I thought the rich demarcation line was $250,000 per year. According to Obama, Joe the Plummer only needs to make more than 200K now to be "rich" and not receive a tax cut.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJvkRFKGgGw
Any takers on how long the "rich" will be those making more than 100K?
(http://vinestreetchronicle.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/crybaby-gop31.jpg)
Well that did not take long. Biden now says the magic number for being rich is $150,000.00.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAEE1_IUycs
It was tax cuts for those making less that $250K at the debates, it was $200K yesterday, now it is $150K today.
The middle class is getting smaller and smaller as each day passes.
At least he acknowledges the middle class. John McCain went through three debates without uttering the phrase "middle class." Do I think that those making $200K are rich. No, I don't. But do I think they deserve a bigger tax cut than those making less than $50K? No, I don't. McCain does.
Guido, you have to start watching another channel besides Fox. There are two parts to Obama's plan--some will get a tax cut, and some will see their taxes return to the rates that were in effect prior to the Bush tax cuts. Some will see neither. Those who make $200,000 or less will get a tax break. Those making more that $250,000 will see their tax rates return to pre-Bush rates. Those who make between $200,000 and $250,000 will see no change.
What is or is not "rich" is purely speculation. Doesn't mean that they are going to raise tax rates on people who make $150,000.
I made over $92,000.00 per year. Anyone who makes more than that is rich to me. [}:)]
Actually here is a simple break down:
51% of Americans make $49,999.00
19% of Americans make $50,000 - $74,999
12% of Americans make $75,000 - $99,999
14% of Americans make $100,000- $199,999
3% of Americans make $200,000 or above
What is "Rich" is a pointless argument. Majority of Americans make less than $75,000.00 a year. The median income is $43,318.00.
In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income. -US Treasury Department
HOWEVER...
Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.
Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: "The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you're in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent."
Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation. -Time Magazine
The fact is, the super wealthy do not pay their fair share of taxes.
Mr. Burns
Bob Barr for President
quote:
Originally posted by mrburns918
I made over $92,000.00 per year. Anyone who makes more than that is rich to me. [}:)]
Actually here is a simple break down:
51% of Americans make $49,999.00
19% of Americans make $50,000 - $74,999
12% of Americans make $75,000 - $99,999
14% of Americans make $100,000- $199,999
3% of Americans make $200,000 or above
What is "Rich" is a pointless argument. Majority of Americans make less than $75,000.00 a year. The median income is $43,318.00.
In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income. -US Treasury Department
HOWEVER...
Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.
Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: "The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you're in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent."
Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation. -Time Magazine
The fact is, the super wealthy do not pay their fair share of taxes.
Mr. Burns
Bob Barr for President
Answer me this. Do you think it is fair that millions of people who comprise that 3% should pay more in taxes than America's median annual income? In other words, should these people pay more in taxes than the average family earns?
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
Guido, you have to start watching another channel besides Fox. There are two parts to Obama's plan--some will get a tax cut, and some will see their taxes return to the rates that were in effect prior to the Bush tax cuts. Some will see neither. Those who make $200,000 or less will get a tax break. Those making more that $250,000 will see their tax rates return to pre-Bush rates. Those who make between $200,000 and $250,000 will see no change.
What is or is not "rich" is purely speculation. Doesn't mean that they are going to raise tax rates on people who make $150,000.
Can you source that for me since apparently Fox News has it all wrong (even though I am at work right now not watching tv)? Also, how do you explain Biden's comment today? He did not mention 200k or 250k.
As for as rich being a speculative term, that's simply ridiculous. The "rich" are a real class of persons that because of their income will have to pay more in taxes than those that are not "rich". If Obama gets elected, and the "rich" do start paying more, I cannot wait to see how many of these rich people stop making purchases, or stop hiring people, or start firing people.
You might think paying more in taxes is good for the country, or even patriotic as Biden believes, but I do not.
Population: 303,824,640 (July 2008 est.)
Age structure:
0-14 years: 20.1% (male 31,257,108/female 29,889,645)
15-64 years: 67.1% (male 101,825,901/female 102,161,823)
65 years and over: 12.7% (male 16,263,255/female 22,426,914) (2008 est.)
Total work age population is approximately:
203,562,508
6,106,875 of those people make more than 200,000 per year.
What is the current average tax burden for that group?
[/quote]
Answer me this. Do you think it is fair that millions of people who comprise that 3% should pay more in taxes than America's median annual income? In other words, should these people pay more in taxes than the average family earns?
[/quote]
Not sure if it's fair, but it's happening today. If the top 3% earn $200,000+, I think they are all already paying more in taxes than the average family earns. I don't have my tax tables in front of me but it's definitely close, even at the lowest end of the 3% range. And that's under the Bush tax tables.
quote:
Originally posted by mrburns918
I made over $92,000.00 per year. Anyone who makes more than that is rich to me. [}:)]
Actually here is a simple break down:
51% of Americans make $49,999.00
19% of Americans make $50,000 - $74,999
12% of Americans make $75,000 - $99,999
14% of Americans make $100,000- $199,999
3% of Americans make $200,000 or above
What is "Rich" is a pointless argument. Majority of Americans make less than $75,000.00 a year. The median income is $43,318.00.
In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income. -US Treasury Department
HOWEVER...
Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.
Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: "The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you're in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent."
Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation. -Time Magazine
The fact is, the super wealthy do not pay their fair share of taxes.
Mr. Burns
Bob Barr for President
There are gaping holes in Mr. Buffett's claim he's not trying to avoid paying higher taxes. That 17.7% rate was on dividends. At least to hear him tell it, he does not pay himself a salary.
Pretty smart, that way he pays a lower effective tax rate. Let's put it in another perspective still: He would have paid $8.14mm on that $46mm at 17.7%.
