Voter Fraud In Ohio

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I understand how corporations work I just find it funny no one can show me his plan and how it will really works.

All the info you need can be found here.

Full Obama Tax Plan

Comparison of the Obama and McCain Tax Plans

Key Facts About Obama and Taxes

Originally Posted by firstdown

If my business brings in $280,000 then its has made $280,000 and by Obama saying he will only tax business that make over 250,000 then I'm assuming that the business making the $280,000 will see a tax increase.

You are correct in your assessment though I would it is given that if people making under 250K won't see a tax increase people making over 250K will see a tax increase. This is 1 + 1 = 2 stuff.

Originally Posted by firstdown

No where have I seen or heard Obama say businesses with a net income over 250,000 will see a tax increase. I would think he would insert the word net income if thats what his plan really does but all I ever hear is businesses making over 250,000.

Are you being facetious? Companies are never taxed on gross income...never, ever, ever! If we started taxing companies based on gross income that would be the end of capitalism. What you are implying that since he didn't use the word net that we don't really know what he means. When someone talks about increasing/decreasing taxes they are talking about increasing/decreasing taxes on taxable income (take home monies after deductions), capice?

[Beemnseven]

Can someone explain to me what is so great about increasing the taxes on ANY income level?

Do we really want to make it harder on corporations to do business these days? Don't we want to encourage economic growth, not inhibit it by nailing them to the wall with higher taxes?

[JWsleep]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Can someone explain to me what is so great about increasing the taxes on ANY income level?

Do we really want to make it harder on corporations to do business these days? Don't we want to encourage economic growth, not inhibit it by nailing them to the wall with higher taxes?

I can, Charlie Brown. Lights, please...

Here's one line of thought:

The overall health of the economy suffers when we have these huge deficits and a ballooning national debt. People are unwilling to cut the defense budget, Social Security, highway funds, head start, homeland security, etc. So we need more revenue. Claim: the middle class is the engine of the economy, so don't tax them--cut their taxes. The poor have no money to tax. So tax the rich. They can most afford to pay (yes, they're angry about it, but they won't lose their homes, healthcare, etc.). Further, doing this in the past has been good for the economy--progressive taxation is better economically then trickledown economics. So it's the right thing to do.

Is it fair to tax one group of citizens more than another? (This, I think, is among the most important differences between conservatives and liberals.) My feeling: yes, if it can be shown that the overall economy gets better, and so a rising tide lifts all boats, even the big rich yachts. Also, it may be that the rich should give something back to help the overall health of the nation where they've done so well (and, BTW, I'd certainly make charitable donations tax deductible up the wazoo).

Worry: excessive taxation is a drag on investment and undermines the motivational energies of the economy. That seems a good worry. Solution: find the progressive tax polices that have the least negative effect on these things. There are lots of ways to do this, but none of them fit in a message board post or a campaign add. So we need leaders who are smart enough to find the right fit here. I thought Clinton's team wasn't bad. I think Obama is more of this stripe than his opponents (and many of his friends) think. I think McCain is open to this (or he was), but since running to the right, he may not be able to get back to this reasonable sort of view. Hence, I prefer Obama on this issue.

If you're against ANY taxation, or any progressive taxation, neither of these candidates is for you. See Bob Barr, maybe?

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by JWsleep

The overall health of the economy suffers when we have these huge deficits and a ballooning national debt. People are unwilling to cut the defense budget, Social Security, highway funds, head start, homeland security, etc.

There's the problem, bloated government programs. They take on a life of their own. Many need to be cut back.

Further, doing this in the past has been good for the economy--progressive taxation is better economically then trickledown economics. So it's the right thing to do.

This is a very debatable point many economists disagree with. Also, we've always had some form of progressive taxation since the inception on the income tax. But at what point is the "progression" too much? I would argue when the top 1% of income earners are paying 34% of the Federal tax burden and the next 2-10% are paying the next 33% than it's too much. The bottom 50% are only paying a total of 3% of the tax burden.

Also, it may be that the rich should give something back to help the overall health of the nation where they've done so well

Why? What government programs or government advantages have they received? What government services do they use more than anyone else? Answer: probably none. (I'm not talking the top 1%, I can't speak to how they got where they are, but the 2-10% have mostly gotten there by their own hard work and financial risk taking.)

[JWsleep]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

There's the problem, bloated government programs. They take on a life of their own. Many need to be cut back.

