Which candidate just said this statement? “It is not the time to be raising taxes in a recession” Not McCain - but Obama. How could be stand in front of all those people and say a blatant lie like this? He will be taxing the richest 5%, who generate the majority of the tax revenue, at a very high rate. How can he stand up and say something like this?
Darn it, those rich people need some help! After all they’ve done for our economy, this is the thanks they get!
.
Blah, blah, blah. He’s going to be our next president, for better or worse, however you happen to feel about him.
He has repeatedly said that he is not going to enact the tax increase during a recession. He isn’t lying, and his policy has not changed.
bchadwick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Darn it, those rich people need some help! After > all they’ve done for our economy, this is the > thanks they get! As you are someone who puts a lot of thought in his messages, I have to think that you were in a hurry while posting this one. There is nothing wrong with being rich or trying to be rich. I want to be filthy rich myself. What’s wrong or right is how you get there. Yes there are many rich people who cheated, stole, lied, to become rich but the problem is the system. Fix the system. The answer is a better system ,and not fewer rich people.
John McCain has said Sarah Palin is the most qualified VP candidate in recent memory. That’s either an outright lie or an indication of his terrible judgment.
needhelp Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > bchadwick Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Darn it, those rich people need some help! > After > > all they’ve done for our economy, this is the > > thanks they get! > > > As you are someone who puts a lot of thought in > his messages, I have to think that you were in a > hurry while posting this one. > > There is nothing wrong with being rich or trying > to be rich. I want to be filthy rich myself. > What’s wrong or right is how you get there. Yes > there are many rich people who cheated, stole, > lied, to become rich but the problem is the > system. Fix the system. The answer is a better > system ,and not fewer rich people. I’m also pretty surprised to see such a boilerplate response from bchadwick. I guess everybody gets one. I mean, I can see why folks aren’t necessarily sympathetic towards the rich since they aren’t really hurting the way lower income earners are, but that kind of blanket anti-rich sentiment isn’t going to fix things. Unfortunately, given that the Democrats are solidifying their hold on all branches of the government, we can probably expect more of this going forward. I would like to point out that as a libertarian, I find it incredibly silly that people argue about taxing people at 35% vs. taxing people at 40%. All of the Joe the Plumber dialogue nothwithstanding, there has been zero substantive discussion about the legitimacy of taxation since Ron Paul threw in the towel.
“I would like to point out that as a libertarian, I find it incredibly silly that people argue about taxing people at 35% vs. taxing people at 40%. All of the Joe the Plumber dialogue nothwithstanding, there has been zero substantive discussion about the legitimacy of taxation since Ron Paul threw in the towel.” That’s because any discussion on the legitimacy of taxation is by definition not substantive.
Substantive: possessing substance; having practical importance, value, or effect I was pointing out that there has been no principle-based discussion of taxation. So rather than arguing about how one guy will tax you at this rate and this guy will tax you at that rate, it would be interesting to hear a candidate question whether the government should be stealing your income at all. No major candidate other than Ron Paul had the balls or integrity to do this.
tobias Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > He has repeatedly said that he is not going to > enact the tax increase during a recession. He > isn’t lying, and his policy has not changed. So when he’s elected - the current policy will stay the same until when? What is the definition of “not in a recession” to him?
You believe a discussion on whether or not the government has the right to tax citizens has “practical importance, value of effect”? I think there’s a meeting later at Wesley Snipes house, they’re going to demo the 09 line of Reynolds Wrap headgear.
Did someone just use the words “legitimacy” and “Ron Paul” in the same sentence? ROFL
Pox Americana Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > needhelp Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > bchadwick Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Darn it, those rich people need some help! > > After > > > all they’ve done for our economy, this is the > > > thanks they get! > > > > > > As you are someone who puts a lot of thought in > > his messages, I have to think that you were in > a > > hurry while posting this one. > > > > There is nothing wrong with being rich or > trying > > to be rich. I want to be filthy rich myself. > > What’s wrong or right is how you get there. Yes > > there are many rich people who cheated, stole, > > lied, to become rich but the problem is the > > system. Fix the system. The answer is a better > > system ,and not fewer rich people. > > I’m also pretty surprised to see such a > boilerplate response from bchadwick. I guess > everybody gets one. > > I mean, I can see why folks aren’t necessarily > sympathetic towards the rich since they aren’t > really hurting the way lower income earners are, > but that kind of blanket anti-rich sentiment isn’t > going to fix things. Unfortunately, given that the > Democrats are solidifying their hold on all > branches of the government, we can probably expect > more of this going forward. > > I would like to point out that as a libertarian, I > find it incredibly silly that people argue about > taxing people at 35% vs. taxing people at 40%. All > of the Joe the Plumber dialogue nothwithstanding, > there has been zero substantive discussion about > the legitimacy of taxation since Ron Paul threw in > the towel. Yeah, I was in a rush. I was just pointing out (a bit sarcastically, and not very successfully) that a tax increase on the top 5% of society and no change or a drop in taxes on the remainder should not be recast as a tax increase for everyone - whether it happens during a recession or not. The big issue in a recession isn’t so much that there is less stuff produced next year than this year and that profits are going to be lesser, but that large numbers of people are going to be unemployed. The non-rich are not likely to have much savings, which means after a while potential malnourishment, increased exposures to disease and morbidity, homelessness, etc… If you are going to cut taxes, those guys are the ones that need it most, and if you need to raise taxes on the very wealthy to compensate (we’re talking a few percent here, not 90% or something like that), then that makes sense. For the wealthy to balk at this in a time of national crisis makes them sound like selfish crybabies. The poorer have to face joblessness, hunger, homelessness. The rich have to face an extra few percent of taxation. A time of crisis is where people ought to pull together to do their part to get things moving again. In addition, there is a sense that a large number of those at the top of the earnings pyramid have their fingerprints all over this crisis. This is an oversimplification of course - some medical doctors are there too and probably didn’t have much to do with overleveraging, but this is why much of the population may not feel so bad about taxing the very wealthy. “You got us into this mess, you pay to get us out,” is what they want, and a tax on the wealthy seems to fit the bill better. – I don’t have a problem with people wanting to have more and hope one day to be wealthy, but the measure of a person’s worth is the value they add to society, not the value of what they extract from it.
