# "Biden says that paying higher taxes is the patriotic t



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

> Biden: Wealthy Americans Must Pay More Taxes to Show Patriotism
> by Associated Press
> Thursday, September 18, 2008
> 
> ...


http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/0...icans-must-pay-more-taxes-to-show-patriotism/

Here we go again. Dems' want more tax's to pay for someone else's crap. How utterly sickening..."more patriotic"......more pathetic :eyeroll:


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

How many people here would have to pay in to this tax? How many here would benefit?

Just curious?

Does anyone here pull in more than $250,000 a year?

He's talking about the top 1 or 3% (can't remember the %) of tax earners.

This "plan" won't affect anyone. Most of those who earn in excess of $250,000 won't notice a $5,000 increase in taxes folks.

I'm astounded to hear that people decry this as another Dem tax increase...


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

R y a n said:


> How many people here would have to pay in to this tax? How many here would benefit?
> 
> Just curious?
> 
> ...


So it is ok because it is not "us"? :eyeroll:


----------



## ruger1 (Aug 16, 2006)

R y a n said:


> How many people here would have to pay in to this tax? How many here would benefit?
> 
> Just curious?
> 
> ...


My folks notice. I hear some kind of "F"ing democrates comment. I'm with them. "F"ing democrates giving away our money!


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

The point isn't that who it affects, it is that it is taking from the haves that have worked hard to get where they are, or were born into what someone else worked hard to get.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Don't forget the democrats always lie about taxes also. If you make 40,000 or something like that you will pay more taxes. Obama's tax plan is to tax nearly everyone more. Someone had a schedule of his plan posted a while back, I'll try to find it.

Those who keep repeating $250,000---- don't believe anything else they tell you either.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Does this tax also effect business owners in which the company makes $250,000 and the business gets taxed. Because that is what it was before. Then if that is so.....I get nailed by this tax.

I am a 1/4 owner in a company.....so i would get taxed even more. Then the tax breaks they are talking about would not off set this business tax.

So small business owners would get hit. They don't make themselves $250,000.....but the business could be.

But I look at it like this.......look at history. Old England wanted to tax and tax more. What happened......people started a revolution. Now to compare the two is a far fetch. But it is becoming more and more of a reality. Just think about it.


----------



## SiouxperDave25 (Oct 6, 2002)

R y a n said:


> Does anyone here pull in more than $250,000 a year?


Not yet.

--------------------------------



Plainsman said:


> Don't forget the democrats always lie about taxes also. If you make 40,000 or something like that you will pay more taxes. Obama's tax plan is to tax nearly everyone more. Someone had a schedule of his plan posted a while back, I'll try to find it.
> 
> Those who keep repeating $250,000---- don't believe anything else they tell you either.


Plainsman, Is this the graphic you are referring to?


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

SiouxperDave25 said:


> R y a n said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone here pull in more than $250,000 a year?
> ...


Soon enough siouxperDave


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> Does anyone here pull in more than $250,000 a year?


Hell yes and thats just from outfitting (just kidding)

Hey Ryan what about Obama increasing the capital gains, that will effect most of us.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

SiouxperDave25 said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > Don't forget the democrats always lie about taxes also. If you make 40,000 or something like that you will pay more taxes. Obama's tax plan is to tax nearly everyone more. Someone had a schedule of his plan posted a while back, I'll try to find it.
> ...


Yes Plainsman. This is the graphic I also assumed folks were talking about, as this is the one that has been put out as a reference.

Now given this graph folks tell me... how does this affect you?

I guranantee I can tell you for a fact that those making over $300,000 all have assets that are being sheltered, and this increase does NOT affect them.

All this is is a BIG bunch of grandstanding at its finest.

Ryan


----------



## LuckCounts (Aug 8, 2008)

They hide in plain sight. They promise to raise taxes and tell everyone the other side will raise taxes. There are many that will blindly believe them. I know the arguement will be they are only going to tax people making in excess of $250,000 a year or some other arbitrary amount. What they don't tell you is that there are a lot of small business owners that fuel our economy that fall into the advanced tax rate. They are too small to file under a business and assume those costs so they file as individuals. Many of them struggle to make ends meet and more taxes will prove to be too much of a burden


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

g/o said:


> > Does anyone here pull in more than $250,000 a year?
> 
> 
> Hell yes and thats just from outfitting (just kidding)
> ...


:lol: I need to get into guiding quick then!

I agree G/O that the Captial Gains increases are ridiculous.

