It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by Krieger
There is a website that allows you to put in your income, your filing status, and number of dependent children, and it will calculate your tax cut under Obama.
Here is the link:
alchemytoday.com...
If you go there, you will find that the figures above, in almost all cases, for Obama's supposed tax cut, don't come anywhere near the results you will get- AND THIS IS AN OBAMA website.
Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by Krieger
There is a website that allows you to put in your income, your filing status, and number of dependent children, and it will calculate your tax cut under Obama.
Here is the link:
alchemytoday.com...
For instance, if you list your filing status as married, one-wage earner, no children, making $75,000.00, your tax cut under Obama is $478.92.
Almost all other figures and filing status options, result in much less than what the table shows.
Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by Krieger
There is a website that allows you to put in your income, your filing status, and number of dependent children, and it will calculate your tax cut under Obama.
Here is the link:
alchemytoday.com...
If you go there, you will find that the figures above, in almost all cases, for Obama's supposed tax cut, don't come anywhere near the results you will get- AND THIS IS AN OBAMA website.
Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by maybereal11
Obama supposedly says that he would eliminate tax for seniors under $50,000. Well, this calculator shows that to be a lie. And no, McCain doesn't do any better.
- Recent research on tax relief enacted in 2001 and 2003 shows that taxable income increased when top tax rates were cut. Though not sufficient to "pay for themselves," an exaggerated claim often made for tax cut proposals, the rate cuts in the top two brackets did induce taxpayers to report enough extra taxable income to offset between 25 and 40 percent of the static revenue loss.
"Most people think corporate income taxes are paid by wealthy, anonymous companies," said Hodge. "But as economists have been teaching for years, ultimately people bear the burden of corporate taxes, not companies. And in 2006 that burden averaged $3,190 per household.
Originally posted by skyshow
That has to be one of the funniest analogy I have ever read on here. Bravo!!! Thanks for the reply too. Do you think she actually flushes her own toilet? If that family has say 5 bathrooms on each floor, they could easily pay people, with benifits, in three rotating full time shifts to do the flushing, or stand there and wait for someone to come around...and then someone else to turn on the tap for handwashing and a third set of workers to run towels. I'm pretty sure she uses two ply however, that I'm certain of. lol.
I thought I did. Well, think of it this way; do taxi companies have incentives to upkeep their taxis? I think they do. If they don't then why replace the brakes, change the oil, and prevent their taxis from being a hazard on the road? I think just like the taxi companies the airlines have an incentive to prevent their aircraft from falling from the sky. They certainly have always maintained a ground repair crew to maintain their planes running, simply because it is way to expensive to replace a plane every three years with a new one. Just like taxis car, companies can generally gauge the life of their asset, and accordingly have preventative maintenance to keep things going as best as possible.
I noticed you didn't comment on aircraft preventative maintenance regulations.
On the rotten meat, I'd have to say that it was tried before and it didn't work...people got sick and died when it was left up to the "free market". I for one don't want to return to those days and repeat the experiment over again, besides being stupid, it could be fatal!
Another interesting thing about power is that it costs a lot more to run power lines out into rural areas, so if we pulled regulations, the folks who live out in the rural red states would have to pay 10 times more for their juice...same with phone service and road costs. Why should the urban democrat subsidize the country republican? I'm being facetious, but you get the picture hopefully. We do these things in the interest of creating infrastructure and making our nation strong.
I think you are exagerating here a bit. Reember what happened to "Wendy's" food chain, when that woman lied about finding a finger in her Chilli? The company lost millions, it still barely recovering from the "Scam" this lady pulled. You really think businesses are trying to hurt you the customer? I'm a bit sad if you really see that, the world doesn't work that way. And if you think it does it is more of a reflection of you than it is of the rest of humanity. Come on man, you know better!!!
We regulate not just in the interest of profit for shareholders, but we regulate in the interest of other stakeholders such as consumers (who want to live after eating the product), employees, even the birds and the fish. You can't have good productive employees if they are home puking because the sausage they ate for breakfast had axel grease and rat turds in it.
Well, if this does occur how is it Corporations fault? Wouldn't you say its more a direct result of the individual shooting said gun?
You can't sell products to consumers if they are shot and killed by stray bullets from an automatic assault weapon on their way to the store.
No, you wouldn't need a multi-million dollar plant out in the "sticks", but the market would fill the niche with, smaller mom and pop farms that may fill this void. Small towns have small shops that still provide life's necessities, small towns have no need for Macys, Nordstrom, or Sacs Fifth.
You can't run a modern dairy out in the sticks without power and transport the milk into town without driving on a paved road.
Businesses try to make the best product they can, sure they may not be 100% safe 100% of the time, but the market corrects this and makes adjustments. People's tastes change consumers punish those companies that make shoddy products, and reward those that take care in what the customers want and preferences. Think of it this way, does the company "Gerber" want to sell you something that may hurt your Child or your family? ...continue...
Without safety regulations, and integral infrastructure it would be difficult if not impossible to meet the obligations of the constitution and the people's right to persue happiness with life and liberty. I think the issue then becomes not one of do we have it or not, but one of where is the happy medium.
OK, so Obama is going to cut taxes, but NOT increase anyone's taxes. Whose tax plan can we NOT afford now?
Obama May Delay Reversing Tax Cuts
(AP / WASHINGTON) — Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush's tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy.
"Even if we're still in a recession, I'm going to go through with my tax cuts," Obama said. "That's my priority."
What about increasing taxes on the wealthy?
"I think we've got to take a look and see where the economy is. I mean, the economy is weak right now," Obama said on "This Week" on ABC. "The news with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, I think, along with the unemployment numbers, indicates that we're fragile."
The obvious answer is the Obama is willing to format his tax plan agianst what is happening in real life. If he feels there is no recession, then he will implement his. McCain hasnt said any of that. I shows that Obama is willing to adapt to a given situation.
Savina and Maleshov are not alone in their views of McCain and the GOP, according to a recent poll of Russians conducted at the beginning of September by the Russian Public Opinion Research Center. The survey found that 27 percent of respondents would choose Sen. Barack Obama if they could vote in the U.S. elections, as opposed to just 6 percent choosing Sen. John McCain.
From Kenya to Indonesia to China, Obama is the man for our job.
The McCain-Palin campaign has released a new ad that once again distorts Obama's tax plans. *
The ad claims Obama will raise taxes on electricity. He hasn't proposed any such tax. Obama does support a cap-and-trade policy that would raise the costs of electricity, but so does McCain.
* It falsely claims he would tax home heating oil. Actually, Obama proposed a rebate of up to $1,000 per family to defray increased heating oil costs, funded by what he calls a windfall profits tax on oil companies.
* The ad claims that Obama will tax "life savings." In fact, he would increase capital gains and dividends taxes only for couples earning more than $250,000 per year, or singles making $200,000. For the rest, taxes on investments would remain unchanged.
The McCain campaign argues in its documentation for this ad that, whatever Obama says he would do, he will eventually be forced to break his promise and raise taxes more broadly to pay for his promised spending programs. That's an opinion they are certainly entitled to express, and to argue for. But their ad doesn't do that. Instead, it simply presents the McCain camp's opinion as a fact, and it fails to alert viewers that its claims are based on what the campaign thinks might happen in the future.