The $250,000 dilemma

[tommyjones]

The $250,000 dilemma


I heard a caller on Rush today bring up the point that Obama speaks about him wanting all of us to obtain the American dream, that is until you make over $250,000; then you are suddenly evil and must pay.

so how many make more than that and how many make less?

I'm down for less than.

 

[PsyOps]

What difference does it make. Obama has defined where the American dream ends and greed and corruption begins. The American dream, for many, is to live in financial security. Obama wont have it. For many, the American dream is to open their own business and become successful and, perhaps, becaome wealthy doing it. There will be none of that with Obama. He aims to make sure if you make over $250k you will suffer under his taxation.

Even if it was one person... that is too many. That one person may be someone who owns a business that employs 100 people. Obama would see to it that it would be more difficult for that person to expand their business and hire more people. His tax plan would put more people out of jobs which would be counter-productive to the tax base. So your question needs a big........... SO WHAT!

 

[tommyjones]

What difference does it make. Obama has defined where the American dream ends and greed and corruption begins. The American dream, for many, is to live in financial security. Obama wont have it. For many, the American dream is to open their own business and become successful and, perhaps, becaome wealthy doing it. There will be none of that with Obama. He aims to make sure if you make over $250k you will suffer under his taxation.

Even if it was one person... that is too many. That one person may be someone who owns a business that employs 100 people. Obama would see to it that it would be more difficult for that person to expand their business and hire more people. His tax plan would put more people out of jobs which would be counter-productive to the tax base. So your question needs a big........... SO WHAT!

and you are welcome to your opinion.

for me i dont think the world will nd when i get to the 250K mark, and i certainly dont think an increase of a few percent is going to bankrupt all the really rich.

 

[Tilted]

and you are welcome to your opinion.

for me i dont think the world will nd when i get to the 250K mark, and i certainly dont think an increase of a few percent is going to bankrupt all the really rich.

It doesn't matter whether or not a few more percent will bankrupt them or bring about the end of the world. It is theft, that is why it is wrong - whether or not they can afford it is irrelevent. When did society abandon the long held principle that it is not okay to steal from people, regardless of how much those people actually need the money?

Following your logic it would be perfectly acceptable for me to walk into a millionaire's home and steal some of their property or money; because, after all, they've got plenty of money and really don't need it as much as I do. That's called stealing and it makes no difference whether you use a gun to do it or walk into a voting both and put an (x) next to someone's name with the expectation that they will do it on your behalf if you electorally give them the power to.

One of the reasons people organize into societies is so that they can agree not to harm each other or steal from one another; thus, freeing them from the constant need to defend against such threats and allowing them to more efficiently pursue whatever else their lives are about. We are all a part of this society. We are all responsible, to a relatively equal extent, for the cost of its upkeep. Forcing someone to pay an extraordinarily large share, on the arbitrary basis that they can afford to, is stealing. How delusional must people be to convince themselves that they are entitled to the 'opinion' that it is okay to steal from people. Sincerely holding that 'opinion' is only possible if one possesses a criminal nature.

 

[tommyjones]

It doesn't matter whether or not a few more percent will bankrupt them or bring about the end of the world. It is theft, that is why it is wrong - whether or not they can afford it is irrelevent. When did society abandon the long held principle that it is not okay to steal from people, regardless of how much those people actually need the money?

Following your logic it would be perfectly acceptable for me to walk into a millionaire's home and steal some of their property or money; because, after all, they've got plenty of money and really don't need it as much as I do. That's called stealing and it makes no difference whether you use a gun to do it or walk into a voting both and put an (x) next to someone's name with the expectation that they will do it on your behalf if you electorally give them the power to.

One of the reasons people organize into societies is so that they can agree not to harm each other or steal from one another; thus, freeing them from the constant need to defend against such threats and allowing them to more efficiently pursue whatever else their lives are about. We are all a part of this society. We are all responsible, to a relatively equal extent, for the cost of its upkeep. Forcing someone to pay an extraordinarily large share, on the arbitrary basis that they can afford to, is stealing. How delusional must people be to convince themselves that they are entitled to the 'opinion' that it is okay to steal from people. Sincerely holding that 'opinion' is only possible if one possesses a criminal nature.

again, you are entilted to your opinion, but that is the way taxes in america have been working for a long time.

