obama lies :whitehouse white board and the tax cuts

reply to post by deepred


incorrect really?

those people paying all the same taxes and much more

$50,000 @35% pay and addtional $17,500 in taxes
$100,000@35% pay an additional $35,,000 in taxes
$250,000@@35% pay an additional $87,500 in taxes
$500,000@35% pay an additional $175,000 in taxes
$750,000@$35% pay an additional taxes $262,500 in taxes
$1,000,000@35% pay and additional taxes $350,000 in taxes


but wait thats not counting state income taxes thats just from federal plus every other tax other there

really now if your buying $35000 in food per year your eating to much and the reality of it is your not spending $35000 in food per year.


whether you people want to admit it those people are paying too much into the system just because the more money they have the government thinks they have the right to take it from them-------hell no they dont.

As we enter another election event, I think it would be wise to remember that "income taxes" are not the only form of tax revenue,

The statement that 53% of the population pay no taxes is misleading to say the least.

Money that is hoarded by the wealthy is often removed from the transaction cycle thereby removing it from the taxation cycle.

I would argue that the middle and lower classes pay far more into the taxation cycle then the very wealthy.

I would further argue that the "trickle down theory" has been proven to be incorrect.

The middle and lower classes pay the taxes that keep America functioning,

reply to post by deepred


no its not misleading for the simple fact:

when you have over 40 million people receiving welfare
when you have 10% unemployed thats what another 17 million people
when you have between 25 and 40 million illegals here


thats what around 100 million people not paying taxes? not incorrect its damn right alarming.

especially when you consider the populatioon of this country is around 350,000 million people

not to mention those people who have no income other than social security last time i checked anyone making under $10000 a year pays no tax

hey children dont work they dont pay any taxes

those people who are unemployement benefits dont pay any taxes now do they...........

man you can lead a person to water that dont mean he will take a drink..........

you want to continue to believe in the fantansy that all americans are paying taxes well this is reality and the reality is more 53% DONT PAY NOTHING.

reply to post by neo96


Warren Buffet, which Obama uses as an advisor without the position to a great deal and is also a genius in economy, is actually saying drop taxes on the poor and middle class and raise it on the rich which includes him. I don't think Obama is lying too much about taxation, a lot of states have actually entacted laws to raise their revenue, the feds don't need to do this as many expect.

reply to post by OmiOra


what they need to do is enact laws to stop their spending.............


why do you think this country is so much in trouble?

this government and local and state governments spend more than they take in.........

when you keep taking taxes from people you kill jobs thats a fact you destroy wealth...

and last time i checked no person on welfare or social secuity creates any wealth.


buffet may be rich but hes old and its becoming ever increasingly that he may be senile..........

but then agian buffet is rich how did he get that way how much wealth has he created how many people does he employ?
how many people does his investment company employ?
how many people does his investments employ?

you are talking thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people and billions upon billions and billions of revenue of taxes that are paid to the government...

and when you take that money away like i said you are destroying wealth.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by deepred

 

incorrect really?

those people paying all the same taxes and much more

$50,000 @35% pay and addtional $17,500 in taxes
$100,000@35% pay an additional $35,,000 in taxes
$250,000@@35% pay an additional $87,500 in taxes
$500,000@35% pay an additional $175,000 in taxes
$750,000@$35% pay an additional taxes $262,500 in taxes
$1,000,000@35% pay and additional taxes $350,000 in taxes


but wait thats not counting state income taxes thats just from federal plus every other tax other there

really now if your buying $35000 in food per year your eating to much and the reality of it is your not spending $35000 in food per year.


whether you people want to admit it those people are paying too much into the system just because the more money they have the government thinks they have the right to take it from them-------hell no they dont.

You are assuming everyone pays 35% taxes......Warren Buffet payed aprox. 17% taxes on his income while his secretary payed 30% of her income.

Link to sourcewww.timesonline.co.uk...

The social security recipient that received $1000.00 ether did not spend the $1000.00 or payed some form of taxation when the money was spent,as in taxes for the phone bill sales tax and alike.

"income tax" and paying taxes are not one in the same.

reply to post by deepred


no there is a reason i stopped at $1 million those numbers are pretty acurrate and even still whats 17% of 1 billion dollars eh? oh here it is 17% of billion dollars is =$170,000,000

35% is 18 points more than 17% or more than twice the amount payed by the super rich on a percentage basis

reply to post by neo96

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

oh its a well reasoned arguement your just not willing to listen to anything other than than a piece a paper with "facts" on it.

