Tax Plans
-
Ah, i was just looking at the numbers, didnt see that it was the adjustment to current tax. So i correct that statement'
But, you CANNOT tax rich people an additional 700k. They will leave, its very easy to move right over to another country and i assure you they will. Aside from that, thats an additional 700k over their current tax..
So i made $3million, im already paying say 500,000 in tax. That leaves me 2.5 million to live on. You add 700k to that? your cutting my living allowance by 28%. do you realize how that is going to effect these people? Its going to take so much sales tax out of local areas and general spending its unreal. How about i go to your job and take 1/4 of your paycheck, i dont care if they have "so much extra" money, regardless of income you remove 25% of it and its an extreme adjustment.
You live on 40k, they live on 2.5mil and spend an equal amount %age wise, get over it. I dont want their money, i want to earn it on my own, if you want their money, move to a socialist country and get the fuck out of mine. Im looking to potentially inherit a large amount of money in the future and i sure as fuck want to keep it, and if i have to move out of the country to do it i will. My family busted their ass to give it to me specifically, so i wouldnt have to work as hard, their choice. So why dont you go out and earn your own way, I know for a fact that you socialist fuckers would be singing a way different tune if you happened to go win the lottery next year. Have fun keeping 35% of that money, instead of winning 100k and being better off, 35k dont mean shit. -
Grr;242316 wrote:
Ah, i was just looking at the numbers, didnt see that it was the adjustment to current tax. So i correct that statement'
But, you CANNOT tax rich people an additional 700k. They will leave, its very easy to move right over to another country and i assure you they will. Aside from that, thats an additional 700k over their current tax..
So i made $3million, im already paying say 500,000 in tax. That leaves me 2.5 million to live on. You add 700k to that? your cutting my living allowance by 28%. do you realize how that is going to effect these people? Its going to take so much sales tax out of local areas and general spending its unreal. How about i go to your job and take 1/4 of your paycheck, i dont care if they have "so much extra" money, regardless of income you remove 25% of it and its an extreme adjustment.
You live on 40k, they live on 2.5mil and spend an equal amount %age wise, get over it. I dont want their money, i want to earn it on my own, if you want their money, move to a socialist country and get the fuck out of mine. Im looking to potentially inherit a large amount of money in the future and i sure as fuck want to keep it, and if i have to move out of the country to do it i will. My family busted their ass to give it to me specifically, so i wouldnt have to work as hard, their choice. So why dont you go out and earn your own way, I know for a fact that you socialist fuckers would be singing a way different tune if you happened to go win the lottery next year. Have fun keeping 35% of that money, instead of winning 100k and being better off, 35k dont mean shit.You do bring up a good point.
-
that's the average that it will go up there Gary....there are a good number making significantly more than the 2.9 million mark. I'm not trying to justify the tax increase as proposed, just making sure everyone is aware that the guy making 2.9mill won't necessarily have his taxes go up 700k+....the guy in the middle between the 2.9mill and whatever the highest income is will have his go up that much. As far as I can tell he is still basing it on percentages of earnings.
-
Grr;242316 wrote:
So why dont you go out and earn your own way, I know for a fact that you socialist fuckers would be singing a way different tune if you happened to go win the lottery next year. Have fun keeping 35% of that money, instead of winning 100k and being better off, 35k dont mean shit.I don't want to pay any more taxes than anyone else....hell, I don't want to pay any taxes at all. I didn't see anyone of us sending our stimulus package checks back to uncle sam and telling him that you don't want his welfare check though either...
-
I didn't receive a stimulus check either
-
How the hell did you not receive one? listed as a dependent under your parents or didn't file taxes last year?
-
I was claimed as a dependent...funny thing is...my parents didn't see a dime back by claiming me either!
-
what he said^^^ or your parents made more than $150k last year....actually...I'm wrong. If you are over 17 and made more than $3000 of earned income last year, you should have gotten a check. Had I known you haven't gotten yours yet, I would have told you to file for an extension. The deadline to file was yesterday (not even kidding) > www.irs.gov wrote:
Q. I have not yet filed my 2007 tax return. Can I still qualify for a stimulus payment this year?
A. Yes, but you must file a 2007 tax return. The IRS encourages you to file a return even if your income is low or much of your income is tax-free. If you qualify for a payment, you can ensure that you get it by filing your return by Oct. 15, 2008.
Q. What do I need to do to get an economic stimulus payment?
A. All you need to do is file a federal income tax return for 2007. If you requested an extension to file, you will fill out your return, reporting all your income, deductions and credits as you normally would prior to Oct. 15, 2008. <u>Even if you are not otherwise required to file a tax return, you must file a 2007 return prior to Oct. 15, 2008 in order to receive a payment this year.</u> Although some filers, such as high-income filers, will not qualify for a stimulus payment, most will.
