|
|
Rank: Coathanger Abortion
Groups: {pDs} Member, Server Admin
Joined: 5/17/2006
Posts: 3,487
Points: 1,990
Location: Undisclosed Location
|
|
|
|
Rank: Fuckstick
Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User
Joined: 12/20/2007
Posts: 681
Points: 6
Location: San Antonio, TX
|
Ok, so our taxes are cut. What programs have their funding reduced or removed? How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
|
|
|
Rank: Fecal Impaction For the Win!
Groups: Registered User, Server Admin
Joined: 1/13/2008
Posts: 1,509
Points: 2,004
|
Well if that is combined household income....I guess I am voting for McCain. Though I can't see how 117k + is wealthy...i dont feel very wealthy. 6 more grand coming out of my pockets to pay for welfare programs that incentivise poor people to stay poor and have more kids. Yay.
*edit* Nevermind that LA times consolidated data is misleading....I guess i would still get a tax cut of 2000 bucks.
Quote:
"Who the fuck is Leon Switch and why does he know we have a dog?" - Mrs. Giller
|
|
|
Rank: Coathanger Abortion
Groups: {pDs} Member, Server Admin
Joined: 5/17/2006
Posts: 3,487
Points: 1,990
Location: Undisclosed Location
|
Giller [GwDR wrote:]
Well if that is combined household income....I guess I am voting for McCain. Though I can't see how 117k + is wealthy...i dont feel very wealthy. 6 more grand coming out of my pockets to pay for welfare programs that incentivise poor people to stay poor and have more kids. Yay.
*edit* Nevermind that LA times consolidated data is misleading....I guess i would still get a tax cut of 2000 bucks.
Yeah, it was clever of them to present the data that way. Under the Obama plan you get a tax cut up to about $250K in yearly income, but instead they count up from 117K and then include the top 1% from the next section below to make it look like taxes increase at that level. Under the Obama tax cut everyone but the wealthiest 5% get a tax cut (95% vs the 80% it appears in the chart), It's very misleading, but what do you expect from the whores in the traditional media? Razor wrote:Killing people is good therapy.  
|
|
|
Rank: Polio Power!
Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User
Joined: 8/1/2008
Posts: 658
Points: 81
Location: SoCal
|
Top heavy on Obama. Cut the most from those that pay the least...Add the most to those that pay the most. Looks like the prices of goods are gonna go up under Obama.
|
|
|
Rank: Taco Technician
Groups: Registered User, {pDs} Member
Joined: 5/9/2006
Posts: 3,948
Points: 3,636
Location: Hi-Five City
|
|
|
|
Rank: Coathanger Abortion
Groups: {pDs} Member, Server Admin
Joined: 5/17/2006
Posts: 3,487
Points: 1,990
Location: Undisclosed Location
|
RichardAwesome wrote:Top heavy on Obama. Cut the most from those that pay the least...Add the most to those that pay the most.
Looks like the prices of goods are gonna go up under Obama. Add the most to those who can most afford it. Cut from everyone else ($100 has way more value to you and me than it does to Cindy McCain who wears outfits that cost more than my house is worth). Added benefit: Poor people are more likely to pump that money back into the economy where it is needed most. What are rich people going to do, invest it? That's great but the problem in the global economy right now isn't a lack of capital. Razor wrote:Killing people is good therapy.
|
|
|
Rank: Polio Power!
Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User
Joined: 8/1/2008
Posts: 658
Points: 81
Location: SoCal
|
Dick Cheney's Mechanical Heart wrote:RichardAwesome wrote:Top heavy on Obama. Cut the most from those that pay the least...Add the most to those that pay the most.
Looks like the prices of goods are gonna go up under Obama. Add the most to those who can most afford it. Cut from everyone else ($100 has way more value to you and me than it does to Cindy McCain who wears outfits that cost more than my house is worth). Added benefit: Poor people are more likely to pump that money back into the economy where it is needed most. What are rich people going to do, invest it? That's great but the problem in the global economy right now isn't a lack of capital. So? It's unfair. Just because they were more successful or fortunate than me doesn't mean they should pay more.
|
|
|
Rank: Fecal Impaction For the Win!
Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User
Joined: 11/6/2007
Posts: 1,341
Points: 15
Location: Portland
|
Two things come to mind :
1) Nobody has ever won an election by admitting they will be raising taxes.
2) They say that McCain's plan to lower taxes, balance budget and create jobs would be impossible given the math of his proposal. If you support John McCain and/or George W. Bush, please click here.“I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again.” - Ben Bernanke
|
|
|
Rank: Coathanger Abortion
Groups: {pDs} Member, Server Admin
Joined: 5/17/2006
Posts: 3,487
Points: 1,990
Location: Undisclosed Location
|
RichardAwesome wrote:Dick Cheney's Mechanical Heart wrote:RichardAwesome wrote:Top heavy on Obama. Cut the most from those that pay the least...Add the most to those that pay the most.
