Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Attacking the average Joe?

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Evidently you didn't read the WSJ article linked earlier. Obama's plan is worse because:



The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.


That's why people are getting so pissed.




posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by TheRooster
 
i disagree, cutting employees is never an option in a small well run business. the reason big companies sometimes do so is because it cuts overheads to remove an entire shift or because the work can be easily done by an alternative, for instance, it is cheaper to lay off 1 worker in 10 and allow the remaining 9 workers one hour of overtime.

this type of strategy doesn't work if you only have three or four employees.

Are you a business owner??? I am a small business owner, so is my husband and my father and both my inlaws. I guarentee you, once the belt is tightened, it leads to layoffs, no matter how many emplyees there are. And you know who's forced to pick up the slack, the business owner who already works 60-70 hours a week. In my case, I would love to hire people for several jobs I have to do all myself, but I'm being taxed to death as it is, and if my taxes were raised, I would have to go back to working for the man. Please don't confuse small business profits with an owner's income, cause I don't make squat. I do it for the freedom. But if my business doesn't profit, it doesn't grow. And it won't produce jobs.

I DON'T CARE HOW POOR OR RICH YOU ARE, NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO TAKE AWAY MONEY YOU WORKED HARD TO EARN TO GIVE IT TO SOMEONE ELSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by TheRooster
 

so you think that the rich shouldn't be taxed because they have worked for a few years to get their businesses off the ground?



Owning a small business doesn't make you rich! We are already taxed too hard!!! Some of us could use a tax break to try and stay in business. The last thing we need is to get taxed EVEN MORE!

I will NEVER, EVER understand why anyone thinks it's ok to take money away from someone who earned it. I'm not rich, and I don't want free money from the rich, just because they are rich. It's not RIGHT! Kill the american dream, and no one will want to get off thier ass and work for a living...because why bother. You get punished for working hard, and rewarded for being lazy. Now what does that teach our kids? What do you think that will do to us as a country???



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 01:57 PM
link   


Originally posted by pieman
do the majority of people in america earning $250,000 a year plus, in your opinion, own their own business?


Yes and no, Most in that income bracket are PC's, Doctors, attorneys, accountants, consultants, etc... (which usually employs decent income earners as well)




at what point is a small business in america likely to turn enough of a profit to allow the owner of that business to award themselves a net salary of $250,000 per year?


That depends largely on the tax code. Our government has shown very little fiscal responsibility over the years, the last thing we need to do is give them more money to waste. If O'Bama wants to be philanthropic let him do it with his OWN money, not mine or not yours. And that's what the issue is here, wealth distribution. So O'Bama, if you want to re-disrtibute YOUR wealth, go for it, just leave mine alone.

Pieman, I hope that answers your questions.

[edit on 10/17/2008 by TheRooster]



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by jjkenobi
 



me? i did read it, it just makes no sense, how exactly can anyone get a credit on tax they haven't paid? the american tax system is pretty unique though, so it might well be the case. not knowing i thought it best not to argue the point.

i still don't see the issue to be frank, i mean it's strange to me that the people that would be getting a tax break would complain.

how much exactly are we talking in percentages?



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   
250K is not a lot of money as far as a business goes.



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRooster
 


that did answer my question but i have more, i hope you don't mind, the thing about the job descriptions you mentioned are pretty much freelance type jobs, when i think of a small business i'm thinking a store owner or a cab driver or, well, a plumber or carpenter or the like. do they earn that much?

the other thing is a point, i hear all the time that america gives a man the opportunity to make himself better and earn money based on his potential rather than his class, or something like that. i would assume america has given these people the opportunity to be good enough to have such a healthy income, doesn't he owe america some small portion of his comfortable income?



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by TheRooster
 




the other thing is a point, i hear all the time that america gives a man the opportunity to make himself better and earn money based on his potential rather than his class, or something like that. i would assume america has given these people the opportunity to be good enough to have such a healthy income, doesn't he owe america some small portion of his comfortable income?



I guess that's the question: how much is enough?



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by RKWWWW
 


you've clearly never been involved with a small business, i can assure you 250k is quite a lot of money.

well, how much is enough is none of my business but i'm interested to know if the principle is acceptable.

[edit on 17/10/08 by pieman]



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by RKWWWW
 


you've clearly never been involved with a small business, i can assure you 250k is quite a lot of money.

well, how much is enough is none of my business but i'm interested to know if the principle is acceptable.

[edit on 17/10/08 by pieman]



Is it none of your business because you aren't a US citizen?



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by RKWWWW
Is it none of your business because you aren't a US citizen?


thats correct, i've said that more than once, i'm just interested.



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by RKWWWW
Is it none of your business because you aren't a US citizen?


thats correct, i've said that more than once, i'm just interested.


Ok.
So, yeah the principle of paying taxes is accepted fact of life in the US. The debate is over the tax rate. The sole proprietor and partner rate stands at 37.9%. Obama's tax plan would raise that to just over 50%.

www.politico.com...



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by TheRooster
 


that did answer my question but i have more, i hope you don't mind, the thing about the job descriptions you mentioned are pretty much freelance type jobs, when i think of a small business i'm thinking a store owner or a cab driver or, well, a plumber or carpenter or the like. do they earn that much?

the other thing is a point, i hear all the time that america gives a man the opportunity to make himself better and earn money based on his potential rather than his class, or something like that. i would assume america has given these people the opportunity to be good enough to have such a healthy income, doesn't he owe america some small portion of his comfortable income?


Waaaaaait just a second here, you've just injected morals and ethics into a political conversation, what are you getting at? Just kidding!