Reagan couldn't do it in '81. W and co most certainly didn't do it, even with a repub congress. Clinton managed to cut a fair bit off Federal welfare. But neither party has shown the stomach for real change. I'm fine with gov't playing a role, but it must be done with some intelligence. And some restraint! The issue here is that the repubs had there shot--what did it get us? Smaller gov't? Better economy? Improved health care? Improved education? Talk is cheap. Maybe Obama won't be able to do anything. But he's worth a shot because the other side messed up.

This is a very debatable point many economists disagree with. Also, we've always had some form of progressive taxation since the inception on the income tax. But at what point is the "progression" too much? I would argue when the top 1% of income earners are paying 34% of the Federal tax burden and the next 2-10% are paying the next 33% than it's too much. The bottom 50% are only paying a total of 3% of the tax burden.

Ah, the dismal science. The historical analysis I saw recently suggested otherwise, but no doubt it's debatable, as is everything in economics. Why do you think 34/33 is too much? What is the right amount? In any event, if we are going to pay for the programs we want, we need to tax. The bottom 50% has experienced stagnating and sinking wages in relation to inflation. Plus, they can least afford to pay, because the loss of income directly effects basic stuff like mortgage payments, health care, food, gas, etc. So raise the rate to 39 (back to the Clinton number). And if I'm right about the debatable economic point (the post war boom? the Clinton years?), it's better overall. I'm not sure how McCain's further ballooning of the debt is going to help--we can only borrow so much from China.

Why? What government programs or government advantages have they received? What government services do they use more than anyone else? Answer: probably none. (I'm not talking the top 1%, I can't speak to how they got where they are, but the 2-10% have mostly gotten there by their own hard work and financial risk taking.)

You are taking a too narrow view of the benefits. It's not simply a matter of direct gov't assistance (protectionism and corporate welfare--but that's for another post), it's a matter of the benefits of living in a free and open society like this one. That it exists and allowed them the opportunity to succeed as much as they have. The top 10% have benefited from that. So they can reasonably be asked to bear a greater share of the load of supporting this system. Isn't this the rationale for progressive taxation? If you are ok with progressive taxation in general, we're only disagreeing about the numbers here. I think 39 (i.e. back to Clinton's numbers) makes sense.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by JWsleep

Reagan couldn't do it in '81. W and co most certainly didn't do it, even with a repub congress. Clinton managed to cut a fair bit off Federal welfare. But neither party has shown the stomach for real change. I'm fine with gov't playing a role, but it must be done with some intelligence. And some restraint! The issue here is that the repubs had there shot--what did it get us? Smaller gov't? Better economy? Improved health care? Improved education? Talk is cheap. Maybe Obama won't be able to do anything. But he's worth a shot because the other side messed up.

Obama has proposed at least several hundred billion in new programs and is promising a tax increase already. My money is on government will expand greatly and taxes rise to levels above the Clinton years if Obama wins and the dems gain a supermajority. Gov't expansion and tax increase happened both times before when the dems had it.

Why do you think 34/33 is too much? What is the right amount? In any event, if we are going to pay for the programs we want, we need to tax. The bottom 50% has experienced stagnating and sinking wages in relation to inflation. Plus, they can least afford to pay, because the loss of income directly effects basic stuff like mortgage payments, health care, food, gas, etc. So raise the rate to 39 (back to the Clinton number). And if I'm right about the debatable economic point (the post war boom? the Clinton years?), it's better overall. I'm not sure how McCain's further ballooning of the debt is going to help--we can only borrow so much from China.

I think the top 10% of the wage earners paying 2/3 of the taxes in the country is very unfair. The top 10% can't out vote the other 90% so there's no incentive to cut any programs, or increase taxes on a larger section of the population, just keep taxing the "rich". When the bottom 90% feel no pain, or even get tax cuts, where is the incentive to control gov't? BTW $ 250K / yr. isn't rich, it's upper middle class, but not rich.

Look at it this way; you work a full-time job as an attorney, dentist, sales professional or you own a couple of small stores or restaurants. You job it 60 hours + per week to hopefully over time become independently wealthy. You live below your means and make smart financial decsions. You take your income from $ 250K to $ 350K with no help from anyone or the government, just hard work and the investments you made in your own education or financial risks you took. So of the $ 100K over $ 250K you made, you keep only $ 61K of, not to mention state and local taxes, at the end of the day you've busted your hind quarters and only take home about $ 55K. Is that fair for the Fed to take more than most people earn in a year in taxes on just the $ 100K to support people who haven't made the sacrifices you do?

