A progressive taxation system is the hallmark of a civilised and compassionate society. It is the most basic form of natural justice for those with wealth to assist those without. The progressive taxation system is the most efficient way of smoothing-out income inequality and reducing the social harm and negative consequences that result from large income disparities.

Obamas tax cuts are highly misleading saying he would only tax small businesses making over 250000.00 a year. He tries to make it out most businesses will not fall into this category but truth is most businesses will. The average salary of a small business owner is 236000 a year sounds safe doesnt it.

But wait i have a book keeper i pay them 40000 a year so on taxes my business made 276000.00. oh no Im screwed now i need to fire them and do it my self and reinvest that 40000 in company assets and get the tax brake for expanding my business. i had an idea Or 5 of us got together and started a business share profits evenly and did ok were making 50000 each oh again same problem one of my friends are out and avoid taxes thru business expenses.

Small businesses (less than 500 employees) employ 50.9% of nations private non-farm workforce in 2004. Say you pais your self and your employess 8.00 an hour 8 x 40 (work week) = 320.00 a week now we take that and figure out yearly 320.00 x 52 weeks = 16640.00 now lets take that into 250000.00 comes to 15.02 so if a business has more than 15 employees there paying taxes. Now no small business owner is going to pay themselves 16000 so again people will have to loose there jobs.

Are people really that stupid when economy is having a problem your going to raise taxes on the people that created 50% of them? Truth is he will be taxing more middle class americans than you think especially the people that worked hard to get where they were at and created jobs for people along the way. Well i guess obama wont loose his job any way.

Ps none of these examples even included other expeses such as rent electricity water office supplies etc.


[edit on 10/14/08 by dragonridr]

Originally posted by Constitutional Scholar
The atrocity known as public education is both unconstitutional and a giant money vacuum.

"God Money"...

If you ask yourself what is the main differece between 3rd World countries and the rest of us, the answer is -- developed infrastructure and social services. Both require funding via taxation. If we didn't have taxation in this country, we wouldn't have nuclear weapons and space flight and, quite possibly, computers for all the right wing nuts to post their gibberish.

It's tragic that some choose to treat money as absolute without regards to progress, prosperity and in wellfare of the Nation.

Originally posted by Constitutional Scholar
The government must protect the PURSUIT of happiness, not guarantee it, and certainly not provide for it.

Gosh... Protection is an activity that must be paid for. From minor things like educating population about healthy habits and what not, to FDA (protection) to disaster response (protection) and countless other activities including the cop on your block (protection) all need to be funded. Apart from that, the way I see it, healthcare is protection of citizens. Better public schools mean less crime and that translates into protection.

Originally posted by Constitutional Scholar
Post any Supreme Court ruling that backs up your contention.

I don't need a specific Supreme Court ruling to know that people should use toilet paper every time they do number 2 in the bathroom. Maybe you do.

Protecting the pursuit of happiness doesnt require any payment.

In the above post, I gave you some examples which you still have to refute.

I hate to come off like a jerk here but, im shocked that everyone is so taken off guard by this, this has been obamas platform from the start. Yep take from the rich and give the the poor, redistribute the wealth, big business and rich people are evil. Im not rich, but .........i also know ive never had anyone on welfare offer me a steady wage.......

Originally posted by Bunch
Obama's tax policies are about fairness and stimulating the economy.

While many conservative support the idea of trickle down economics, which has been proved to be an economic fallacy during the Bush Administration and McCain supports it, the Obama camp is basically appealing for a form of windfall tax and when it comes to tax policy obviously one side gets screwed usually, sometimes both, but in this case one.

For the last 8 years its been the high income earners, big corporations that have benefited from this to no benefit of the country. Last time a form of windfall tax was used was during the Clinton administration and we had a booming economy and he manage to leave office with a surplus.

So first, let throw away this notion that Obama is a socialist becasue of the tax policy he wants to implement.

Is he going to raise taxes? YES,

For what purpose? To stimulate the economy by giving much deserved tax cuts to the middle class and the poor.

How is he going to pay for it? By letting the Bush tax cuts expire, by increase taxes on oil companies, by increasing taxes on the top 5% of earners.

Is it fair? On a fair world NO, but given the current economic situation I think his policy is acceptable.

My view on Obama tax policies is that it is ok as long as he keeps his vision on why he is rasing taxes, if it is to create more big government then he should go to hell with his tax increases.

The benefits of his tax plan need to be tangible to those he is saying he is going to help, no a repeat of Bush tax policies.

Bill Clinton did not stimulate the economy by increasing taxes. He did help deregulate the market you know which is why we are here today. There were a lot of bubbles going on while bill Clinton was is office and the exploitation of a weak Russia and the east in general sure helped.

Also if he thinks people making 250k are rich, that is complete BS. It's more like 400k and up are rich.

[edit on 14-10-2008 by hadjimagnet]

Originally posted by Constitutional Scholar
There is nothing to refute, you are stating opinion. I prefer to deal in fact.

OK, I'll type real slow. I submitted the following facts:

Gosh... Protection is an activity that must be paid for. From minor things like educating population about healthy habits and what not, to FDA (protection) to disaster response (protection) and countless other activities including the cop on your block (protection) all need to be funded. Apart from that, the way I see it, healthcare is protection of citizens. Better public schools mean less crime and that translates into protection.

Please refute the thesis that these protection measures are necessary.