You're simply repeating the same statements over and over, that isn't an argument. An argument can be broken down into clauses and components, yours are singular statements that must be taken as fact.

And of course I'm not willing to support something that isn't factual. If you don't have statistics to back up such insane claims as '58% of people don't pay taxes' then you have no room to make that statement. If you simply say 'it makes sense' then you're either being willfully ignorant or have no idea how reality functions.

Just because an argument 'makes sense' doesn't mean it's valid. Valid statements can be supported through their logical validity or supporting evidence. You lack both logical clauses linking together to make a statement and supporting evidence.

In fact, I used a logical proof here. To quote myself.

And you would still be ignoring the fact that they still pay sales tax. 100% of the people in this country pay sales tax. You said 58% pay no taxes at all
You are wrong
QED

This can be broken down into logical clauses:

1: You stated 58% of people pay no taxes
2: 100% of people pay sales tax
3: Sales tax is a tax
4: Therefore 100% of people pay taxes

You are wrong
QED

its not me being so blind as to whats going on in this country but hey if you just want to bury your head in a website then your free to..

Um, I'm not blind, I just like people having opinions that can be backed up with evidence instead of ridiculous things like personal opinion of a statement determining its validity.

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
Alright folks, how does government create funds?

Do they take that from someone?

Or do they create that out of thin air?

They receive money in various forms of taxation and bonds and borrow it when there is a shortfall. Now, money isn't created out of thin air, it's created from debt.

Now, if you use the federal reserve as the basis of your argument, you would be right, because the left is all about something else.

"The left" is a nebulous concept that can't be hammered down to a singular idea. "Left" ideas range from liberal libertarianism to anarchy to socialism.

Anywhoooo, the private sector funds the public sector. Period. There is NO argument for that. Unless of course you have the intelligence of the government funded education. Sorry, can ANYONE explain to me why the socialist and communist nations are going free market?

And the private sector thrives because of the public sector. Period. There is NO argument for that. Without government infrastructure, government defense, government regulation, etc there wouldn't be the market we have right now.

Now, I did take part in government funded education, and it's idiotic to say that those who did are somehow of inferior intelligence. In fact, that would be an argument ad hominem, a total logical fallacy.

The Communist nations (eg China) aren't really going free market, their governments are taking part in the free market. It's more like neo-mercantile system.

Oh, that would take actual discussion. I am thoroughly disgusted here by the way. Either attribute the other countries such as the European Union and others going to free market principles or just Shut up.

Wow, so either I agree with your distortion of facts or shut up because you can't stand other people disagreeing with you?

You're quite a toxic individual if you truly believe that disagreement with your views disgusts you.

Now, the EU has been about the free market for some 60 some-odd years, depending on the individual nation. Ireland is a free-market nation, England is, France is, Italy is, Germany is, etc etc.

They live in social capitalist societies, as pure free market societies don't work (ie Somalia).

Oh, but look at the Socialist nations you tell me, well I am LOOKING. It seems they are going the other way unless of course you are watching the MSM.

Um...there aren't any socialist nations on Earth, unless you define "socialism" as "having government healthcare".

You clearly do not understand the term 'socialist'

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

actually im extremely familiar with how those bailouts functioned and im also aware that the manner in which the government did them , was to make it hard to impossible for the businesses that they bailed out, to get out from UNDER them, just like many of the other programs the gov has implemented.......

Um...I'm sorry, but the banks are going to be repaying that money soon enough, as will GM. They aren't going to be stuck with crippling debt for a decade.

Or do you have some evidence to the contrary?

Just look at welfare, and all these other programs, created to keep an underclass in the system......

Really? My family was on food stamps for about two years when my father was doing his graduate work, we're now well above the need for that.

The system doesn't actually prevent people from doing anything, it just takes more personal initiative. It's not like they're traps. We just need to reform the systems slightly.

Youre joking right? How bout the FED and the gov being in bed with each other?

Um...you mean the Federal Reserve should be in opposition to the government and vice-versa? How would that make things any better? We'd have a currency war that would devalue our currency...

How bout all the UNIONS that have the gov in their pocket and vice versa, how bout special interests groups like SEIU and numerous others that have had hidden funding in many of the bills that have been passed?

So you're going to object to Unions? They're protected by first amendment rights to freedom to organize. Would you prefer the 'invisible hand of the market' to provide workers with protection? Sorry, but that doesn't work, that's why people had to unionize in the first place.

Honestly, the special interest issue is a lobbying reform issue and nothing more.

And how is funding hidden if you can read through any bill before it's passed?