You are taking a too narrow view of the benefits. It's not simply a matter of direct gov't assistance (protectionism and corporate welfare--but that's for another post), it's a matter of the benefits of living in a free and open society like this one. That it exists and allowed them the opportunity to succeed as much as they have. The top 10% have benefited from that. So they can reasonably be asked to bear a greater share of the load of supporting this system. Isn't this the rationale for progressive taxation? If you are ok with progressive taxation in general, we're only disagreeing about the numbers here. I think 39 (i.e. back to Clinton's numbers) makes sense.

I'm not talking about CEOs who are making mega-bucks here. Those guys do have corporate lobbyists and get benfits for themselves and the corporations they work for from folks in the government, on both sides of the aisle.

I'm talking about the guys/gals I mentioned in the paragraph above. What additional benefit of a "free & open society" do they get that the other 90% of wage earners don't get? It is not reasonable based on that to, not ASK but DEMAND, they pay higher and higher percentages of their income. The IRS doesn't "ask" for your tax payment. I understand progressive taxation is necessary, but it's too high at 35% and certainly is at 39%.

The only way to control government expansion is to slow down the funding and force cuts in programs and more frugal expenditures of OUR money.

Pretty scary stuff here. We've got to put the brakes on spending and revamp SS, Medicare, Medicaid now.

United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by JWsleep

I can, Charlie Brown. Lights, please...

Here's one line of thought:

The overall health of the economy suffers when we have these huge deficits and a ballooning national debt. People are unwilling to cut the defense budget, Social Security, highway funds, head start, homeland security, etc. So we need more revenue. Claim: the middle class is the engine of the economy, so don't tax them--cut their taxes. The poor have no money to tax. So tax the rich. They can most afford to pay (yes, they're angry about it, but they won't lose their homes, healthcare, etc.). Further, doing this in the past has been good for the economy--progressive taxation is better economically then trickledown economics. So it's the right thing to do.

Is it fair to tax one group of citizens more than another? (This, I think, is among the most important differences between conservatives and liberals.) My feeling: yes, if it can be shown that the overall economy gets better, and so a rising tide lifts all boats, even the big rich yachts. Also, it may be that the rich should give something back to help the overall health of the nation where they've done so well (and, BTW, I'd certainly make charitable donations tax deductible up the wazoo).

Worry: excessive taxation is a drag on investment and undermines the motivational energies of the economy. That seems a good worry. Solution: find the progressive tax polices that have the least negative effect on these things. There are lots of ways to do this, but none of them fit in a message board post or a campaign add. So we need leaders who are smart enough to find the right fit here. I thought Clinton's team wasn't bad. I think Obama is more of this stripe than his opponents (and many of his friends) think. I think McCain is open to this (or he was), but since running to the right, he may not be able to get back to this reasonable sort of view. Hence, I prefer Obama on this issue.

If you're against ANY taxation, or any progressive taxation, neither of these candidates is for you. See Bob Barr, maybe?

Okay, there's a lot of points here and Slingin Sammy and firstdown have already responded to many of them... And yes, I'm voting for Bob Barr because John McCain is equally as bad for this economy as Barack Obama is. All of this massive spending on foreign misadventures on top of the ballooning federal budget and national debt must be stopped ASAP.

Let me just say up front that I favor supply side economics -- you and others refer it to as "trickle down".

Have you ever heard the statistic that says something like 7 out of 10 new businesses fail? And that around five of those 7 fail immediately? The point here is that most people don't understand the risk that is involved with starting a new business. Most people don't understand, because most people don't go through with the trouble of starting a business, mainly out of fear. Fear of the risk that goes with it and the money they stand to lose. So the odds are stacked against the people who do take the risk at the outset.

The problem with progressive taxation is that it in effect punishes those who have already passed the incredible hurdle of starting a business and maintaining it to the point that it is profitable. When you stick it to the risk-takers through higher taxation, for no other reason than they have been able to collect more wealth than others who do not take such risks, it inhibits growth, it reduces the incentive for starting new businesses, it takes money away from businesses who might expand, make more capital investments, and hire more employees.