NakedPuts Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You believe a discussion on whether or not the > government has the right to tax citizens has > “practical importance, value of effect”? I think > there’s a meeting later at Wesley Snipes house, > they’re going to demo the 09 line of Reynolds Wrap > headgear. Whew. Just had to double check to make sure that crazy loon does not happen to be a CFA charterholder or close to it. Thankfully, his experience is limited to failing L1 in 2006. Thank you CFAI for keeping paultards and drudge readers out of the ranks by keeping passing standards high. I certainly would not want be associated with them.
bchadwick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- "The non-rich are not likely to have much savings, which means after a while potential malnourishment, increased exposures to disease and morbidity, homelessness, etc… I you are going to cut taxes, those guys are the ones that need it most, and if you need to raise taxes on the very wealthy to compensate (we’re talking a few percent here, not 90% or something like that), then that makes sense. " ---- I can appreciate the argument about how the “rich” folks tried to capitalize on a situation gone bad to make themselves richer, but greed is omnipresent no matter what country or government you’re under and I actually would put more of the blame on the circumstances than the outcomes. What I mean by “circumstances” are that some of these very same people that appear most well positioned to benefit from the proposed taxation situation are those that made the most economically poor decisions, namely the type of people that are too much about living for the moment and spending beyond one’s means. Of course there are going to be people of status trying to exploit the situation, but that type of thing could happen anywhere. What I think is really necessary is a basic re-education about human consumption and living within one’s means. Now, I have no fundamental misgivings about re-distribution of wealth – I for one hope that I’ll eventually be rich enough to take better care of others – but there is a problem of fiscal irresponsibility and spending beyond one’s resources that seems way too pervasive in the average American culture. I’m not even talking about most of the people on this forum, who, by very nature are trying to further their own education or professional well-being every day, are well beyond the “average” person out there. I’m talking about all the folks out there that levered themselves to the hilt in order to buy houses that were five times larger than what they needed, or took out a massive loan to buy a Corvette or Escalade when they should have been driving a Pinto. As such, I think the bigger issue at hand is not about how much taxes for whom, but establishing a system of accountability for people irrespective of their income. As things go, I worry that too many people who made bad financial decisions are going to be “let off the hook” at the expense of those that did not – and remember, it’s not only going to be the upper class that has to bear the burden of taxes, even if they are in fact taxed at a higher rate.
CFAchief Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > NakedPuts Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > You believe a discussion on whether or not the > > government has the right to tax citizens has > > “practical importance, value of effect”? I > think > > there’s a meeting later at Wesley Snipes house, > > they’re going to demo the 09 line of Reynolds > Wrap > > headgear. > > Whew. Just had to double check to make sure that > crazy loon does not happen to be a CFA > charterholder or close to it. Thankfully, his > experience is limited to failing L1 in 2006. Thank > you CFAI for keeping paultards and drudge readers > out of the ranks by keeping passing standards > high. I certainly would not want be associated > with them. Yes, in 2006 I bit off a bit more than I could chew and attempted the CFA in addition to 2 actuarial exams. I passed SOA exams P and FM, which were more related to my career track at that time, and are widely considered to be far more difficult than level 1. Too bad you had to resort so quickly to personal attacks, rather than having a civil discussion about taxation. I just lost a lot of respect for you and nakedputs. In fact, if there are many CFA charterholders like you, I don’t think I would want to be associated with them. Edit: It’s actually kind of disturbing that you would even take the time to look into that. Very petty.
I also aspire to be wealthy one day, and one of my goals is to be able to give back to society and help those in need. I am a strong believer in philanthropy - I work at a Foundation for Pete’s sake! But I think that individuals and private organizations are much better at accomplishing this than a huge, blundering bureaucracy. As Jim Rogers points out (oh sorry – is he a “paultard” too?), the federal government struggles to run the postal service efficiently, and yet we continue to believe that they can run more complicated operations, like $700B bailouts and social security?
They must need interest rates. That’ll speed up the painful process that well have to go through anyway.
I think what Barack is trying to do is… Re-establish a ladder by which ‘more Americans can achieve the American dream’, in his words. Taxing the rich isn’t a redistribution of wealth, estate tax is. Taxing the rich is a price you pay for making enough money to live beyond comfort, its the price you pay for living period. Its the price you pay for living in a safe neighborhood, compared to a ghetto. If they taxed your land 200% as much, you wouldn’t have anything to say about the topic, because you have the right and choice to move to a cheaper area, but everyone who has the money, lives in nice areas right so if you don’t agree with the tax, move to a cheaper area and save on land tax… Finally, I do agree in an estate tax as I believe your municipality, your state, and your country should all get a kickback from your fivolous life as it was that municipality, state and country that all contributed to your ability to reach that level of success. I’m 23, young and still in a lower tax bracket, and the impact that an extra couple hundred bucks off my tax bill now will have on my life is tenfold the extra few thousand when I’m in my mid-40s. If you’re 40 now and upset that you didn’t get that benefit, don’t complain because its the way it always should have been and if you’re over 200k, just be happy that you’re over 200k.