Looks like the prices of goods are gonna go up under Obama. Add the most to those who can most afford it. Cut from everyone else ($100 has way more value to you and me than it does to Cindy McCain who wears outfits that cost more than my house is worth). Added benefit: Poor people are more likely to pump that money back into the economy where it is needed most. What are rich people going to do, invest it? That's great but the problem in the global economy right now isn't a lack of capital. So? It's unfair. Just because they were more successful or fortunate than me doesn't mean they should pay more. Um, wtf are you talking about? Are you talking about as a percentage or as an actual dollar amount? E.g. Warren Buffet's tax rate is about 17% and he makes around $50,000,000, but his secretary has a tax rate of about 30% and makes around $50,000 - explain how you think it should be in order to make it fair. Razor wrote:Killing people is good therapy.
|
|
|
Rank: Polio Power!
Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User
Joined: 8/1/2008
Posts: 658
Points: 81
Location: SoCal
|
Dick Cheney's Mechanical Heart wrote:RichardAwesome wrote:Dick Cheney's Mechanical Heart wrote:RichardAwesome wrote:Top heavy on Obama. Cut the most from those that pay the least...Add the most to those that pay the most.
Looks like the prices of goods are gonna go up under Obama. Add the most to those who can most afford it. Cut from everyone else ($100 has way more value to you and me than it does to Cindy McCain who wears outfits that cost more than my house is worth). Added benefit: Poor people are more likely to pump that money back into the economy where it is needed most. What are rich people going to do, invest it? That's great but the problem in the global economy right now isn't a lack of capital. So? It's unfair. Just because they were more successful or fortunate than me doesn't mean they should pay more. Um, wtf are you talking about? Are you talking about as a percentage or as an actual dollar amount? E.g. Warren Buffet's tax rate is about 17% and he makes around $50,000,000, but his secretary has a tax rate of about 30% and makes around $50,000 - explain how you think it should be in order to make it fair. Flat tax all across the board.
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User
Joined: 8/23/2008
Posts: 39
Points: 0
Location: Renton, WA
|
Dick Cheney's Mechanical Heart wrote:Giller [GwDR wrote:]
Well if that is combined household income....I guess I am voting for McCain. Though I can't see how 117k + is wealthy...i dont feel very wealthy. 6 more grand coming out of my pockets to pay for welfare programs that incentivise poor people to stay poor and have more kids. Yay.
*edit* Nevermind that LA times consolidated data is misleading....I guess i would still get a tax cut of 2000 bucks.
Yeah, it was clever of them to present the data that way. Under the Obama plan you get a tax cut up to about $250K in yearly income, but instead they count up from 117K and then include the top 1% from the next section below to make it look like taxes increase at that level. Under the Obama tax cut everyone but the wealthiest 5% get a tax cut (95% vs the 80% it appears in the chart), It's very misleading, but what do you expect from the whores in the traditional media?
Thank you. I want a candidate whose platform is to straighten out the media so we can see what the candidates and their policies are really like.
But if we elect him, he'd show us what the other candidate's were like, but then we wouldn't be able to vote for them...
Alright, we should elect a new president of the media companies.
From what I know of Obama's plan, it sounds like a good idea. I like it.
|
|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User, Server Admin, Administration
Joined: 3/27/2008
Posts: 1,793
Points: 3,380
Location: Arizona
|
It's not, IMO, the government's job to reward you for being fortunate or doing well in life. It's job is stability and part of that is ensuring that everyone can maintain a minimum standard of living. That said, it makes perfect sense for the poor to pay a less percentage than the rich; they have less money so would find it harder to maintain a good standard. Someone who makes hundreds of thousands - or millions - per year, won't have that problem. As for people never winning who say they're going to raise taxes... that's because people are stupid. Every candidate can't lower taxes while we expect the government to continue to function. I'd be willing to pay more taxes if I had confidence it would go into improving our collapsing infrastructure.
|
|
|
Rank: Dutchess of Doodoo
Groups: Registered User, Server Admin, WDFNews.com Official Mapper
Joined: 6/3/2006
Posts: 2,239
Points: 330
Location: $L
|
Rikaelus wrote:As for people never winning who say they're going to raise taxes... that's because people are stupid. Every candidate can't lower taxes while we expect the government to continue to function. I'd be willing to pay more taxes if I had confidence it would go into improving our collapsing infrastructure. Not true. We could eliminate taxes altogether and just manage the government's expenses through inflation. It's essentially the same thing but could you imagine a candidate saying he would eliminate income taxes, etc... You wanna take this to Fuck Town?
Oh gadzooks, yes!
|
|
|
Rank: Taco Technician
Groups: Registered User, {pDs} Member
Joined: 5/9/2006
Posts: 3,948
Points: 3,636
Location: Hi-Five City
|
|
|
|
| Users browsing this topic |
|
Guest
|