Obama is out in left field on that idea. It will never pass in its current form. There is no way they'll allow the types of penalties/taxation he is requesting.


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

I see I am getting no answer.....

As with most that think like this, it is ok as long as it is the other guy getting the shaft and I am reaping the benifit.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

LuckCounts said:


> What they don't tell you is that there are a lot of small business owners that fuel our economy that fall into the advanced tax rate.
> 
> They are too small to file under a business and assume those costs so they file as individuals.
> 
> Many of them struggle to make ends meet and more taxes will prove to be too much of a burden


I'm sorry but this is NOT a reason to oppose the plan.

If those small business owners are crafty enough to survive (as 80% of small businesses fail in their first fiscal year), they will undoubtedly incorporate to protect their risk of exposure (liability).

If they assume those costs on their own, that is simply a part of doing business, and I'd argue they are trying to scam by with some form of a tax loophole to avoid paying into payroll or business taxes.

I speak from personal experience here, as I setup a Corporation for my consulting company a few years back, and had to pay in both sides of Federal Withholding, as I was my own employee under the corporate shield.

Anyone who doesn't incorporate is foolish, as the tax benefits to amortize assets, write off business expenses, and shelter your personal assets makes it a no brainer.

If those folks "struggle to make ends meet", it is likely they are not good business managers, and deserve to be working a 9-5 vs owning their own business.

My .02

Ryan


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

MSG Rude said:


> R y a n said:
> 
> 
> > How many people here would have to pay in to this tax? How many here would benefit?
> ...


I see you are looking for an answer to this?

Go take a look at siouxperdave's example above again.

What to you mean it is not "us"? It is not an "us" vs "them" equation. This is about a fundamental change in how we are taxed in general, and how revenue is generated. He essentially wants to change the formula by which goverment gets to tax folks.

Are you scared of change?

This has nothing to do with "taking from the haves" and "giving to the have nots"... UNLESS you are one of the haves (> $300,000/yr) giving to the have nots (<$299,999)

I don't think most people here have proper perspective on who qualifies as a "have" vs a "have not" in this new tax plan.

Those of you making less than $40,000 a year are all receiving a ton more benefits from society than you pay in. Let's call an apple an apple here. The grandstanding going on over taking from the rich to give to the poor analogy just doesn't work anymore.

It always amazes me when folks put down Democratic ideas to ensure that certain social aspects of society are taken care of, even simple fundamental things. You all benefit from many everyday things that you take for granted or "enjoy" that are a direct result of a social program. I really don't think many know how good they have it compared to if it didn't exist.

The problem with Democrats, is that the fringe of the group try socializing TOO MANY things beyond the basics. THAT is the folks you should be fighting, not a blanket mandate to block all social change.

Hope you understand where I'm trying to come from...

Thanks

Ryan


----------



## LuckCounts (Aug 8, 2008)

Ryan,
Stop trying to dig into someone elses pocket. Who do you think eventually pays for taxes? It always comes down to the end user. It's a cost of doing business and it will be passed on and you and I will eventually pay it. Every time there is a decrease in taxes there is an upturn in the economy. When taxes are used to redistribute wealth, it kills business. There is so much talk about taking someone's money and putting it into programs. Let's have socialized medicine, housing for those that can't afford it themselves, food programs, the list goes on. Everytime we accept these programs from the government we get closer to a communist state. I'm not saying we shouldn't help the needy, and I do through various charities, I'm saying the government shouldn't take my money and distribute it to someone else that is able but not willing to do what it takes to make ends meet. I struggled as much as anybody, and worked 4 jobs to make ends meet. Wasn't an easy existence, but what I have is mine and I did it without government intervention. the thought that government is trying to put a limit on what you can make is a sickening thought. Why would anyone try to achieve more and more in life it they get punished for it in the end. All the "evil" corporations employ a lot of citizens. And we wonder why outsourcing has become so prevalent. Open your mind, get off of the big 3 Television (not news because they don't report they provide opinion) stations, look for impartial reporting, and keep America free.


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

*R y a n wrote:*



> How many people here would have to pay in to this tax? How many here would benefit?
> 
> Just curious?
> 
> Does anyone here pull in more than $250,000 a year?


These three lines right here equate to the "us" mentality you are showing.



> He's talking about the top 1 or 3% (can't remember the %) of tax earners.


So again your words refer to the point that it will not matter to "us" as we don't fit that bracket.



> This "plan" won't affect anyone.


