By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Obama... Man Were We All Fooled...

Kasz216 on 16 September 2008
TheRealMafoo said:
akuma587 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
akuma587 said:

I do know they care about me less, you know why, because my family's income puts me in the top 1% of Americans (who the Democrats want to raise taxes on).  And my parents both vote Democratic as well.

 

That's over 350K a year, and I assume you mean your parents. It's is funny how you include yourself in the same tax bracket as your parents.

Playing with other peoples money as if it was yours ... You are the prefect Democrat ;) 

I stand corrected, my family is only in the top 2% of Americans.  But those same tax raises would still affect us for the most part.  And thanks to steven for pointing out the my family ALSO votes democratic.

Percent of Total
Number Households
Total Households 105,539,122 100.00%
Less than $9,999 10,067,027 9.54%
$10,000 - $14,999 6,657,228 6.31%
$15,000 - $24,999 13,536,965 12.83%
$25,000 - $34,999 13,519,242 12.81%
$35,000 - $49,999 17,446,272 16.53%
$50,000 - $74,999 20,540,604 19.46%
$75,000 - $99,999 10,799,245 10.23%
$100,000 - $149,999 8,147,826 7.72%
$150,000 - $199,999 2,322,038 2.20%
$200,000 and above 2,502,675 2.37%

 

 

I have no problems with what your parents vote. It’s their money. I have a problem with the other 98% telling those 2% what they need to do with their money (like you for example :p).

If there was a flat tax, and when we needed to raise taxes, it was raised on everyone, I would not take issue at all with anyone voting for that raise.

But money is time. It takes effort to earn. And when you are allowed to vote to take someone else’s time and effort away, in exchange for your own time and effort returned to you, I find that very un-American.

There is something very wrong with that philosophy in my eyes.

Oh, and I am not in that top 2%, so my views are as self sacrificing as your parents.

What was the Ross Perot plan?  Flat Tax with a option to donate more money?

Still if Akuma's parents do feel they should give more money to the government... there is nothing stopping them no matter who the president is.

Or just putting that money in private charitable funds.

I'm not for a flat tax myself.  Though I could see myself behind a national sales tax, or an income tax that takes out deductables for cost of living per area. 

All in all though i think government spending is too wastefull to allow such a broad tax now.  The rich have to "take one for the team" due to our governments gross wasteful spending.

Which is why I want McCain in office really.  He could cut a lot of wasteful spending that could go elsewhere.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 16 September 2008

That said, My dad usually votes democrat. But he voted for Perot... because he supports the flat tax because as he described it. "It's the most fair."



TheRealMafoo on 16 September 2008
Kasz216 said:
That said, My dad usually votes democrat. But he voted for Perot... because he supports the flat tax because as he described it. "It's the most fair."

 

 And I agree. We should do what's right for the people.. all the people. Not what's easy.

I too am for a sales tax before an income flat tax as well. When you make money, you are doing nothing more then turning your services into something other people want. Accruing wealth is nothing more than storing up what you have done. Why should we tax for the conversion? Tax it when you spend it. This would be a perfect tax. The rich pay more because they buy more. The poor pay less because they buy less. The illegal alien will pay as much in tax as a legal citizen.



Kasz216 on 16 September 2008
akuma587 said:
Jackson50 said:

 

This is a strange phenomenon. The least educated and the most educated tend to be Democratic and those in between tend to be Republican. As education is usually congruous with income, the same can be said for income. In regards to those two demographics, I suppose Republican suppport could be described as a bell curve and Democratic support as an inverted bell.

Yup, that is pretty much how it works out.  And did bigjon actually get banned?  I have to go check this out.

 


Yeah.  For something that isn't even a big deal either.

I mean you could argue that Obama was trying to stop the deal from happening because it would deflate his campaign a bit to have an actual plan to leave Iraq.

But i mean honestly, if your going to be the next president wouldn't you want to have YOUR deal rather then be stuck to somethign signed a month or two before you were president?



luinil on 16 September 2008
TheRealMafoo said:
Kasz216 said:
That said, My dad usually votes democrat. But he voted for Perot... because he supports the flat tax because as he described it. "It's the most fair."

 

 And I agree. We should do what's right for the people.. all the people. Not what's easy.

I too am for a sales tax before an income flat tax as well. When you make money, you are doing nothing more then turning your services into something other people want. Accruing wealth is nothing more than storing up what you have done. Why should we tax for the conversion? Tax it when you spend it. This would be a perfect tax. The rich pay more because they buy more. The poor pay less because they buy less. The illegal alien will pay as much in tax as a legal citizen.

Sense. This post makes plenty. :)



Luinil - Marisa (FE:SS). She's calm, collected, and really likes swords. (Courtesy of Words of Wisdom)
Tag: luinil - "Liberalism is a mental disorder." - Thanks fkusumot!
Around the Network
Jackson50 on 16 September 2008
luinil said:
TheRealMafoo said:
Kasz216 said:
That said, My dad usually votes democrat. But he voted for Perot... because he supports the flat tax because as he described it. "It's the most fair."