The IRS has provided special filing instructions for those who do not otherwise have a filing requirement. This includes low-income workers, Social Security beneficiaries, certain railroad retirees and those who receive certain benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs. The instructions explain which lines on the tax return the filers need to complete.
You do not need to calculate the amount of the stimulus payment. If you want to estimate the amount of your payment, use the Economic Stimulus Payment Calculator.
If you file a return and qualify for a payment, the IRS will automatically figure it and send it to you. The IRS will also send you a notice showing the amount of your payment. You do not need to call the IRS or fill out any other special forms. -
Actually for my parents to have gotten stimulus money from me I would have had to have been 18 or younger...
I already did plenty of looking and asking around to see if we should refile or whatever so we could get the money. They would have had to refile without me as a dependent and then have me refile and have not been claimed as a dependent...wasn't worth it to us. They also might have earned more than 150 between the two of them, I'm not exactly sure as the last time I knew what my dad made was about 6 years ago and I've never seen what my mom made.
-
Parker;242413 wrote:
yeah we should tax people making more... great idea... like small businesses... getting taxed more would mean they have more money to create** more **jobs right?No, it's not a good plan, which is why even the democrats in Washington don't think that Bush's tax cuts will ever go away.
BUT, the point I'm trying to make to all the Ron Paul nut swingers on here is that this is EXACTLY what Ron Paul wants to do. Get rid of individual income tax (along with spending cuts....cut 1/3 of the budget...which is a good thing); and then have the corporate tax and all the other taxes that are part of doing business stay. Yet, everybody seems on board with this socialist idea. Why not tax the individuals at a higher rater and get rid of corporate and other taxes for businesses? That seems the most fair....right?
-
Well...not paying required taxes is illegal...so you could make an argument that paying is patriotic in that you are being a legal citizen of this country, earning a wage and paying the taxes as required under the laws of the land....but that would be a stretch.
-
A few points:
arguing that Obama won't get all of what he wants isn't a resounding endorsement of Obama. The guy wants to do the concept of America atrocious harm. Have you picked up on the fact that he doesn't talk about the "American Dream" -- he talks about the "American Promise". The difference is intentional.
The supreme court justice point is a salient one. We just barely kept the 2nd amendment by 1 vote in the recent Heller vs. DC decision. Obama is about as anti-gun as they come, and if he has the opportunity to stack the court with Obamunists, I fear that in a few more years we'll be voting with (illegal) bullets instead of ballots.
Did you pay attention to "Joe the Plumber" -- and Obama's admonition to "spread the wealth?"
Data from the Reagan administration forward has shown that when personal income tax is lowered, the government actually collects more income tax revenue. People spend less effort trying to dodge taxes, and the extra money in peoples hands doesn't just rot away going to fruitless uses.. it moves through the economy lubricating everything. If your goal is to have the government get MORE money out of people, LOWER the federal income tax.
Regarding the difference between taxing people vs. taxing businesses -- a business is a purely legal construct. Individuals form businesses as entities to protect their individuality, i.e. their home, their cars, etc, from risk of seizure in the event of a business failure. We've tweaked our legal system to reward entrepreneurship by limiting risk to PERSONs by insulating them with the legal constructs loosely called "businesses".
When I tax a person, I am taking money from a real, living, human being. Directly. When I tax a business, one might argue that this is how we bankroll the limited liability designed into the system.
Of course, lower business taxes are better than higher ones, because it gives the government less money to commit evil, and gives business owners more money to provide actual value. But if one has to decide between stealing 1/3rd of the income of a person, vs. stealing some percentage of the profits of a business, the latter seems less deleterious and more plausibly justifiable.
That said, it is my understanding that the original financial support for the federal government was entirely based on foreign tarriffs. Chuck Baldwin wants to return to this sort of system, IIRC.
People supporting Obama this time around are getting confused. Lots of people dislike McCain for lots of reasons, but they all boil down to "McCain isn't doing a good enough job of being what he's calling himself. He's not the candidate he's supposed to be. He's not a real republican. He's playing politics and changing his story as the opinions change"
But obama is something else. Obama is being completely true to his agenda. The problem is that his agena, his worldview, his platform.. is wrong. It might be right for a lot of places, but it isn't American, and it isn't constitutional.
John McCain might fail to take us far enough in the right direction.
Everything Obama does will be a move in the wrong direction.
I'd like to reiterate that everyone that hasn't done so yet should read "Free to Choose" and "Capitalism and Freedom", both by Milton Friedman.