Well, which is it? "...won't affect anyone" or top 1 0r 3%? Here is a R y a n 'gaff' that all have become so proud of posting. In the same post you say it won't affect anyone and also that it will affect some. Going to point out your own 'gaff'?



> Most of those who earn in excess of $250,000 won't notice a $5,000 increase in taxes folks.


Spoken like a true Democrat. They "won't notice it"..nice, real nice. that is the American way isn't it? _'They won't notice it missing anyways because they have so much so lets take more' _mentality is sickening to me.



> I'm astounded to hear that people decry this as another Dem tax increase..


Ummm... maybe I missed something in one of my 3 business degrees but I think that , _"Biden says he and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama want to



"take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people."

Click to expand...

_ means that it is an increase.

Before you go on one of your 5 paragraph rants and tell me that I am wrong and people are reading it wrong and it is all smoke and mirrors and Rep B.S.; I am just quoting you and Biden here...no one else. it is what he said and you wrote....


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> This has nothing to do with "taking from the haves" and "giving to the have nots"... UNLESS you are one of the haves (> $300,000/yr) giving to the have nots (<$299,999)


What kind of circuitous thinking is that? Good grief talk about ---- I can't even begin to explain my disappontment in your lack of logic. It takes nothing from the have unless you make over $300,000???? I worked for a salary and as I am retaired now I am far below $40,000 and I guarantee you I will pay more taxes under Obama. What are you saying Ryan, people that make more than $300,000 are not worthy of consideration.
You mentioned you had incorporated for a better tax shelter. You must be able to hide a lot, so the Obama tax plan will give you money. 
There is obviously something you don't understand Ryan, people that make over $300,000 are just as much a human as you are.



> I don't think most people here have proper perspective on who qualifies as a "have" vs a "have not" in this new tax plan.


I think you need to seriously take some time and think about this Ryan. Your perspective is disturbing.



> Those of you making less than $40,000 a year are all receiving a ton more benefits from society than you pay in. Let's call an apple an apple here. The grandstanding going on over taking from the rich to give to the poor analogy just doesn't work anymore.


BS. However, if I do get all these benefits your evidently promissing me who is going to pay for them MSG Rude? Doesn't that bother you? I don't know about you Ryan, but I have enough pride not to take money like a beggar. These are actuall real people paying for it Ryan, not some robot not worth our consideration. How disappointing that there are any people out there that think this way. :eyeroll:

Maybe we could just get a cup and some pencils and stand on a street corner. No different than a common beggar. Ya, the government is magic, just gives you money that you think your entitled to. I'm nearly speechless.

Sorry, my dignity doesn't have a price on it. I hope someday you understand what a freeloader is. I am certainly happy I am not leaving children that think this way behind. God help America.


----------



## LuckCounts (Aug 8, 2008)

_Ryan Said, 
I'm sorry but this is NOT a reason to oppose the plan.

If those small business owners are crafty enough to survive (as 80% of small businesses fail in their first fiscal year), they will undoubtedly incorporate to protect their risk of exposure (liability).

If they assume those costs on their own, that is simply a part of doing business, and I'd argue they are trying to scam by with some form of a tax loophole to avoid paying into payroll or business taxes.

I speak from personal experience here, as I setup a Corporation for my consulting company a few years back, and had to pay in both sides of Federal Withholding, as I was my own employee under the corporate shield.

Anyone who doesn't incorporate is foolish, as the tax benefits to amortize assets, write off business expenses, and shelter your personal assets makes it a no brainer.

If those folks "struggle to make ends meet", it is likely they are not good business managers, and deserve to be working a 9-5 vs owning their own business. _

[/quote]

Looks like you think you have all of the answers. You want to tell every small business owner how to run his/her business. Speak of their foolishness for not following your plan, and tell them they are not intelligent enough to follow their dream. No wonder you're on the soap box for Obama. Of course it is a valid reason and small business owners are not the only ones that will fill the pinch. Don't be a hater because someone has been more successfull than me, you or anyone else for that matter. Everyone has an equal chance to be successful in America, and you want to beat down the ones that achieve something. What about the people that work hard for 20 years before they finally achieve whatever the benchmark is going to be set at? Just because someone struggles to make ends meet doesn't mean they are not good business managers. They might be fantastic and lesser individuals would have lost their business (and, by the way, laid off the people that worked for them) many years ago.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

yep it is my quotes.

who said I was implying otherwise? Geeeshhh

This is precisely why topics can't be hashed over. From the get go the perspective isn't there to understand the points. Simply put you apparently refuse to acknowledge certain points, and on others you can't possibly understand the viewpoint from someone who is living that life. Rather, It is all easy quotes and straight numbers... and I won't take the time to expand further.