Let's say if that were all salary and he were taxed at 35% on everything over $357,700, he would pay double that in taxes. Instead of handing over this extra $8 mill or so to the government, he's free to re-invest that money into other enterprises which provide jobs for others or to directly employ more secretaries or cleaners at Berkshire-Hathaway.
I seriously doubt Mr. Buffett would support a tax on his accumulated $52 bln fortune, but that would be only fair wouldn't it? I mean how many billions does one person need? Why not bust him back down to common millionaire status and spread his wealth around?
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
If Obama gets elected, and the "rich" do start paying more, I cannot wait to see how many of these rich people stop making purchases, or stop hiring people, or start firing people.
None of them that I know, well, except for the one guy who is vastly overextended despite his 6 figure yearly distribution on top of his 6 figure salary. Surely the others in the firm can take up his slack.
Besides, if you make more than $97,500, you're already getting off easy by not having to pay any more for Social Security, thus reducing your effective tax rate, while leaving the vast majority of people who make less than that amount to pay the full amount on all their wages.
Regardless, guido is reaching. Biden and Obama have made concrete statements as to what income levels their tax plan will affect in what way. That Biden says that someone making over $150,000 a year is rich (something I agree with for a single earner, although not for a two earner household) doesn't make a lick of difference to the actual numbers.
But when you don't have anything else, obfuscation is a good tactic.
My wife and I both work full time. She makes more then me (I work for the government, what do you expect). My entire take home salary goes to pay our taxes each year. Essentially, I work for free.
Pathetic! I don't care if you call us rich or not. Someone's entire take-home pay should not have to go to taxes because those who make less then me think I don't pay enough.
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
My wife and I both work full time. She makes more then me (I work for the government, what do you expect). My entire take home salary goes to pay our taxes each year. Essentially, I work for free.
Pathetic! I don't care if you call us rich or not. Someone's entire take-home pay should not have to go to taxes because those who make less then me think I don't pay enough.
Well stated.
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
My entire take home salary goes to pay our taxes each year. Essentially, I work for free.
Then why aren't you doing something else productive with your time for something other than money, since you aren't getting paid anyway?
I do wonder how it is that you owe so much at the end of the year after withholding from the two jobs that you end up owing the entirety of your take-home to the government, though.
"Answer me this. Do you think it is fair that millions of people who comprise that 3% should pay more in taxes than America's median annual income? In other words, should these people pay more in taxes than the average family earns?"
Absolutely. Why should it be otherwise? I am absolutely baffled that someone would think otherwise?
I probably pay more in taxes than some people earn. And wont mind paying more if I get more of what I want.
When we gather together as a society and elect to "do" things, I understand that not all of those things are going to be something I would personally want to spend my money on. There will be compromises and I will get something of what I want in the mix. Since we all live in the society we cant elect to "opt out" whenever we dont like this or that, change our mind, dont want to pay for a particular thing, etc. The "social contract" wouldnt work otherwise(see "Little Red Hen, Ant and the Grasshopper). Yes we are all individuals, but we are all one society as well. We should share in that societal contract, proportionally. When I tithe at my church I dont argue with the 10% saying that its unfair, that just because I make more money doesnt mean I should pay in more than someone else makes. That would be absurd. To one person a "silver shekel" is a mere "widows mite". To another, a mite is a precious silver shekel.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
When I tithe at my church I dont argue with the 10% saying that its unfair, that just because I make more money doesnt mean I should pay in more than someone else makes.
Since you obviously have more money than you need to exist, perhaps you should give 20% or more to the church. You can afford it.
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
When I tithe at my church I dont argue with the 10% saying that its unfair, that just because I make more money doesnt mean I should pay in more than someone else makes.
Since you obviously have more money than you need to exist, perhaps you should give 20% or more to the church. You can afford it.
I very well could. And perhaps some day will give everything I have to the church, a museum, the city, or some good cause. I could also give more to the government. I know I do my fair share in paying local sales taxes lol. And I am not a stickler on state and fed taxes and often probably pay more than I have to. I also hire people to do things I could do myself. I dont need a cleaning lady, could do it myself. Dont need to have someone do my yard, could do that myself as well. And I hope that I pay generously. I also try to invest. I also give a lot away and donate my time and work to different things. Though I live "small but well" I am embarrassingly fortunate in my book, and I am not one of the top 10 or 5%. Perhaps if those people paid in an amount that was a little more equitable to what the majority pay in,,, then the rest wouldnt have to pay as much and would thus have more to spend, or, if we chose we could do more of what we as a society elect to do... or a little of both.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
When I tithe at my church I dont argue with the 10% saying that its unfair, that just because I make more money doesnt mean I should pay in more than someone else makes.
Since you obviously have more money than you need to exist, perhaps you should give 20% or more to the church. You can afford it.
I very well could. And perhaps some day will give everything I have to the church, a museum, the city, or some good cause. I could also give more to the government. I know I do my fair share in paying local sales taxes lol. And I am not a stickler on state and fed taxes and often probably pay more than I have to. I also hire people to do things I could do myself. I dont need a cleaning lady, could do it myself. Dont need to have someone do my yard, could do that myself as well. And I hope that I pay generously. I also try to invest. I also give a lot away and donate my time and work to different things. Though I live "small but well" I am embarrassingly fortunate in my book, and I am not one of the top 10 or 5%. Perhaps if those people paid in an amount that was a little more equitable to what the majority pay in,,, then the rest wouldnt have to pay as much and would thus have more to spend, or, if we chose we could do more of what we as a society elect to do... or a little of both.
And there is nothing wrong with what you are doing. The point I would like to make is that it is your choice to do these things.
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
When I tithe at my church I dont argue with the 10% saying that its unfair, that just because I make more money doesnt mean I should pay in more than someone else makes.
Since you obviously have more money than you need to exist, perhaps you should give 20% or more to the church. You can afford it.
