McCain-Palin 2008!

Yes wrote:

Yes would have had a different answer for any one but Eric. Eric is unworthy of a civil response.

Understood and agreed.

My Views wrote:

<quoted text>
I work my butt off and earn my money. I have worked hard to get where I am today. I shouldn't have to pay more taxes because I make make $250,000.00 or more. Should I?

No, maybe not. But you should have to pay at least as much as those making $25K / year. And, with a nod to fahrter's latest post questioning 'percentages', you need to remember that payroll and Social Security taxes function as incredibly regressive taxes affecting mainly the lower-income. When figuring your 'tax load', factor those in as well.

On another side of the question: If you're lucky enough to be making $250K, you've certainly got a tax accountant and an advisor who can and will help you evade some of the taxes you should be paying.

The Bisbee Avenger wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you talking about percentages?

We were talking about paying more or higher taxes if you make $250,000.00 or more a year.

Lucifers Hammer wrote:

<quoted text>
No, maybe not. But you should have to pay at least as much as those making $25K / year. And, with a nod to fahrter's latest post questioning 'percentages', you need to remember that payroll and Social Security taxes function as incredibly regressive taxes affecting mainly the lower-income. When figuring your 'tax load', factor those in as well.
On another side of the question: If you're lucky enough to be making $250K, you've certainly got a tax accountant and an advisor who can and will help you evade some of the taxes you should be paying.

I agree.

The Bisbee Avenger wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you talking about percentages?

WHAT IN THE HELL? You got something to say, stinky?(That'd be new and different!) Then SAY it. What's with the stupid question?

My guess is that Lucifer understood and headed off where you were thinking about going -- but why didn't you just GO there, instead of another
"weak, limp, and stupid" example of your behavior?

You ain't cute, stinky. You ain't clever. You just STUPID.

I think maybe my post above wasn't clear in one respect: Certainly $250K should pay more than someone earning $25K -- it's 10 times as much income!

The real question and bone of contention is that of tax rates, which have been systematically lowered for higher-income taxpayers during the current criminal administration. With that tax-rate reality in mind, the regressive qualities of the payroll and Social Security taxes are even more burdensome to low-income-earners.

In a perfect world, not only would tax rates be restored to a progressive system, but many of the loopholes and tax-avoidance schemes (of both individuals and corporations) which have become so prevalent during the Republican years would be addressed and rectified.

In the real world, money talks, and we'll be very lucky to get even minimal tax reform for most of us.

The Bisbee Avenger wrote:

Looks like we Republicans have a real shot at holding on to the White House this year.
I LOVE it!

Let's see how much you LOVE this article from THE U.S. VETERAN DISPATCH:

John McCain: The Manchurian Candidate connection:

McCain was subjected to 5 ½ years of Soviet driven "brain perversion techniques." Is he fit to be President and Commander in Chief of the military?

http://www.usvetdsp.com/mar08/mccain_manchuri...

Hmmm, I wonder if Stinky was subjected to a much newer, more advanced version of "brain perversion techniques."

The Bisbee Avenger wrote:

<quoted text>
I have a problem with that, because I don't see higher incomes as being the result merely of luck. People who are more productive and work harder frequently earn more income, and that productivity and success shouldn't be punished.

I'm sure you also don't believe they should be "punished" if it was their fathers and grandfathers who left them the money, either.
Right?

Simple question: Would you find it easier to pay 13% of $20K income (on top of payroll and SS tax), or to pay 27% of $200K income (after having had to pay no payroll or SS taxes on the last 100K of your income, and having financial advice which has let you 'shelter' some overall income?

Taking a tax bite of $4800 out of $20K income doesn't leave a whole heck of a lot....

The Bisbee Avenger wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, sure. But sometimes we're talking about paying "higher taxes" because the actual amount paid on, say, 25% of 1,000,000 is more than 25% on $100.
But other times, we're talking about paying a higher percentage as income goes up.
I have a problem with that, because I don't see higher incomes as being the result merely of luck. People who are more productive and work harder frequently earn more income, and that productivity and success shouldn't be punished.

