|
| Joined: 10 Mar 2007 |
| Posts: 5714 |
| Location: City of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands |
|
|
|
Okay,
I'ma drop on by at my homies' to get on down with ma brothaz from Indonesia and the Dutch Antilles, yo, so I'll be catchin ya'll brothaz latta.
Peace. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 9:24 am |
|
|
| cw |
| Banned |
 |
|
| Joined: 10 Feb 2008 |
| Posts: 1771 |
|
|
|
|
I think that Mr. Broommaster is probably one of the most
unprejudiced members of this forum. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 9:25 am |
|
|
| cw |
| Banned |
|
|
| Joined: 10 Feb 2008 |
| Posts: 1771 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 9:32 am |
|
|
| cw |
| Banned |
|
|
| Joined: 10 Feb 2008 |
| Posts: 1771 |
|
|
|
|
Maybe Billandbufort's problem is that he has not been exposed to
nice, normal black people. There's good and bad people in all races and
maybe he has never met/observed/known any decent, normal black
people. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 10:43 am |
|
|
| broommaster2000 |
| Moderator |
|
|
| Joined: 10 Mar 2007 |
| Posts: 5714 |
| Location: City of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands |
|
|
|
Good or bad doesn't have to do with races. It much more involves culture. I think the culture that was founded by white men isn't one of the better ones.
Allthough I certainly don't think we shouldn't worry and be happy.
Off-topic: There's a SAR twin engined Huey flying over. I'm next to an airbase here.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | |
Note: If you are seeing "Please enter your username and password to log in." Your browser cookies have been reset
or you need to register to access the topic in question. Use the 'Register' button near the top left of this page.
|