I very well could. And perhaps some day will give everything I have to the church, a museum, the city, or some good cause. I could also give more to the government. I know I do my fair share in paying local sales taxes lol. And I am not a stickler on state and fed taxes and often probably pay more than I have to. I also hire people to do things I could do myself. I dont need a cleaning lady, could do it myself. Dont need to have someone do my yard, could do that myself as well. And I hope that I pay generously. I also try to invest. I also give a lot away and donate my time and work to different things. Though I live "small but well" I am embarrassingly fortunate in my book, and I am not one of the top 10 or 5%. Perhaps if those people paid in an amount that was a little more equitable to what the majority pay in,,, then the rest wouldnt have to pay as much and would thus have more to spend, or, if we chose we could do more of what we as a society elect to do... or a little of both.
And there is nothing wrong with what you are doing. The point I would like to make is that it is your choice to do these things.
The sky is blue...Aaaand?
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
"Answer me this. Do you think it is fair that millions of people who comprise that 3% should pay more in taxes than America's median annual income? In other words, should these people pay more in taxes than the average family earns?"
Absolutely. Why should it be otherwise? I am absolutely baffled that someone would think otherwise?
I probably pay more in taxes than some people earn. And wont mind paying more if I get more of what I want.
When we gather together as a society and elect to "do" things, I understand that not all of those things are going to be something I would personally want to spend my money on. There will be compromises and I will get something of what I want in the mix. Since we all live in the society we cant elect to "opt out" whenever we dont like this or that, change our mind, dont want to pay for a particular thing, etc. The "social contract" wouldnt work otherwise(see "Little Red Hen, Ant and the Grasshopper). Yes we are all individuals, but we are all one society as well. We should share in that societal contract, proportionally. When I tithe at my church I dont argue with the 10% saying that its unfair, that just because I make more money doesnt mean I should pay in more than someone else makes. That would be absurd. To one person a "silver shekel" is a mere "widows mite". To another, a mite is a precious silver shekel.
You are one of the very few self-employed people I know who don't mind giving away the fruits of their productivity to the government. You actually do write a check to the government(s) so you do have sensitivity to exactly what you are paying them. Maybe you need to hang out with me a little more. [;)]
I realize there is government infrastructure which must be paid for and I don't have a problem paying my share of that. I honestly don't see though why it is one group of people should take on a greater burden to pay for those who earn less in our society. Many in the upper tax brackets already do contribute wealth to the well-being of others by providing jobs.
What many people don't seem to grasp is how absurdly large government has become on local, state, and federal levels. Government is involved in many areas it has zero business being in and all it does is create more overhead for taxpayers. One major reason I absolutely cannot vote for Obama is a promise of $1 Trillion in new spending and absolutely no plan to return us to the "surpluses" of the Clinton years.
Personally, I feel I am a better steward of my money than the government is, and I do a better job of picking which charities do the most good for mankind. Government is a pathetic manager of charity.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by mrburns918
I made over $92,000.00 per year. Anyone who makes more than that is rich to me. [}:)]
Actually here is a simple break down:
51% of Americans make $49,999.00
19% of Americans make $50,000 - $74,999
12% of Americans make $75,000 - $99,999
14% of Americans make $100,000- $199,999
3% of Americans make $200,000 or above
What is "Rich" is a pointless argument. Majority of Americans make less than $75,000.00 a year. The median income is $43,318.00.
In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income. -US Treasury Department
HOWEVER...
Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.
Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: "The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you're in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent."
Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation. -Time Magazine
The fact is, the super wealthy do not pay their fair share of taxes.
Mr. Burns
Bob Barr for President
Answer me this. Do you think it is fair that millions of people who comprise that 3% should pay more in taxes than America's median annual income? In other words, should these people pay more in taxes than the average family earns?
Not at all. I am for a fair share balance. The only way to fix this is to have a flat tax. I support flat tax and feel it's the only way to make it equal across the board. And, I also believe that along with the flat tax...
Churches should NOT be tax exempt
Business expense deductions become obsolete
Do away with all government grants that fund arts, agriculture, business, transportation, law, employment, etc. etc.
DOUBLE TAX any business who moves to another country for cheap labor. Not really but it would be pretty cool yet goes against my belief.
etc. etc.
So, hope this helps you understand where I am coming from. The point of my response was to show that the discussion of who is "rich" is ridiculous.
Mr. Burns
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
QuoteOriginally posted by TheArtist
QuoteOriginally posted by Red Arrow
QuoteOriginally posted by TheArtist
When I tithe at my church I dont argue with the 10% saying that its unfair, that just because I make more money doesnt mean I should pay in more than someone else makes.
The sky is blue...Aaaand?
On Jan 20th, I'll gather a few well armed friends (the government) and come to your house. You will forced to hire two cleaning persons (no sex discrimination please) to come in every day. Doesn't matter if there isn't enough cleaning to do. Maybe three persons for the yard work, twice a week. Since I don't actually know you beyond this forum, I don't know what you may want to not do with your money or how much you actually can afford. The items above would be good for the local economy, hiring 5 people. We are going to tell you what to do with our (oops! your) money.
(Nothing personal is intended, just examples make the point.)
Isn't that what we want Artist to do with his money? Hire people? Provide income to others? This is what I'm constantly hearing from all the other fiscal cons on this board who warn me that higher taxes will mean the richies will stop hiring us and our economy will grind to a halt.
For all intents and purposes, Artist is filling his economic niche admirably.
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
QuoteOriginally posted by TheArtist
QuoteOriginally posted by Red Arrow
QuoteOriginally posted by TheArtist
When I tithe at my church I dont argue with the 10% saying that its unfair, that just because I make more money doesnt mean I should pay in more than someone else makes.
The sky is blue...Aaaand?