Paying higher taxes I don't agree on. I realize I would be paying 25% just like everyone else which would be a larger amount. I do not agree on a larger % rate.

The Bisbee Avenger wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you?
Do you think that the govenment is entitled to first shot at your estate, after you built it over the years, and paid TAXES over the years?

Yes. You're leaving what is, in fact, income to your fortunate heirs. They should pay taxes on that income, just as the rest of us do. Think of them as having won the lottery; taxes are due and payable.

and so that it's crystalline to you: Lottery pools are made up of money that's already been taxed, too.

Lucifers Hammer wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes. You're leaving what is, in fact, income to your fortunate heirs. They should pay taxes on that income, just as the rest of us do. Think of them as having won the lottery; taxes are due and payable.

People inheriting estates worth less than $2,000,000.(as of 2006) generally don't pay any inheritance tax, though it's a little more complicated than that. People inheriting more than $2,000,000. are never going to be so stupid as to pay at 46% or even 34%. As wealthy Republicans are so fond of saying, taxes are for little people. It looks like the inheritance taxes will be eliminated entirely anyway and I have mixed feelings about it.
As far as income taxes go I favor a flat tax with no tax shelters and would also like to see the state of Arizona stop taxing food and other necessities.

The Bisbee Avenger wrote:

<quoted text>
Your comments about Republicans and "the rich" are a stereotype.
I am very much in favor of exploring a flat tax, maybe a national sales tax, but only after thoroughly exploring potential consequences.
And even then, I would want the income tax eliminated BEFORE instituting an alternative tax, to make sure the politicians don't keep BOTH in place.

Hey, that's a sane and reasonable response! Thanks. I'll admit that I stereotype rich Republicans when you admit that you stereotype Democrats. I've known some sane and caring Republicans and few of them voted for GWB and none of them will vote for McCain and that includes some that will probably see their taxes raised under Obama...for the sake of the country and our future they're willing to take it, you know?
I'm not sure how you could eliminate income tax even temporarily and not have this country completely come to a standstill but I welcome more sane comments and ideas from you and anyone here.

A flat tax with NO tax shelters or avoidance mechanisms is a sounds-good idea, until you remember that massive -- and largely exempt -- elephant in the room called "capital gains", and the penchant of the rich (of both parties) to keep that stream of funds sacrosanct.

A flat tax, by itself, also does nothing to solve the problems this country has built in collecting corporate taxes. Until Congress gets smart enough to quit giving corps tax BREAKS for moving jobs and operations overseas....

But we digress from the topic...

...which is perhaps just as well, since McCain has little to say except to promise more of the same nonsense that's gotten us into the mess we have now.

You catch the unemployment figures today? You catch the Dow yesterday? We having fun yet?

And the pending bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac? Fun, fun, fun. The Dow will bounce back on Monday and I'll be oh so relived.

The Bisbee Avenger wrote:

<quoted text>
If Palin were to be the President (not just Vice President,) she'd be Baberaham Lincoln.

Right from the Dennis Miller playbook? A hero of yours Eric? If if I remember right don't you and he have the same "Alfalfa" cow lick.... doncha?

We are assured that this picture is NOT 'shopped'.

http://rising-hegemon.blogspot.com/2008/09/ye...

Definitely not profound, but I couldn't resist....

Lucifers Hammer wrote:

We are assured that this picture is NOT 'shopped'.
http://rising-hegemon.blogspot.com/2008/09/ye...
Definitely not profound, but I couldn't resist....

ROFL, I needed that...um, not the thing in his hand, just to be clear. It doesn't look 'shopped'to me either.

derailed wrote:

And the pending bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac? Fun, fun, fun. The Dow will bounce back on Monday and I'll be oh so relived.

Let's all think some happy thoughts. Ready?

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/artic...

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/05/real_estate/f...

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/06/news/economy/...

There now, isn't that better? Ready to vote for "four more years" yet?