I personally dont mind paying higher percent than a kid working at 7-11 while he goes to CSM.

 

[PsyOps]

and you are welcome to your opinion.

for me i dont think the world will nd when i get to the 250K mark, and i certainly dont think an increase of a few percent is going to bankrupt all the really rich.

I'm sure you've heard this story before:

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and was very much in favor of the redistribution of wealth.


She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"

She replied, " Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus, college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."

Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the Republican Party."

 

[PsyOps]

And I'm sure you've heard this one:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day when the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.' Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.

But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'\

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).

The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $20,' declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, 'but he got $10!'

'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I got.'

'That's true!!' Shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important... they didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.

In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

 

[tommyjones]

I'm sure you've heard this story before:

dude, i am a republican, i am just realistic.

i dont think it is fair that a mother working as a waitress making 20k/year should have to pay as big a percent as me.
neither should the kid who is taking loans to get through college while working as a laborer or at the book store.

 

[PsyOps]

dude, i am a republican, i am just realistic.

i dont think it is fair that a mother working as a waitress making 20k/year should have to pay as big a percent as me.
neither should the kid who is taking loans to get through college while working as a laborer or at the book store.

Realistic about what, that we have to tax the rich at a higher rate? No we don't. You want to give more of your money to the poor go right ahead. That's the patriotic way of doing things. But demanding everyone be taxed more just because you're okay with it borders on socialism.

McCain is a Republican but he is far from my views on conservatism. I'm not going to try to delve into your mind, but your rhetoric indicates that you are not a conservative Republican. No conservative believes higher taxes, on any level, is a good idea.

 

[tommyjones]

Realistic about what, that we have to tax the rich at a higher rate? No we don't. I don't mind that you feel you can give more of your money to the poor, but don't expect that forcing everyone to do it is right move.

McCain is a Republican but he is far from my views on conservatism. I'm not going to try to delve into your mind, but your rhetoric indicates that you are not a conservative Republican. No conservative believes higher taxes, on any level, is a good idea.

i think a more equal tax burden is the right thing.
I can handle more of the burden than some. others can handle more than me.


its a realistic approach to taxes and has been working in this country for a long time. probably not going to CHANGE in our lifetime.

 

[my-thyme]

i think a more equal tax burden is the right thing.
I can handle more of the burden than some. others can handle more than me.

do away with income tax


raise sales tax


you decide how much you pay in taxes by what you purchase - someone buying $200 jeans pays more tax than buying $15 jeans


the drug dealers and other "under the table" workers pay taxes everytime they spend their "earnings"


or did someone already figure out that this won't work?

 

[PsyOps]

i think a more equal tax burden is the right thing.
I can handle more of the burden than some. others can handle more than me.


its a realistic approach to taxes and has been working in this country for a long time. probably not going to CHANGE in our lifetime.

Here's your equal tax burden... (as of 2006):

Top 1%.... pay.... 39.89%
Top 5%.... pay.... 60.14%
Top 10%....pay.... 70.30%
Top 25%....pay.... 85.99%
Top 50%....pay.... 96.93%

So how close to 100% would be fair enough to you? And what exactly will raising their taxes accomplish other than making you feel better that the tax burden is somehow equitable?

 

[tommyjones]

Here's your equal tax burden... (as of 2006):

Top 1%.... pay.... 39.89%
Top 5%.... pay.... 60.14%
Top 10%....pay.... 70.30%
Top 25%....pay.... 85.99%
Top 50%....pay.... 96.93%

So how close to 100% would be fair enough to you? And what exactly will raising their taxes accomplish other than making you feel better that the tax burden is somehow equitable?

go live on 18K/year and get back to me about fair

 

[This_person]

i think a more equal tax burden is the right thing.

You're exactly right up to this point - an EQUAL tax BURDEN

I can handle more of the burden than some. others can handle more than me.

So, one sentence ago, you wanted an equal BURDEN, now you're saying it should be an UNequal burden. Because, you can handle more. And, others can handle even more than that.

That's UN equal, even though you opened the post espousing that an EQUAL burden is appropriate.