On Jan 20th, I'll gather a few well armed friends (the government) and come to your house. You will forced to hire two cleaning persons (no sex discrimination please) to come in every day. Doesn't matter if there isn't enough cleaning to do. Maybe three persons for the yard work, twice a week. Since I don't actually know you beyond this forum, I don't know what you may want to not do with your money or how much you actually can afford. The items above would be good for the local economy, hiring 5 people. We are going to tell you what to do with our (oops! your) money.
(Nothing personal is intended, just examples make the point.)
I still dont understand what your trying to say? Are you trying to say nobody should pay any taxes at all unless they want to?
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
"Answer me this. Do you think it is fair that millions of people who comprise that 3% should pay more in taxes than America's median annual income? In other words, should these people pay more in taxes than the average family earns?"
Absolutely. Why should it be otherwise? I am absolutely baffled that someone would think otherwise?
I probably pay more in taxes than some people earn. And wont mind paying more if I get more of what I want.
When we gather together as a society and elect to "do" things, I understand that not all of those things are going to be something I would personally want to spend my money on. There will be compromises and I will get something of what I want in the mix. Since we all live in the society we cant elect to "opt out" whenever we dont like this or that, change our mind, dont want to pay for a particular thing, etc. The "social contract" wouldnt work otherwise(see "Little Red Hen, Ant and the Grasshopper). Yes we are all individuals, but we are all one society as well. We should share in that societal contract, proportionally. When I tithe at my church I dont argue with the 10% saying that its unfair, that just because I make more money doesnt mean I should pay in more than someone else makes. That would be absurd. To one person a "silver shekel" is a mere "widows mite". To another, a mite is a precious silver shekel.
You are one of the very few self-employed people I know who don't mind giving away the fruits of their productivity to the government. You actually do write a check to the government(s) so you do have sensitivity to exactly what you are paying them. Maybe you need to hang out with me a little more. [;)]
I realize there is government infrastructure which must be paid for and I don't have a problem paying my share of that. I honestly don't see though why it is one group of people should take on a greater burden to pay for those who earn less in our society. Many in the upper tax brackets already do contribute wealth to the well-being of others by providing jobs.
What many people don't seem to grasp is how absurdly large government has become on local, state, and federal levels. Government is involved in many areas it has zero business being in and all it does is create more overhead for taxpayers. One major reason I absolutely cannot vote for Obama is a promise of $1 Trillion in new spending and absolutely no plan to return us to the "surpluses" of the Clinton years.
Personally, I feel I am a better steward of my money than the government is, and I do a better job of picking which charities do the most good for mankind. Government is a pathetic manager of charity.
I dont think, as you put it that... "one group of people should take on a greater burden to pay for those who earn less in our society." I guess I am for more of a "flat tax" type deal.
Here is where I am coming from... When I was little and didnt know much about the world. I just supposed that everyone paid a certain percentage of tax on what they earned. I figured that the more money I made, obviously the more tax I would put in. That wouldnt deter me from makig more money. It wasnt a bad thing. It was just the way it was. If the tax was 20% and I made 1,000$ I would pay 200. If I made 100,000 I would pay in 2,000 and so forth. No big deal, no big fuss.
When its a percentage and its a percentage that we have agreed upon. If I can do perfectly fine putting in 200 and having 800 left over. It certainly shouldnt be any big deal to put in 2,000 and have 8,000 left over. Yea 2,000 is more, but I still got 8,000... and thats more too lol.
Also, I dont consder taxes as something to just help the poor, or to act as a charity. They are for whatever we as a society choose to use them for. Arenas, parks, roads, bridges, dams, research, arts, public spaces and buildings, medical stuff, fire, police, NASA, military, enforce zoning, schools etc. Some things may cater to the rich, some the middle class, some the poor, the elderly, the young, people who have kids, etc. But they are for things that we as a group have decided to join together and support. We also realize that everyone has to "buy in" for it to work and be fair, even though you may not use or like each and every item. We compromise, I get some of what I want, you get some of what you want etc. And the people in government are the ones we have decided to put in charge to make sure the things we want done, get done. If you dont like the way its done, try to change it, or go look around and choose what another group of people have done, how they have chosen to form their society, if they are doing it better, the way you think society should be done, go hang out with them and join their group.
You can say for instance that you dont want government to support the arts. But lets say the Federal government and State and local governments do get out of doing anything for the arts....
Then say I or someone else has an idea. We feel that our public buildings could use a little... artistry. We could do it on our own. Let donors buy some art or make the buildings a little more than "bland and only utilitarian". Or we could get together and have a vote. We could say, lets see if others think its a good idea to include a percentage of our taxes to go to adding art to our public spaces. To perhaps even create something greater than we likely could any other way. Perhaps lots of people do like the idea and vote for it. Well, there you are, the government is back in the business of funding art. You may not think its right that the government support art and the arts... but it didnt just occur magically. Some group of people decided it was something they wanted and they/we or our elected officials decided to do those things. Even if you completely got rid of it now. Whats to keep someone from coming along again with that little idea, saying "hey lets vote on it" and the majority deciding they like it?
Isnt it supposed to be that everything the government does is what the society has asked it to do? And yes, we know that nobody, no government, no business, is going to be perfect and that we must always push for things to be better. And of course as times change, economies and situations change,,, what we decided to do before, must also change to meet the current needs, desires and realities.
Yea as a business owner I know exactly how much I pay in. So what, just because I can more readily see it doesnt mean it is, or should be any different for me than someone else. Just like when I buy something at the local furniture store for instance. We all pay the same percentage. And just because I may pay more in local sales taxes than some earn in a year, doesnt mean I think its somehow not fair or that I am gonna complain about unfairly helping out some poor person and their kids. I dont have kids, why should I pay to help some poor persons kids go to school? They should work harder and pay for a private school. Right? Or, I could think that I am danged lucky to be able to spend so much, that I earn so much, that it turns out I pay as much in sales taxes as someone may earn. Who the hell could complain about that!?