 

 And I agree. We should do what's right for the people.. all the people. Not what's easy.

I too am for a sales tax before an income flat tax as well. When you make money, you are doing nothing more then turning your services into something other people want. Accruing wealth is nothing more than storing up what you have done. Why should we tax for the conversion? Tax it when you spend it. This would be a perfect tax. The rich pay more because they buy more. The poor pay less because they buy less. The illegal alien will pay as much in tax as a legal citizen.

Sense. This post makes plenty. :)

The main argument against it is that it is inherently regressive. Whilst high income people do spend more money than low income people in real terms, low income people spend a larger percentage of their income on consumer goods and would be disproportionately affected by the tax. It may seem fair, but it is in essence unfair. There may be ways to mitigate this, but that would require more money and more bureaucracy. I am not opposed to it, but that is the main reason some people oppose it.

 


 



akuma587 on 16 September 2008

A sales tax would discourage spending and hurt the economy. People are pretty shortsighted, but they do notice a 30% tax on their goods, so this would encourage people to buy things from abroad if the costs weren't prohibitive because there would be no tax. People would try to get around it on the internet as well, which would be a nightmare for the federal government to patrol since there is so much traffic.

Income tax is something they can't get around easily, and it isn't something people generally think about on a day to day basis. Same with property tax. You would notice the sales tax every time you went and purchased something, so it would shape your habits accordingly.

A flat tax would have to be at least 28-30% to actually work. It really wouldn't provide many advantages to the system we have now, and a society and economy with a progressive income tax is more stable.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Kasz216 on 16 September 2008
akuma587 said:
A sales tax would discourage spending and hurt the economy. People are pretty shortsighted, but they do notice a 30% tax on their goods, so this would encourage people to buy things from abroad if the costs weren't prohibitive because there would be no tax. People would try to get around it on the internet as well, which would be a nightmare for the federal government to patrol since there is so much traffic.

Income tax is something they can't get around easily, and it isn't something people generally think about on a day to day basis. Same with property tax. You would notice the sales tax every time you went and purchased something, so it would shape your habits accordingly.

A flat tax would have to be at least 28-30% to actually work. It really wouldn't provide many advantages to the system we have now, and a society and economy with a progressive income tax is more stable.


The argument isn't that it will have any advantage.  It's that it's more fair. 

In general that money earned is directly a result of choices you've made and that taxing richer people more is basically taking more away from them because they made better choices.

For some people, fairness is more important then stability.

Of course this is why living expenses would have to be taken out of any "flat tax" since everyone should be provided with enough to live.

I mean... a similar comparison would be if in the NBA Kobe Bryant's field goals were worth 1 instead of 2.  And Ben Wallace's counted as 5.

Sure Kobe still will have more total points then Ben Wallace, but he has to work a lot harder to get it.



Jandre002 on 16 September 2008
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:
A sales tax would discourage spending and hurt the economy. People are pretty shortsighted, but they do notice a 30% tax on their goods, so this would encourage people to buy things from abroad if the costs weren't prohibitive because there would be no tax. People would try to get around it on the internet as well, which would be a nightmare for the federal government to patrol since there is so much traffic.

Income tax is something they can't get around easily, and it isn't something people generally think about on a day to day basis. Same with property tax. You would notice the sales tax every time you went and purchased something, so it would shape your habits accordingly.

A flat tax would have to be at least 28-30% to actually work. It really wouldn't provide many advantages to the system we have now, and a society and economy with a progressive income tax is more stable.


The argument isn't that it will have any advantage.  It's that it's more fair. 

In general that money earned is directly a result of choices you've made and that taxing richer people more is basically taking more away from them because they made better choices.

For some people, fairness is more important then stability.

Of course this is why living expenses would have to be taken out of any "flat tax" since everyone should be provided with enough to live.

I mean... a similar comparison would be if in the NBA Kobe Bryant's field goals were worth 1 instead of 2.  And Ben Wallace's counted as 5.

Sure Kobe still will have more total points then Ben Wallace, but he has to work a lot harder to get it.

5% of America owns 95% of our money, I think thats how it goes right? First let me say that I live in region with the highest household income. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Virginia

Northern Virginia has 6 of 20 of the highest income counties in the nation, where nearly half of the households making over 100k per year. We are also, if you are curious,  where the DC sniper took place (Home Depot in VA), the Pentagon attack (the Pentagon is in Arlington VA), and the VTech sniper was from the HS down the street from my house. So basically most of the biggest events in the past 8 years emerged from here. (Sorry forgot AOL started/is operated from here). Also, we are the location of the T.C. Titans (Remember the Titans)

We are also one of the hardest hit regions from the recent housing slump. 