If you think PC's are freelance workers, take a look around the office next time you go to the doctor, dentist, insurance agent, attorney, etc... these people employ more individuals than you think. But do you see the dilemma, that's just it, how do you define a small business? Number of employees? Gross revenue, net revenue? For every tax code there is a loophole, you just gotta find it. But when a man running for POUTS gets caught off guard with a very good question, and he answers it with "It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody that is behind you, that they have a chance for success too." and "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody".

These comments concern me coming from a man campaigning for POTUS.

To address your other points, behind every successful business are the people who made it successful. Sharing the wealth should always be encouraged, but a decision made by one's conscience, not the POTUS.


[edit on 10/17/2008 by TheRooster]



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by RKWWWW
Ok.
So, yeah the principle of paying taxes is accepted fact of life in the US.
accepted, you've got to be kidding, not on ATS.

yeah, i know taxes are accepted but what i mean to say is that it seems to me to be the case that the posters in this thread don't accept the principle that the wealthiest 5% of the population should be paying a higher tax rate than everybody else.

50% is quite steep but i wonder if the figures are being massaged by the opposition.



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRooster

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by TheRooster
 


I'm asking for your help to clarify why Obama's plan is worse than McCain's. See the link above where a business owner calculates that his liability will be less with Obama's plan.


buddha, I've got a problem with anyone who takes my hard earned money and wants to give it away, I don't care what you call it, it's just wrong! We are heading for the USSA, United Socialist States of America if any man implements a plan that attacks the "have's" at a rate unequal to the "have nots".


Well in an ideal life you pay zero taxes. In all likelihood, in real life you pay taxes. Now, since you "got a problem" with anyone who collects taxes, you are likely to have more of a problem with the person who collects more. Unless you are veritably rich, the problem guy for you is John McCain. It's that simple.


As I don't really have the time to committ to reading the fine print of his program, my post was directed at the issue of BHO's response to JTP of re-disrtibuting the wealth.


If you consider educating yourself on tax implications a luxury, good luck with your business -- strange that you spend so much energy trashing a plan that can be directly beneficial to you. You seem to be forming your opinion while having elected to eschew information, and that willfull blindness is just puzzling.

Apart from JTP, there are hard working JTMs, JTCs and all sort of Joes who often don't have enough money to fill a full tank. Weighing this against your choice of what Merlot to buy, I'm with Joes of this world.



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by RKWWWW
Ok.
So, yeah the principle of paying taxes is accepted fact of life in the US.
accepted, you've got to be kidding, not on ATS.

yeah, i know taxes are accepted but what i mean to say is that it seems to me to be the case that the posters in this thread don't accept the principle that the wealthiest 5% of the population should be paying a higher tax rate than everybody else.

50% is quite steep but i wonder if the figures are being massaged by the opposition.



Maybe you and I might be the exception. I'm perfectly happy with a progressive tax code that requires more from those in higher income brackets. In fact, I'd go one step further and abolish taxes on those below a certain income.

50% might be inflated, but I've not heard that "factoid" denied by the Obama camp (not yet anyway). I'd like them to deny it. Unfortunately, those are just the kind of details never discussed by politicans.


[edit on 17-10-2008 by RKWWWW]



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRooster
 


to be honest i don't know what PC stands for.

okay, i see your point as regards the business end of things, your right, it is impossible to define exactly a small business but i've just realised, i'm now getting confused after reading all the links.

i'm reading from the democratic links that it's household income, which to me suggests personal income but the republican links says it's small business income.

just for the sake of clarity, is it expected to be a tax directly on income or is it likely to be a direct tax on business, what i'ld call a corporation tax.

so that you know where i stand, if it's corporation tax, you guys need to drop it to 20% rather than raise it but if it's personal income tax 50% seems pretty sound.



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


As I said before, my post was a response to his sharing my wealth, not an attack on his tax plan, but let's take a look at what the "experts" say about his tax plan.



Obama's 95% Illusion It depends on what the meaning of 'tax cut' is.

online.wsj.com...




Obama's Tax Plan Is Really a Welfare Plan

online.wsj.com...

And here's a little fun with his tax proposal.
www.youtube.com...

[edit on 10/17/2008 by TheRooster]



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by TheRooster
 


but if it's personal income tax 50% seems pretty sound.


Please allow me to put this amount into perspective for you. If you work for one year and pay 50% in taxes, you start working for yourself around June of each year. That sounds good to you?



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRooster
 


I see -- this graph is often referred to, however it depicts the marginal tax and not the actual change in taxation. There is a table posted a few days ago which is a lot more informative. The article you quote laments that low-income families pay little or no taxes but look -- what news is that?

You are just skimming the surface, unfortunately. In reality, if your take-home is quarter of a million bucks, you'll experience only a mild increase. And you are clearing 600 big ones, yes, that tax would probalby hurt. I can relate to that. But like I said, when Joe the Plumber is struggling with gas prices, maybe someone could lay off the $85 a bottle wine and make do with the $62 one to make sure Joe keeps his house.



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRooster
 


above 250k nett at present, sure, but i am a socialist.
everyone in europe is a socialist by american standards, even the conservatives. it's largely a reaction against the oppressive class systems that have traditionally been in place and still operate to an extent.

on the other hand, socialism is a package and i'm not sure that americans get a whole lot back for their taxes and they don't have the same glass ceilings and "old boys" systems in place, so i dunno if i'ld be as happy paying that rate of tax in the US.

thats why i'm interested.






top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join