Pluuus... Its all relative. I was at the store the other day and bought a little bauble for a bit of change. A 500$ Faberge egg. My friend who was with me had a heart attack. To me my 500$ would be like him spending 20$. Relatively speaking, no big deal. If a wealthy person and a poor person were to take the same percentage of their income and buy a house, one could afford a million dollar home, the other perhaps a basic 100,000 dollar home. To each the mortgage may feel about the same, relative, to their incomes. And the wealthy person doesnt have to buy the million dollar home, they can buy the 500,000 dollar home and still be living much higher on the hog compared to the poorer person in the 100,000 dollar home... and have even more money left over to do whatever they want with. They may get a better interest rate on the house, their car, the furniture they may buy if they buy on credit at all. Plus a gallon of gas to the wealthy person is practically free to them. Costs nothing relatively speaking. Same for a gallon of milk, bread, baby food, etc. Plus as I know well. Most wealthy people can get a lot of things wholesale while the average person buys retail.
Well-played, Artist. +1
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Who the hell could complain about that!?
People who believe that every bit of success they ever had was solely due to their hard work and people who don't do as well are left behind because they're lazy, they're sluts, or they're whatever else. It's not the roads, bridges, and other societal infrastructure that allows them to do what they do, it's just their own hard work.
(Yes, hard work is usually necessary, but you can work your donkey off for your entire life and never get ahead if circumstances aren't right)
People seem to fail to grasp that you've got to have a functioning society to have that chance in the first place. Unless, of course, you're living in the third world and you happen to be one of the dictator's friends, say, because you were born to a family that is friends with his (or her) family.
I disagree with several of his policies, but the guy does exude a LOT of confidence and has an air about him that makes you want to like him.
I'll not be voting for him as I'm a Libertarian, but it's hard not to watch him speak.
quote:
Originally posted by mrburns918
Not at all. I am for a fair share balance. The only way to fix this is to have a flat tax. I support flat tax and feel it's the only way to make it equal across the board. And, I also believe that along with the flat tax...
Churches should NOT be tax exempt
Business expense deductions become obsolete
Do away with all government grants that fund arts, agriculture, business, transportation, law, employment, etc. etc.
DOUBLE TAX any business who moves to another country for cheap labor. Not really but it would be pretty cool yet goes against my belief.
etc. etc.
So, hope this helps you understand where I am coming from. The point of my response was to show that the discussion of who is "rich" is ridiculous.
Mr. Burns
Really? Do away with business expense deductions? How could a business possibly function if it was taxed, not on its net earnings, but on its entire revenue? Business that see high sales revenue would suddenly become obsolete.
It makes my head explode when people who support "flat tax" claim that this will simplify the tax system. The complicated part of paying taxes is not figuring out how much taxes you owe--just check the book. The complicated portion is figuring out how much money you made. This is where the wealthy--with their hired consultants--have the advantage, and why people like Warren Buffet are able to pay less taxes than his secretary.
Business taxes are a whole other topic compared to individual taxes. So suggesting a flat tax or something close to that for businesses,,, I have noooo idea.
Artist:
Let's see if I can dig myself farther into a hole.
"When I tithe at my church I dont argue with the 10% saying that its unfair, that just because I make more money doesnt mean I should pay in more than someone else makes. That would be absurd."
It sounded to me like you thought that 10% was fair but saw no reason to pay more than 10% just because you make more. You don't mind paying more dollars but at the same percent. I happen to agree. I wanted to see what you and other forum members thought about a progressive thithe such as our income tax. You then proceeded to show that you are actually a generous man. You may not like this next observation but I think you are being part of "trickle down economics" by hiring people to do things you don't need to have done by someone else. You have the money to hire them, I don't. I believe you are able to do this because the government doesn't take way too much of your money. You get to make some choices about spending the money you have above your fair share of taxes and the cost of existence. This is what I intended by saying it was your choice.
Then you confused me by sounding like you wanted a highly progressive tax:
"Perhaps if those people paid in an amount that was a little more equitable to what the majority pay in,,, then the rest wouldnt have to pay as much and would thus have more to spend, or, if we chose we could do more of what we as a society elect to do... or a little of both."
I proposed a few things that I hoped you would find offensive because they would not be your choice and served no obvious purpose other than to redistribute your wealth. That obviously didn't happen, unless you were just messing with me.
We vs us:
"Isn't that what we want Artist to do with his money? Hire people? Provide income to others? This is what I'm constantly hearing from all the other fiscal cons on this board who warn me that higher taxes will mean the richies will stop hiring us and our economy will grind to a halt.
For all intents and purposes, Artist is filling his economic niche admirably."
Yep. I wonder if he would be able to do that if we returned to the single tax payer rates of 1980:
Taxable Income Tax of the amount over
$55,300 - $81,800 $20982 + 63% $55,300
$81,800 - $108,300 $37,667 + 68% $81,800
$108,300 and up $55,697 + 70% $108,300
(Info from 1980 instruction book for form 1040. Available at the IRS web site. "Taxable Income" column is actually "If the amount on Schedule TC, Part 1, line 3, is:" and then the sub column headings were "over", "but not over" for the low and high values listed.)
I know there were additional deductions allowed but no sense to reinstate them. There are also people who have enough money to do whatever they want even if the marginal rate is as much as 91% like it was before JFK's tax cut. Now there was an incentive to hire an accountant.
Artist:
Taxes are here to stay. I expect to pay for most of the stuff they go for. I disagree with some but others will disagree with things I think are OK. I actually agree with most of your reply to Conan71 at 16:07 as edited at 17:48. I especially support public education since that will make taxpayers out of people who would otherwise be tax burdens. I am single with no dependents so supporting public education doesn't benefit my wallet directly. I have no problem with paying more tax than some people make. I do have an extreme dislike with the concept of paying 4 times the tax as someone making half as much as I do (as an example).
Summary:
I wanted some responses to the concept of the progressive (I hate that word in this context.) tax rate system.