Its completely ignorant to think that just because they dont stand in front of congress and say these things that it doesnt happen...........

Again, it's a lobbying reform issue, it's not as if businesses control the entirety of government.

But on that note, it doesnt take a person looking too hard to see how blatant and brazen these special interest groups have gotten , or how much favoratism is shown to them by the administration............

Every administration has shown favoritism. I absolutely hate how the discourse in America today seems to ignore that we're going through 'business as usual' in Washington, not that the current administration is doing anything entirely different from the others. Bush 1 and 2 had favoritism, Clinton did, Reagan did, etc etc. Every administration has it.

No money from these people? PLEAAAAAAAAASE

Individuals might receive it, but 'the government' doesn't.

How do you know how much money is enough? I may be making over 1 million annually, but do you know what my overhead would be for my company? How bout paying my employees?

That wouldn't be taxable income. You are clearly unfamiliar with how money is taxed. You only pay taxes on your company profits, and those aren't covered under federal income tax, it's a separate corporate income tax.

That statement is ignorance in its highest form......

Says the person who thinks you get taxed on your gross income without overhead and payroll being taken into account.

you have no idea what these people spend to keep these businesses going, and who are YOU to tell ME how much is enough? If ive worked my butt off for where i am, then i deserve what I make.....

Well, here's the issue. You get taxed on profits. If your company grosses $2 million and you spend $1 million in overhead between rent, employees, equipment etc, you get taxed on the $1 million that goes directly to you as the owner. If you only make $50,000 in profit but you gross $3 million, you only pay taxes on $50,000.

And again, is your income entirely derived from effort? No, it isn't. There are various market factors as well as the simple fact that you live in America where it is far easier to make a living than in most other nations.

Three big rules that dictate how your business does: location, location, location.

Well then if that is true, and the profit is so hard to come by with the overhead, then that should answer your above question............however i dont see any facts and figures supplied by your statement, so ill take it as an opinion....

You get taxed on just the profit, the overhead is written off as business expenses.
And you've yet to supply a basic understanding of the tax code, bailout system, and little else.

The average small business owner salary is $233,600. With just a little knowledge of statistics, that means that the average small business owner makes less than $250,000 and would be unaffected by Obama's tax plan. It's not a disincentive if it's not happening.

So if you're taking home $233,600 annually, you're hardly hurting. Now, if your personal finances aren't in order and you're hurting because you've stretched yourself too thin with personal debt, that's your own fault.

How is it a concentration of wealth if people are encouraged to create businesses in the private sector? thats called enterprise, thats called capitalism , it MOTIVATES people who are the low end of the latter, to create, invent, start something new, necessity is the mother of invention...........

The people that are getting the majority of the tax cut are those that make the most money. If (and that's a very big if) they decide to use that money to create more jobs, they will make more money from those jobs and thus get even more money off of their tax bill. Which will create more jobs giving them more money.

There may be more people, but there's no guarantee that they create jobs with good salaries. In fact, a $100,000 tax cut doesn't create an incentive to create a $100,000 job unless that job provides a lot more return on its investment than $100,000.

This "gov" system that you think is so fantastic does NOT foster this idea, and is the REAL road to serfdom...learn it.....

How is it a road to serfdom? Since the Bush tax cuts the division of wealth has become further concentrated. If they worked like they were supposed to, the opposite would have happened.

We need to dump these tax cuts to fix that.

So because your idea of taxation has proven that it doesnt work many times over,and i dont agree with it, all the sudden I HAVE no idea how taxes work? Please........im a business owner, im very well aware how taxes work and dont work.....try a flat tax

I'm sorry, my idea of taxation has proven to work under Clinton, it worked.
And how does being a business owner mean you understand how taxation works? You're trying to argue from your own authority while demonstrating throughout this post that you don't understand.

A flat tax inherently favors the wealthy while punishing the poor. If the poor have to pay an extra 10% in taxes than they were before, they won't have any way to save money to improve their financial situation.

And where is the data that actually shows that a flat taxation system works? I've yet to see it. I thought the idea was novel when Warren Buffet put it forth...wow, it's been a while since then. But I then read the numbers on it.

Just because 13 percent of the peole in the US that are employed are in manufacturing (again no proof for the figures)

I was posting at a time when I was deprived of sleep. You can find them easily yourself or provide counter-evidence to disprove my statement. Simply saying I didn't provide any evidence of a fairly reasonable statement doesn't mean I'm wrong.
Here's the data, there are references included and raw numbers provided

doesnt mean that the US is still a producing nation........all one has to do is look at our national debt compared to our national income to see that........the only thing we are producing at record rates its debt, that not even China wants anymore of......