Now think about this. When 9/11 hit WE were affected the most outside of New York. WE  have been hit by acts of terror. WE have the highest household income. WE are the ones with the closest ties to Washington, and the inner workings of the federal government. So the fact that the richest, most affected, most in tune with Washington voters are STILL voting democratic doesn't say something to you all? If Obama's tax cuts went in to affect they know that they would pay more money, yet they agree to because they know that "OMG MORE TAXES" is something that needs to be done to fix the mess left behind by these new war happy, dishonest Republicans (NOVA 53-46 Kerry-Bush) Also, NOVA is the reason Virginia may end up being a blue state this election.

 

The Republican party takes middle America for a ride election after election as well. All they need to say is "gay marriage" "higher taxes" "terrorism" and they jump on the bandwagon without even paying attention to what they have done to the economy or what their plans are for the future. The plan in effect right now isn't just a Bush plan, its a neo-conservative plan. You have to put country before party, because if the Republicans win again on the same game plan lord only knows what other middle-class-screwing plans they will inact in order to benefit that richest 5%. This isn't just the "liberal media" trying to control the election. This is the response of good willing people who put country before self and want the best for everyone, and right now the conservatives have gone too far right to be of help to our democracy.



Kasz216 on 16 September 2008
Jandre002 said:
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:
A sales tax would discourage spending and hurt the economy. People are pretty shortsighted, but they do notice a 30% tax on their goods, so this would encourage people to buy things from abroad if the costs weren't prohibitive because there would be no tax. People would try to get around it on the internet as well, which would be a nightmare for the federal government to patrol since there is so much traffic.

Income tax is something they can't get around easily, and it isn't something people generally think about on a day to day basis. Same with property tax. You would notice the sales tax every time you went and purchased something, so it would shape your habits accordingly.

A flat tax would have to be at least 28-30% to actually work. It really wouldn't provide many advantages to the system we have now, and a society and economy with a progressive income tax is more stable.


The argument isn't that it will have any advantage.  It's that it's more fair. 

In general that money earned is directly a result of choices you've made and that taxing richer people more is basically taking more away from them because they made better choices.

For some people, fairness is more important then stability.

Of course this is why living expenses would have to be taken out of any "flat tax" since everyone should be provided with enough to live.

I mean... a similar comparison would be if in the NBA Kobe Bryant's field goals were worth 1 instead of 2.  And Ben Wallace's counted as 5.

Sure Kobe still will have more total points then Ben Wallace, but he has to work a lot harder to get it.

5% of America owns 95% of our money, I think thats how it goes right? First let me say that I live in region with the highest household income. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Virginia

Northern Virginia has 6 of 20 of the highest income counties in the nation, where nearly half of the households making over 100k per year. We are also, if you are curious,  where the DC sniper took place (Home Depot in VA), the Pentagon attack (the Pentagon is in Arlington VA), and the VTech sniper was from the HS down the street from my house. So basically most of the biggest events in the past 8 years emerged from here. (Sorry forgot AOL started/is operated from here). Also, we are the location of the T.C. Titans (Remember the Titans)

We are also one of the hardest hit regions from the recent housing slump. 

Now think about this. When 9/11 hit WE were affected the most outside of New York. WE  have been hit by acts of terror. WE have the highest household income. WE are the ones with the closest ties to Washington, and the inner workings of the federal government. So the fact that the richest, most affected, most in tune with Washington voters are STILL voting democratic doesn't say something to you all? If Obama's tax cuts went in to affect they know that they would pay more money, yet they agree to because they know that "OMG MORE TAXES" is something that needs to be done to fix the mess left behind by these new war happy, dishonest Republicans (NOVA 53-46 Kerry-Bush) Also, NOVA is the reason Virginia may end up being a blue state this election.

 

The Republican party takes middle America for a ride election after election as well. All they need to say is "gay marriage" "higher taxes" "terrorism" and they jump on the bandwagon without even paying attention to what they have done to the economy or what their plans are for the future. The plan in effect right now isn't just a Bush plan, its a neo-conservative plan. You have to put country before party, because if the Republicans win again on the same game plan lord only knows what other middle-class-screwing plans they will inact in order to benefit that richest 5%. This isn't just the "liberal media" trying to control the election. This is the response of good willing people who put country before self and want the best for everyone, and right now the conservatives have gone too far right to be of help to our democracy.

None of that adresses fairness at all.

Gay Marriage is actually another example the other way.  The people who care about fairness would be for Gay marriage.  Yet even most democratic politicians like Obama are against Gay Marriage.  Why?  There is no smart gain from it.  Heck Kerry lost votes for "Not being against gay marriage enough!"

Some things make the country run smoother.  Some things are more fair.

Some people believe treating everyone equally outweighs "what's best for the country."

That would include a flat tax in some form or another.  Taking out living expenses hopefully. (within reason of course.  No 30 million dollar mansion tax break because you "live there".)