Edit: tried to adjust the columns in the table.
Defining income is the problem for both individual and business income. Once income is defined, flat rate or progressive rate are easy to determine. Then it becomes a disagreement of what is a fair share.
"Fair Share" is easy, it's whatever makes the Economy...Function. The Economy, the same one that allows wealthy folks to, you know, Get Wealthy! That has to "function" in order for people to make "bank."
The wealthy have not payed their "fair share" in years.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
"Answer me this. Do you think it is fair that millions of people who comprise that 3% should pay more in taxes than America's median annual income? In other words, should these people pay more in taxes than the average family earns?"
Absolutely. Why should it be otherwise? I am absolutely baffled that someone would think otherwise?
I probably pay more in taxes than some people earn. And wont mind paying more if I get more of what I want.
When we gather together as a society and elect to "do" things, I understand that not all of those things are going to be something I would personally want to spend my money on. There will be compromises and I will get something of what I want in the mix. Since we all live in the society we cant elect to "opt out" whenever we dont like this or that, change our mind, dont want to pay for a particular thing, etc. The "social contract" wouldnt work otherwise(see "Little Red Hen, Ant and the Grasshopper). Yes we are all individuals, but we are all one society as well. We should share in that societal contract, proportionally. When I tithe at my church I dont argue with the 10% saying that its unfair, that just because I make more money doesnt mean I should pay in more than someone else makes. That would be absurd. To one person a "silver shekel" is a mere "widows mite". To another, a mite is a precious silver shekel.
You are one of the very few self-employed people I know who don't mind giving away the fruits of their productivity to the government. You actually do write a check to the government(s) so you do have sensitivity to exactly what you are paying them. Maybe you need to hang out with me a little more. [;)]
I realize there is government infrastructure which must be paid for and I don't have a problem paying my share of that. I honestly don't see though why it is one group of people should take on a greater burden to pay for those who earn less in our society. Many in the upper tax brackets already do contribute wealth to the well-being of others by providing jobs.
What many people don't seem to grasp is how absurdly large government has become on local, state, and federal levels. Government is involved in many areas it has zero business being in and all it does is create more overhead for taxpayers. One major reason I absolutely cannot vote for Obama is a promise of $1 Trillion in new spending and absolutely no plan to return us to the "surpluses" of the Clinton years.
Personally, I feel I am a better steward of my money than the government is, and I do a better job of picking which charities do the most good for mankind. Government is a pathetic manager of charity.
I dont think, as you put it that... "one group of people should take on a greater burden to pay for those who earn less in our society." I guess I am for more of a "flat tax" type deal.
Here is where I am coming from... When I was little and didnt know much about the world. I just supposed that everyone paid a certain percentage of tax on what they earned. I figured that the more money I made, obviously the more tax I would put in. That wouldnt deter me from makig more money. It wasnt a bad thing. It was just the way it was. If the tax was 20% and I made 1,000$ I would pay 200. If I made 100,000 I would pay in 2,000 and so forth. No big deal, no big fuss.
When its a percentage and its a percentage that we have agreed upon. If I can do perfectly fine putting in 200 and having 800 left over. It certainly shouldnt be any big deal to put in 2,000 and have 8,000 left over. Yea 2,000 is more, but I still got 8,000... and thats more too lol.
Also, I dont consder taxes as something to just help the poor, or to act as a charity. They are for whatever we as a society choose to use them for. Arenas, parks, roads, bridges, dams, research, arts, public spaces and buildings, medical stuff, fire, police, NASA, military, enforce zoning, schools etc. Some things may cater to the rich, some the middle class, some the poor, the elderly, the young, people who have kids, etc. But they are for things that we as a group have decided to join together and support. We also realize that everyone has to "buy in" for it to work and be fair, even though you may not use or like each and every item. We compromise, I get some of what I want, you get some of what you want etc. And the people in government are the ones we have decided to put in charge to make sure the things we want done, get done. If you dont like the way its done, try to change it, or go look around and choose what another group of people have done, how they have chosen to form their society, if they are doing it better, the way you think society should be done, go hang out with them and join their group.
You can say for instance that you dont want government to support the arts. But lets say the Federal government and State and local governments do get out of doing anything for the arts....
Then say I or someone else has an idea. We feel that our public buildings could use a little... artistry. We could do it on our own. Let donors buy some art or make the buildings a little more than "bland and only utilitarian". Or we could get together and have a vote. We could say, lets see if others think its a good idea to include a percentage of our taxes to go to adding art to our public spaces. To perhaps even create something greater than we likely could any other way. Perhaps lots of people do like the idea and vote for it. Well, there you are, the government is back in the business of funding art. You may not think its right that the government support art and the arts... but it didnt just occur magically. Some group of people decided it was something they wanted and they/we or our elected officials decided to do those things. Even if you completely got rid of it now. Whats to keep someone from coming along again with that little idea, saying "hey lets vote on it" and the majority deciding they like it?
Isnt it supposed to be that everything the government does is what the society has asked it to do? And yes, we know that nobody, no government, no business, is going to be perfect and that we must always push for things to be better. And of course as times change, economies and situations change,,, what we decided to do before, must also change to meet the current needs, desires and realities.
Yea as a business owner I know exactly how much I pay in. So what, just because I can more readily see it doesnt mean it is, or should be any different for me than someone else. Just like when I buy something at the local furniture store for instance. We all pay the same percentage. And just because I may pay more in local sales taxes than some earn in a year, doesnt mean I think its somehow not fair or that I am gonna complain about unfairly helping out some poor person and their kids. I dont have kids, why should I pay to help some poor persons kids go to school? They should work harder and pay for a private school. Right? Or, I could think that I am danged lucky to be able to spend so much, that I earn so much, that it turns out I pay as much in sales taxes as someone may earn. Who the hell could complain about that!?