No 5 paragraphs needed. I'm done.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

SiouxperDave25, no that is not the graph I was looking for. The one I was looking for showed an increased tax for people down to somewhere around $24,000.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> > This has nothing to do with "taking from the haves" and "giving to the have nots"... UNLESS you are one of the haves (> $300,000/yr) giving to the have nots (<$299,999)
> 
> 
> What kind of circuitous thinking is that? Good grief talk about ---- I can't even begin to explain my disappontment in your lack of logic. It takes nothing from the have unless you make over $300,000????


Not what I am saying at all.



Plainsman said:


> I worked for a salary and as I am retaired now I am far below $40,000 and I guarantee you I will pay more taxes under Obama. What are you saying Ryan, people that make more than $300,000 are not worthy of consideration.


NOOO this is NOT what I'm saying! Geesh! I'm saying that the ones being taxed more are those making in excess of $300,000 a year! But go LOOK at the graphic from SiouxperDave! How much more will they be taxed? Nothing more than they are now! Further, anyone in that position has a diversified portfolio, a tax accountant, 2 or 3 lawyers, and at least 1 tax shelter. FURTHER they don't worry about a tax increase as much, as it IS a cost of business to them.



Plainsman said:


> You mentioned you had incorporated for a better tax shelter. You must be able to hide a lot, so the Obama tax plan will give you money.
> There is obviously something you don't understand Ryan, people that make over $300,000 are just as much a human as you are.


Nice put down.



> I don't think most people here have proper perspective on who qualifies as a "have" vs a "have not" in this new tax plan.





Plainsman said:


> I think you need to seriously take some time and think about this Ryan. Your perspective is disturbing.


You are completely and wholly misunderstanding my point.



> Those of you making less than $40,000 a year are all receiving a ton more benefits from society than you pay in. Let's call an apple an apple here. The grandstanding going on over taking from the rich to give to the poor analogy just doesn't work anymore.





Plainsman said:


> BS. However, if I do get all these benefits your evidently promissing me who is going to pay for them MSG Rude? Doesn't that bother you? I don't know about you Ryan, but I have enough pride not to take money like a beggar. These are actuall real people paying for it Ryan, not some robot not worth our consideration. How disappointing that there are any people out there that think this way. :eyeroll:
> 
> Maybe we could just get a cup and some pencils and stand on a street corner. No different than a common beggar. Ya, the government is magic, just gives you money that you think your entitled to. I'm nearly speechless.
> 
> Sorry, my dignity doesn't have a price on it. I hope someday you understand what a freeloader is. I am certainly happy I am not leaving children that think this way behind. God help America.


I'm speechless. Never have I had more of my thoughts mischaractereized, distorted and twisted to try and make me look bad. This is so far WAY off base, I'll not even bother commenting further.

All of you should be ashamed for thinking this of me.

It's truly shocking to see folks not trying to understand what I'm trying to say, and instead immediately leap up to attack me.

Guess it is different when it is me being attacked. It is ok then I guess.

I'm finished commenting. Words don't express my disgust.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> This has nothing to do with "taking from the haves" and "giving to the have nots"... UNLESS you are one of the haves (> $300,000/yr) giving to the have nots (<$299,999)


Well if the above isn't double talk then either I don't understand or you need to find some way to express yourself so people can understand. Perhaps it's like the line in the old movie Cool Hand Luke "what we have hear is a failure to communicate". Don't assume the problem is everyone else. 
I don't know what you intended to say, but what got to my ears was if your making over $300,000 a year you don't deserve consideration. Also, it appears that you have your assets protected, you don't care about a small business that goes under because you deam them stupid, and it doesn't bother you to get money that someone else has had taken from them. It's the kind of followers Obama wants.

You are telling me how wonderful it will be for me because I will get so many benefits because I now make less than $40,000 right? Some rich worthless guy is going to shoulder my share of the load right? What have I got wrong?


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

R y a n said:


> I'm speechless. Never have I had more of my thoughts mischaractereized, distorted and twisted to try and make me look bad. This is so far WAY off base, I'll not even bother commenting further.