Milton Friedman was a ukranian-jewish immigrant to the USA. He came of age during the depression, helped design the modern IRS in 1942. He won the nobel prize in economics for his theory of the consumption function. He was an economic advisor to presidents Nixon and Regan, and Barry Goldwater who started the republican turnaround in the 60s. He wrote the first comprehensive history of US monetary policy. Unlike some jackass with an opinion, Friedman was an instrumental genius economist who did real work in the US goverment of tremendous significance.
You can read what he has to say on the role of government in the economy, and freedom, and how the two are linked. It's easy to read and easy to understand.
-
thrash;242547 wrote:
A few points:arguing that Obama won't get all of what he wants isn't a resounding endorsement of Obama. The guy wants to do the concept of America atrocious harm. Have you picked up on the fact that he doesn't talk about the "American Dream" -- he talks about the "American Promise". The difference is intentional.
The supreme court justice point is a salient one. We just barely kept the 2nd amendment by 1 vote in the recent Heller vs. DC decision. Obama is about as anti-gun as they come, and if he has the opportunity to stack the court with Obamunists, I fear that in a few more years we'll be voting with (illegal) bullets instead of ballots.
Did you pay attention to "Joe the Plumber" -- and Obama's admonition to "spread the wealth?"
Data from the Reagan administration forward has shown that when personal income tax is lowered, the government actually collects more income tax revenue. People spend less effort trying to dodge taxes, and the extra money in peoples hands doesn't just rot away going to fruitless uses.. it moves through the economy lubricating everything. If your goal is to have the government get MORE money out of people, LOWER the federal income tax.
Regarding the difference between taxing people vs. taxing businesses -- a business is a purely legal construct. Individuals form businesses as entities to protect their individuality, i.e. their home, their cars, etc, from risk of seizure in the event of a business failure. We've tweaked our legal system to reward entrepreneurship by limiting risk to PERSONs by insulating them with the legal constructs loosely called "businesses".
When I tax a person, I am taking money from a real, living, human being. Directly. When I tax a business, one might argue that this is how we bankroll the limited liability designed into the system.
Of course, lower business taxes are better than higher ones, because it gives the government less money to commit evil, and gives business owners more money to provide actual value. But if one has to decide between stealing 1/3rd of the income of a person, vs. stealing some percentage of the profits of a business, the latter seems less deleterious and more plausibly justifiable.
That said, it is my understanding that the original financial support for the federal government was entirely based on foreign tarriffs. Chuck Baldwin wants to return to this sort of system, IIRC.
People supporting Obama this time around are getting confused. Lots of people dislike McCain for lots of reasons, but they all boil down to "McCain isn't doing a good enough job of being what he's calling himself. He's not the candidate he's supposed to be. He's not a real republican. He's playing politics and changing his story as the opinions change"
But obama is something else. Obama is being completely true to his agenda. The problem is that his agena, his worldview, his platform.. is wrong. It might be right for a lot of places, but it isn't American, and it isn't constitutional.
John McCain might fail to take us far enough in the right direction.
Everything Obama does will be a move in the wrong direction.
I'd like to reiterate that everyone that hasn't done so yet should read "Free to Choose" and "Capitalism and Freedom", both by Milton Friedman.
Milton Friedman was a ukranian-jewish immigrant to the USA. He came of age during the depression, helped design the modern IRS in 1942. He won the nobel prize in economics for his theory of the consumption function. He was an economic advisor to presidents Nixon and Regan, and Barry Goldwater who started the republican turnaround in the 60s. He wrote the first comprehensive history of US monetary policy. Unlike some jackass with an opinion, Friedman was an instrumental genius economist who did real work in the US goverment of tremendous significance.
You can read what he has to say on the role of government in the economy, and freedom, and how the two are linked. It's easy to read and easy to understand.
Good post as usual thrash...again, in principle, I agree with what you said for the most part.
Just clarifying a couple of things though. You made a comment that thinking that obama's plan won't go through is showing that the candidates weakness. I'd say that it not going through is a sign that the checks/balances system in this country works.
I'm willling to bet that when Obama is president, you won't see a new AWB go through. It wasn't very popular the first time, so I don't see it passing this time....there might be a lighthearted attempt at it, but I don't see it passing, nor has Obama put it on his agenda to my knowledge.
If conservatives acted like conservatives, they'd run away with every election. The problem is that most of them are good at double talking and spending money like democrats...and yes, I know you have stated that lowering tax percentages increases tax revenue...which may very well be true, but to say that people won't spend the time trying to find every deduction/loophole is insane....if I can get more of my tax money back, I'm going to find every friggen loophole in the system....regardless of the lower tax rate.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login