Pluuus... Its all relative. I was at the store the other day and bought a little bauble for a bit of change. A 500$ Faberge egg. My friend who was with me had a heart attack. To me my 500$ would be like him spending 20$. Relatively speaking, no big deal. If a wealthy person and a poor person were to take the same percentage of their income and buy a house, one could afford a million dollar home, the other perhaps a basic 100,000 dollar home. To each the mortgage may feel about the same, relative, to their incomes. And the wealthy person doesnt have to buy the million dollar home, they can buy the 500,000 dollar home and still be living much higher on the hog compared to the poorer person in the 100,000 dollar home... and have even more money left over to do whatever they want with. They may get a better interest rate on the house, their car, the furniture they may buy if they buy on credit at all. Plus a gallon of gas to the wealthy person is practically free to them. Costs nothing relatively speaking. Same for a gallon of milk, bread, baby food, etc. Plus as I know well. Most wealthy people can get a lot of things wholesale while the average person buys retail.
I want that deal! where can I sign up to only pay 2,000 dollars of the $100,000 I made?? All kidding aside, I also though similar to you as a kid. But as I got older, I learned most self employeed people don't take vacations. They take business trips. They write them off at the end of the year and essentially go on vacation for free. The more money you have it seems, the less you pay in taxes. There are some absurd tax write offs out there.
Artist, I have no problem with the idea that I pay more net taxes than someone who earns less than I do. What I have a problem with is an arbitrary government philosophy that because I earn more, that my tax rate should be higher, because I can "better afford it". That's glib class warfare and nothing more than buying votes on my dime.
I think you and I are on the same page. I had gotten the impression from an earlier post of yours that you were okay with a higher rate of taxation.
FYI- next time you are in the mood to buy a Faberge egg or Limoges box gimme a call, I've got antique ones I wouldn't mind getting rid of. Especially since you seem to know what they are worth. [;)]
FWIW- for those batting around the flat tax on here- fair tax (consumption-based) is a better formula than a flat tax. Flat tax has been done in Europe and it's characterized as something of a failure. The tax codes are way too complicated. A consumption tax would simplify the entire tax code and eliminate the IRS.
edit: spelling
I'm okay with a flat tax rate (although likely much higher than 2% and raise the standard deduction severely. The standard deduction helps the low income individuals a lot, middle income a little, and high income it doesn't really effect at all.
Volume discount! The rich are getting a volume discount on their taxes.
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
Artist:
Let's see if I can dig myself farther into a hole.
"When I tithe at my church I dont argue with the 10% saying that its unfair, that just because I make more money doesnt mean I should pay in more than someone else makes. That would be absurd."
It sounded to me like you thought that 10% was fair but saw no reason to pay more than 10% just because you make more. You don't mind paying more dollars but at the same percent. I happen to agree. I wanted to see what you and other forum members thought about a progressive thithe such as our income tax. You then proceeded to show that you are actually a generous man. You may not like this next observation but I think you are being part of "trickle down economics" by hiring people to do things you don't need to have done by someone else. You have the money to hire them, I don't. I believe you are able to do this because the government doesn't take way too much of your money. You get to make some choices about spending the money you have above your fair share of taxes and the cost of existence. This is what I intended by saying it was your choice.
Then you confused me by sounding like you wanted a highly progressive tax:
"Perhaps if those people paid in an amount that was a little more equitable to what the majority pay in,,, then the rest wouldnt have to pay as much and would thus have more to spend, or, if we chose we could do more of what we as a society elect to do... or a little of both."
I proposed a few things that I hoped you would find offensive because they would not be your choice and served no obvious purpose other than to redistribute your wealth. That obviously didn't happen, unless you were just messing with me.
We vs us:
"Isn't that what we want Artist to do with his money? Hire people? Provide income to others? This is what I'm constantly hearing from all the other fiscal cons on this board who warn me that higher taxes will mean the richies will stop hiring us and our economy will grind to a halt.
For all intents and purposes, Artist is filling his economic niche admirably."
Yep. I wonder if he would be able to do that if we returned to the single tax payer rates of 1980:
Taxable Income Tax of the amount over
$55,300 - $81,800 $20982 + 63% $55,300
$81,800 - $108,300 $37,667 + 68% $81,800
$108,300 and up $55,697 + 70% $108,300
(Info from 1980 instruction book for form 1040. Available at the IRS web site. "Taxable Income" column is actually "If the amount on Schedule TC, Part 1, line 3, is:" and then the sub column headings were "over", "but not over" for the low and high values listed.)
I know there were additional deductions allowed but no sense to reinstate them. There are also people who have enough money to do whatever they want even if the marginal rate is as much as 91% like it was before JFK's tax cut. Now there was an incentive to hire an accountant.
Artist:
Taxes are here to stay. I expect to pay for most of the stuff they go for. I disagree with some but others will disagree with things I think are OK. I actually agree with most of your reply to Conan71 at 16:07 as edited at 17:48. I especially support public education since that will make taxpayers out of people who would otherwise be tax burdens. I am single with no dependents so supporting public education doesn't benefit my wallet directly. I have no problem with paying more tax than some people make. I do have an extreme dislike with the concept of paying 4 times the tax as someone making half as much as I do (as an example).
Summary:
I wanted some responses to the concept of the progressive (I hate that word in this context.) tax rate system.
Edit: tried to adjust the columns in the table.
I am not going to try and answer every point. Not sure I get all of them anyway lol. So let me try to answer in some generalities.
Sure I would like to be able to "hire more people to do stuff or buy more stuff,,, I could use a masseuse on staff lol" I dont hire people for some "trickle down economics" consideration. I hire them cause I can, and yes it feels nice to "share the wealth" so to speak. After all, thats how I make my money. Again, would I like to hire more or give more to my church? Sure who wouldnt want "more"? But I think there is perhaps a supposition that,,, well if the government didnt take more from me, well I could then afford to have more people work for me or do other things. But that would only work if you assume that I also dont want more from the government lol.