You say that the middle class are the "engine of the economy". Fine. But they are only the engine because businesses, large and small, are there to employ them. If we take your economic philosophy to its logical conclusion, then not only are corporations there to employ people, but the government should act to take money away from the business owners and give it to the workers, i.e. the middle class. Would you agree that if taken too far, that particular tax policy could drive businesses out of business? What would happen if the tax structure got so out of hand that the wealthy business owners said that it was no longer worth it? That there's no reason to continue doing business because the government is taking more of their money and giving it to people who didn't earn it? What if they just walk away?

One more thing about "giving back". I've never liked that expression. It implies that the rich have taken something that doesn't belong to them. That they should "give it back", I suppose through higher taxation. What exactly, have they taken? And if they have achieved their riches through starting a successful business, then the middle class benefits because they have a job thanks to the success of their wealthy employers.

I and other supply siders aren't against all forms of taxation. Obviously we have to maintain the basic functions of government, like police, fire, national defense, that sort of thing. The issue is that the money is taken from high earners by politicians who in turn promise that money to people who didn't earn it in exchange for votes. Vote me in, and I'll make sure the tax structure stays the way it is -- and since there are way more low and middle income voters than high income voters, that politician is sitting pretty.

The only fair way to collect taxes is to get the same amount from everybody. Everybody pays the same percentage. Period. That's the very definition of fairness. Anything else pits class against class, stifles economic growth and if we get right down to it -- it's thievery. Legalized thievery. Taking money from one person simply because he has more of it, and giving it to someone who doesn't have as much.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Okay, there's a lot of points here and Slingin Sammy and firstdown have already responded to many of them... And yes, I'm voting for Bob Barr because John McCain is equally as bad for this economy as Barack Obama is. All of this massive spending on foreign misadventures on top of the ballooning federal budget and national debt must be stopped ASAP.

Let me just say up front that I favor supply side economics -- you and others refer it to as "trickle down".

Have you ever heard the statistic that says something like 7 out of 10 new businesses fail? And that around five of those 7 fail immediately? The point here is that most people don't understand the risk that is involved with starting a new business. Most people don't understand, because most people don't go through with the trouble of starting a business, mainly out of fear. Fear of the risk that goes with it and the money they stand to lose. So the odds are stacked against the people who do take the risk at the outset.

The problem with progressive taxation is that it in effect punishes those who have already passed the incredible hurdle of starting a business and maintaining it to the point that it is profitable. When you stick it to the risk-takers through higher taxation, for no other reason than they have been able to collect more wealth than others who do not take such risks, it inhibits growth, it reduces the incentive for starting new businesses, it takes money away from businesses who might expand, make more capital investments, and hire more employees.

You say that the middle class are the "engine of the economy". Fine. But they are only the engine because businesses, large and small, are there to employ them. If we take your economic philosophy to its logical conclusion, then not only are corporations there to employ people, but the government should act to take money away from the business owners and give it to the workers, i.e. the middle class. Would you agree that if taken too far, that particular tax policy could drive businesses out of business? What would happen if the tax structure got so out of hand that the wealthy business owners said that it was no longer worth it? That there's no reason to continue doing business because the government is taking more of their money and giving it to people who didn't earn it? What if they just walk away?

One more thing about "giving back". I've never liked that expression. It implies that the rich have taken something that doesn't belong to them. That they should "give it back", I suppose through higher taxation. What exactly, have they taken? And if they have achieved their riches through starting a successful business, then the middle class benefits because they have a job thanks to the success of their wealthy employers.

I and other supply siders aren't against all forms of taxation. Obviously we have to maintain the basic functions of government, like police, fire, national defense, that sort of thing. The issue is that the money is taken from high earners by politicians who in turn promise that money to people who didn't earn it in exchange for votes. Vote me in, and I'll make sure the tax structure stays the way it is -- and since there are way more low and middle income voters than high income voters, that politician is sitting pretty.

The only fair way to collect taxes is to get the same amount from everybody. Everybody pays the same percentage. Period. That's the very definition of fairness. Anything else pits class against class, stifles economic growth and if we get right down to it -- it's thievery. Legalized thievery. Taking money from one person simply because he has more of it, and giving it to someone who doesn't have as much.

SORRY this is no place for reason, logic, and fact. That won't work here!
I would like to add; is anyone against cutting the Fed? Would you rather cut the Fed, or raise taxes to aid our Govt. in the further "fleecing" of the American people?
I personally, need less Govt. rather than more. Does anyone need more Govt?