Here's a misconception, China only recently became our biggest debt holder. We owe nearly the same amount to Japan.
Here's some data for you to look at

Now, this debt was being paid off up until the Bush presidency, when he decided to implement....the tax cuts. Clinton was the first president in ages to actually start paying off the national debt.

First, you assume again, that its easy for the rich to pay higher taxes, what you fail to see is that just because they make more money, doesnt mean they arent already taxed from every angle possible or the fact that their money is funneled into different ventures, not to mention PAYING THEIR EMPLOYEES.

PAYING THEIR EMPLOYEES is taken into consideration when taxation happens. For someone who claims to own a small business, you seem to not understand this. You don't get taxed on money that your employees receive nor do you get taxed on your overhead. Those are all written off.

You are taxed on your personal income here, your salary from the business. The business itself is taxed separately and doesn't actually fall under this tax cut scheme.

Your math there is telling......so because you can take almost HALF of a persons 1 million a year because they are rich, you should?

No, it just shouldn't be an issue. And again, under Eisenhower that same person would lose up to 91% of their income. Business boomed back then.

really.........so i should take the money that I work hard for and give it to people who WONT work , to fund more governement programs that encourage people to be destitute and lazy?

The vast majority of government spending isn't spent on programs that encourage laziness, and there's a separate issue that you have to actually prove through sociological and economic data that whichever programs you're talking about do encourage desititution and laziness.

I'm talking about balancing our budget and paying off the national debt.

Now, when I pay taxes I don't want the money I spend to go to the military, but do I have a choice at that time? No, of course not. I make the decision through my voting.

If you have a problem with how spending is handled, take it up with your congresspeople at the state and national level.

so because its 13 times the per capita income thats ok?

No, but it's comfortable and it's honestly more moral than taking money from people who don't have enough.
Dont you think if i make 1million dollars a year and you tax me so high that i cant pay my employees, that you are HURTING the working class?........

Again your logic on taxing the rich is flawed and unsustainable........the problem is , you arent the only one with this view

With this logic i could say, if you were in college and you were a 4.0 student, it would be ok for you , since you did all the work, you study day in and day out, you finish assignments when they are due or before hand and really work hard, for all the people in your grade point average, to share 40 % of your GPA(since youre doing better than others) with people in your class who couldnt make it to class that often, or chose not to do their work.........so that they could have passing grades.........dropping your GPA average down to one that was more "acceptable" to the people in the class........you know..........closer to average.........would that be ok with you?

They actually do this, it's called grading on a curve, except the people with the best grades aren't punished by it. If you grade on a curve you adjust the test scores based on outlying scores, like someone getting a 98% when the class average is still 20%. When something like that happens there are various reasons for it.

And you obviously are using a straw man. Aside from the fact that the mathematics don't even out, as a 4.0 GPA is something where there is an absolute maximum and income has no maximum in this nation and a 4.0 GPA is hardly 13 times the average. In fact, it's is nearly impossible for the top students to achieve 13 times the average mark, you're describing a situation where there's a difference between meritocracy (in schools) and business, which is only partially meritocratic and partially subject to market trends. You can work yourself day in and out, have the best product on the market and the best customer service and still not succeed. Success in business is only partially determined by hard work. Then there's the obvious issue that taxation doesn't work the way you're saying it does. The vast majority of people pay income tax and everyone pays some form of tax, so you would have to put in this situation that everyone with a passing grade would pay an equal amount of grade to the system and then grading would be rescaled to reflect 'grade taxation'.

Anyway, it's a silly and demonstrable false example.

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
Sorry, I was using the race card earlier instead of facts.

Thank you for admitting your fault.

So, I will be using facts for now on.

Tell me folks, when did the government create jobs? Without first taking from someone else.

Oh, never.

What was I getting at again?

The government doesn't have that job. Its job is to ensure a stable economy in which jobs can be created. The economy is actually recovering, the problem is that a lot of the jobs that were cut aren't being reinstated. Companies used this time to cut their employments and increase their profit margins.

reply to post by neo96


Source?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


your right this isnt an arguement

anyone with one ounce of common sense would have easily seen what i had was true and like i said before your not willing to see it....

deal with it man the majority of people in this country legal and illegal and of working age PAY NO taxes.

the evidence you need is everywhere around you............like its been said time and time agian this country is so screwed up right now because more people are taking out of the system than paying into it.

that statement validates everything i said in this thread

as to your example paying 1 buck at a store isnt paying taxes that those people who pay all those taxes and more.

yeah you are blind theres a thing as having book smarts but without any common sense you can still be a moron(to be clear im not calling you a moron) but you have said time and time agian this thread was stupid and idiotic and a waste of time so what are you still doing here,

go on to someone else man you said your piece

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

your right this isnt an arguement

Yes it is, we come to a disagreement over a certain issue, that's the definition of an argument.

anyone with one ounce of common sense would have easily seen what i had was true and like i said before your not willing to see it....