Yes I want more money for more stuff, more investments, more for my church, more to be able to hire more people, more for things like good low water dams, a nice baseball stadium, better arts and science programs in schools, parks, medical and scientific research, paying down the national debt, etc. etc.
I dont always like what the government does and think it could be more efficient at what I want it to do. I also dont always agree with my church. I wish my cleaning lady were more efficient and did a better job, etc. lol Heck I dont always like what I do, and think I could be more efficient and do a better job lol.
As for the taxes,,, whatever the tax rate on anyone actually is, or how you look at it flat tax or no, deductions or no. If the end result is that someone who makes a lot of money pays less "percentage wise or in total" than what someone who makes very little money does. On the face of it, that seems a little odd. And I dont know how else to look at it.
Artist, for what it's worth, you have posted some darn good analysis in this thread.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
As for the taxes,,, whatever the tax rate on anyone actually is, or how you look at it flat tax or no, deductions or no. If the end result is that someone who makes a lot of money pays less "percentage wise or in total" than what someone who makes very little money does. On the face of it, that seems a little odd. And I dont know how else to look at it.
You can't pay a lower percentage in tax than 0% which is what the lowest earners in the U.S. pay.
I recall AOX/FOTARD making the point that under high progressive tax rates, there were numerous tax incentives for those in upper brackets. IOW- the high "rates" were more-or-less window dressing as the wealthy could take advantage of a variety of shelters, loopholes, and special tax cuts for "re-investment". It's been proven that lower tax rates have equated to higher treasury collections. The problem has been we have not had a corresponding cut in government spending to see any benefit from the increase in revenue.
With the "Fair Tax" plan (consumption-based), lower income homes would get "pre-bates" which would essentially cancel out what they pay out in consumption tax. No one winds up penalized by it. In theory, wealthier people would have more discretionary income to spend, therefore increasing tax collections. That would also get rid of preferential tax breaks which benefit business or others who get unfair breaks now.
The most punitive tax I can think of right now is sales tax on groceries. As a percentage of total income, it affects low income families the worst. That most definitely should be repealed.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
The most punitive tax I can think of right now is sales tax on groceries. As a percentage of total income, it affects low income families the worst. That most definitely should be repealed.
A long time ago (1971), in a galaxy far far away (Pennsylvania), there was a 6% Sales Tax (high for the time). PA was called the land of taxes. They started an income tax in 1971. The family moved to Oklahoma in Aug of '71. We found that although the rates were typically lower than PA, OK taxed everything. I don't know what PA does now but then there was no sales tax on clothing, food, and prescription drugs.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Answer me this. Do you think it is fair that millions of people who comprise that 3% should pay more in taxes than America's median annual income? In other words, should these people pay more in taxes than the average family earns?
Yeah. That's how a progressive tax works. Teddy Roosevelt came up with that one in 1918 and it's been around ever since. McCain isn't getting rid of the progressive tax. Oh, and McCain also idealizes TR. Socialists? Possibly. Or, possibly, you are chirping like a harried schoolgirl about a non-issue...again.
lol
The Progressive tax system is here to stay. "Fair Tax", "Flat Tax", completely useless discussion.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
Yeah. That's how a progressive tax works.
Fair Tax, Flat Tax, Progressive Tax. All end up with rich paying more $ than the poor. The "progressive" tax causes the rich to pay a higher percentage than the poor. Loopholes, tax exempt income etc throw a monkeywrench in the works.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
I thought the rich demarcation line was $250,000 per year. According to Obama, Joe the Plummer only needs to make more than 200K now to be "rich" and not receive a tax cut.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJvkRFKGgGw
Any takers on how long the "rich" will be those making more than 100K?
Its so confusing, I know.
Actually if I understand it correctly anyone making less than 200,000 will receive a tax cut under Obama's plan. Those making 200,000-250,000 have their taxes remain the same. Those making over 250,000 will see a tax increase.
But Rush will never explain it like that. Acording to him and Hannity, we're all doomed!! DOOMED I say!!
[}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Neptune
lol
The Progressive tax system is here to stay. "Fair Tax", "Flat Tax", completely useless discussion.
So you're ready to raise the white flag and say we will continue to suffer with the status quo which is horribly flawed (in many ways, not just the tax system).
Yes.
Just like I raised the "white flag" on the possibility of ever seeing single payer healthcare in my lifetime..... or managed care....
I understand the "wealthy" will always extract their "pound of flesh" from the government under the guise of "economic development/stimulus."
I understand that if I incorporate myself as a small business, I can eat and go on vacation tax-free as long as its for "business purposes"-- gotta love those deductions...
I don't necessarily have to have a liberal flag-bearer like Barack Obama to inspire my confidence.... given a choice between a liberal idealogue and a competent conservative, I could end up being one of those undecideds or would lean towards competence.... the older I get, the more I value competence over pie-in-the-sky idealism from either political party...
Back in the 80s, The College Young Republicans who emphasized "personal responsibility" while running up mumsy and dadsy's credit cards and shopping for beemers told me I'd get more conservative as I age...... yet the older I get, the more liberal I become...
Go figure.
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
Back in the 80s, The College Young Republicans who emphasized "personal responsibility" while running up mumsy and dadsy's credit cards and shopping for beemers told me I'd get more conservative as I age...... yet the older I get, the more liberal I become...
Go figure.
Perhaps you have a genetic defect. [:D]
Edit: I forgot to mention, Beemers are motorcycles, Bimmers are automobiles. Which or both were you referring to?
This just in. According to Bill Richardson, the "rich" are now those making more than $120,000.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G88ebXY2uaI
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
This just in. According to Bill Richardson, the "rich" are now those making more than $120,000.
Aren't you running out of straw yet? pancakes does Bill Richardson have to do with anything?