If you pay 17% of your income, and the person making $20,000 per year pays 17%, and the person making $4,000,000 per year pays 17%, you all pay an equal BURDEN, but you each pay based upon your ability to pay (the person making $20k/year pays only $3400, the person making $4M pays $680,000 - a much larger amount, but an equal "burden").

How is that wrong?

its a realistic approach to taxes and has been working in this country for a long time. probably not going to CHANGE in our lifetime.

I agree it probably won't change, but it implies an unfair fine for success. It is NOT equal, not fair, not appropriate.

 

[tommyjones]

You're exactly right up to this point - an EQUAL tax BURDENSo, one sentence ago, you wanted an equal BURDEN, now you're saying it should be an UNequal burden. Because, you can handle more. And, others can handle even more than that.

That's UN equal, even though you opened the post espousing that an EQUAL burden is appropriate.

If you pay 17% of your income, and the person making $20,000 per year pays 17%, and the person making $4,000,000 per year pays 17%, you all pay an equal BURDEN, but you each pay based upon your ability to pay (the person making $20k/year pays only $3400, the person making $4M pays $680,000 - a much larger amount, but an equal "burden").

How is that wrong?I agree it probably won't change, but it implies an unfair fine for success. It is NOT equal, not fair, not appropriate.

no, i said what i meant, an equal burden based on what you can handle.

not an equal percent.

 

[This_person]

so how many make more than that and how many make less?

I'm down for less than.

You missed the option of "I make <$250,000, but I know that taxing the rich and taxing the corporations only makes my life harder because of less jobs available, and increases the amount I have to spend on products, therefore my taxes will go up significantly - but indirectly so I won't know exactly how much. I'll just know my quality of life dropped, even though I got some pittance of a tax break."

 

[tommyjones]

You missed the option of "I make <$250,000, but I know that taxing the rich and taxing the corporations only makes my life harder because of less jobs available, and increases the amount I have to spend on products, therefore my taxes will go up significantly - but indirectly so I won't know exactly how much. I'll just know my quality of life dropped, even though I got some pittance of a tax break."

i know that reading is hard for you, but that would mean you check the less than box. unlees you dont know how to use the < & >

 

[This_person]

no, i said what i meant, an equal burden based on what you can handle.

not an equal percent.

If it's not an equal percent, how is it an equal burden?

Who is anyone to tell anyone else what they should pay in taxes isn't enough, even though others pay a smaller percentage of their income? Why isn't it fair to reward success with a yacht, and several homes, etc., instead of fining success with a higher percentage of taxes? It makes no sense to penalize success in this manner.

If everyone really wanted fairness, everyone would pay based upon a fair system that fined no one for success, and rewarded no one for failure.

 

[This_person]

i know that reading is hard for you, but that would mean you check the less than box. unlees you dont know how to use the < & >

But, the < box says it would be no additional tax to me. The plan comes with additional taxes on corporations. Unless you believe that those corporations will simply cut their profit margin, I'm going to be paying that additional tax every time I purchase something. Therefore, my tax rate will increase significantly, but indirectly so that I can't put my finger directly on it.

Meanwhile, my peers will have a harder time finding jobs, because the increased burden on American companies will drive some to not expand, or not expand within our exhorbitantly taxed borders. Therefore, when they go on unemployment and welfare and food stamps etc., etc., I'll be paying more towards their "entitlements".

Thus, you missed the "I make <$250,000/year, but I'll be taxed more" option, as I said.

 

[tommyjones]

If it's not an equal percent, how is it an equal burden?

Who is anyone to tell anyone else what they should pay in taxes isn't enough, even though others pay a smaller percentage of their income? Why isn't it fair to reward success with a yacht, and several homes, etc., instead of fining success with a higher percentage of taxes? It makes no sense to penalize success in this manner.

If everyone really wanted fairness, everyone would pay based upon a fair system that fined no one for success, and rewarded no one for failure.

lets say you mean and a woman who is much smaller than us are walking across the desert and we have a pile of stuff that we all need to carry. is it fair for me and you to carry the same weight as her or is it fair for you and i each to carry a little more?


those that have more need to do more. that is fair and just