For the love of all the is wonderful in this universe, that is not a valid way to prove that you are correct.

I am willing to see any argument that is supported by facts. I'm questioning the validity of your claims. If you provide evidence to show that your claims have any level of validity, I will acknowledge that I was mistaken.

You simply saying that common sense is on your side doesn't mean a thing. Common sense doesn't actually prove anything. Common sense would make you think that you couldn't stick your hand in liquid nitrogen without it freezing and falling off. This is demonstrably false

deal with it man the majority of people in this country legal and illegal and of working age PAY NO taxes.

Deal with the fact that you cannot make that sort of statement in an adult discussion without backing your claims up with evidence of some sort. If your claim is so valid it should be ridiculously easy for you to settle this by simply providing evidence.

the evidence you need is everywhere around you............

Well, I can't seem to find it. I even provided counter-evidence earlier, that you readily ignored.
It's amazing that I type out these lengthy responses and you simply respond to single statements.

like its been said time and time agian this country is so screwed up right now because more people are taking out of the system than paying into it.

The problem is that we're fighting two foreign wars whilst giving unnecessary tax cuts and not spending responsibly. We need to be able to reach a system where we gradually balance out the budget, not expect it to happen all at once. That's the only way we'll ever pay off the national debt.

that statement validates everything i said in this thread

No, it doesn't. Simply stating that it does changes nothing.

If I were to say: "Like Plato said, democracy is an unsustainable form of governance" to prove some sort of ridiculous unsubstantiated statements against democracy, it would prove nothing.

Evidence and formal logic validate statements, not simple declarations

as to your example paying 1 buck at a store isnt paying taxes that those people who pay all those taxes and more.

Illegals are actually paying a lot more than that. They're paying into a lot of payroll services and filing proper tax returns through forged documents. The link I provided refutes and claims that there aren't any illegals paying taxes.

And let's see, if you spend $2 per person per meal, 3 meals per day, 21 meals per week. That's $41 dollars a week. Times 52 weeks is $2132 a year of food expenditures per person. A family of 3 would be spending Over $6000. Let's say we're in Texas for that, they have a 6.25% sales tax rate. That's $375 in tax just on food for a family that's struggling to get by. That's just food expenditures.

It may not be a lot, but for some families that's a major sacrifice. It could be the difference between paying off a heating bill or medical bills.

yeah you are blind theres a thing as having book smarts but without any common sense you can still be a moron(to be clear im not calling you a moron)

The bit of common sense that I'm using right now is that when people try to speak about 'common sense arguments' without providing any backing evidence, it's normally either a bunch of direct or indirect lies.

The books smarts are a lot more important in issues of policy than common sense. Common sense does play a part in legislation, but without 'book smarts' to support it you're not going to have any reasonable bills.

When people are arguing over what needs to be done with a country, facts and figures instead of random propaganda (like the obvious lie that 58% of people in the country don't pay taxes, though I'm not sure how you were convinced of its truth) are a lot more important.

but you have said time and time agian this thread was stupid and idiotic and a waste of time so what are you still doing here,

I don't know, maybe I'm just a masochist, maybe I take the motto of this website to heart, maybe I don't like people poisoning the country I love with demonstrably false ideas.

go on to someone else man you said your piece

Sorry, way too stubborn to do that. Can you please support your arguments with evidence now?

I would like to say outright that this has been an insanely ridiculous thread. I've provided reasoned arguments, simple mathematics, links, and statistics to prove and disprove points.

The other side has yet to provide any sort of cogent argument beyond "it's common sense"

How is this supposed to further American political discourse? How are we supposed to get things done when "common sense" has more weight to it than facts, figures, statistics, and evidence? If the truth is smacking you in the face you can't shoo it away with "common sense"

It looks like I'm either being ignored in a very childish fashion or the point has been ceded to me. Of course, I think it is the former and I decry the ever advancing demise of intelligent debate using reasoned arguments and actual evidence rather than 'gut feelings', 'common sense', 'personal values', and other such nonsense.

This is supposed to be a board where we Deny Ignorance, not one where we simply go by arguments that seem to make sense to us.