Ryan if so many have "mischaractereized" you, maybe it's not them. We can only read what you write, not guess at what you are thinking.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> This has nothing to do with "taking from the haves" and "giving to the have nots"... UNLESS you are one of the haves (> $300,000/yr) giving to the have nots (<$299,999)





> NOOO this is NOT what I'm saying! Geesh! I'm saying that the ones being taxed more are those making in excess of $300,000 a year! But go LOOK at the graphic from SiouxperDave! How much more will they be taxed? Nothing more than they are now! Further, anyone in that position has a diversified portfolio, a tax accountant, 2 or 3 lawyers, and at least 1 tax shelter. FURTHER they don't worry about a tax increase as much, as it IS a cost of business to them.


So those making over $300,000 are the ones paying the bill. However, they have so many resources at hand that they will not pay anything, they will pass it on to their business. 
Well, you can't have it both ways. They pay the bill vs, they get out of it. Where is the money coming from, only the businesses they own? How do they stay in business? Maybe they pass that expense on to the customer. Who pays the tax in reality? I would say anyone who buys their products. Could that be someone who makes only $20,000? Sure it depends on the product. If it's caviar perhaps not, but if they produce pork and beans they may be hitting the poorest of the poor. Someone pays Ryan. Have you ever heard the old cliche "there is no free lunch".


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> leap up to attack me.


Were not attacking you, but I certainly questioning your logic. Your thinking way to simplistic. There are consequences to taxing what you consider the rich.

I have a question for everyone. How long until the liberals start to dictate what is fair in many other things in our lives? Do we need a schedule of the price for say a theater ticket? Maybe something like:

Annual Salary/theater ticket price
$300,000 -----Theater ticket $100
$200,000------Theater ticket $50
$100,000------Theater ticket $25
$50,000--------Theater ticket $5
$25,000--------Theater ticket Free
$20,000--------Theater gives you $10 back
$15,000--------Theater gives you $50 back
$10,000--------Theater gives you $100 back
On Welfare-----Theater gives you lifetime pass, $100 every time you show up, free popcorn, free soda, and apologizes for making a profit off anyone making less than $25,000.

In their nirvana this could extend to groceries, vehicles, hair cuts, the list is endless.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

R y a n said:


> NOOO this is NOT what I'm saying! Geesh! I'm saying that the ones being taxed more are those making in excess of $300,000 a year! But go LOOK at the graphic from SiouxperDave! *How much more will they be taxed? Nothing more than they are now!* Further, anyone in that position has a diversified portfolio, a tax accountant, 2 or 3 lawyers, and at least 1 tax shelter. FURTHER they don't worry about a tax increase as much, as it IS a cost of business to them.


If those over $300,000 a year are not going to, in your reality, pay anymore then how is this going to produce more revenue for the gov.?


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

R y a n said:


> .
> 
> This has nothing to do with "taking from the haves" and "giving to the have nots"... UNLESS you are one of the haves (> $300,000/yr) giving to the have nots (<$299,999)


Holy Crap, did you see what you wrote? You basically said its not a Robin Hood issue unless you're the one paying for it!! Its like saying its only theft if you are the one whos property is stolen, or that its only hot if you're the one outside sweating. Thats crazy. Taking from the rich, and redistributing that money to lower income earners is income redistribution, no matter how you slice it.



R y a n said:


> Those of you making less than $40,000 a year are all receiving a ton more benefits from society than you pay in. Let's call an apple an apple here. The grandstanding going on over taking from the rich to give to the poor analogy just doesn't work anymore.


As a person who will likely only gross approx $30,000 this year, I argue the point that I shouldnt ***** because Im reaping the benefits. ITs true that Im likely to receive all of my taxdollars back. Its also true that its possible I'll receive more than I paid in due to my various write offs, credits, and what have you. HOWEVER!!! I have a firm grasp on politics, financial responcibility, and in general I have a pretty good idea of how the world works. I argue that if more people at my income level had to pay some portion of taxes, instead of just thinkin they pay taxes while they are waiting for that huge refund, that more people in general would make an effort to educate themselves about how are government works. these people might actually begin to vote for more than just a party next to a name. In fact, I argue that paying a fair share of taxes might actually encourage more people to work harder, and improve themselves.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

R y a n said:


> How many people here would have to pay in to this tax? How many here would benefit?
> 
> Just curious?
> 
> ...


the problem here is this...even NO-bama KNOWS he can't generate enough revenue taxing the top 5% of wage earners.....most people know that (are you listening ryan?).....you can't give a "free ride" to the other 95%......duh??

so what HE IS NOT TELLING YOU, is he has an energy consumption tax, inheritance tax plan, 401K windfall profits tax plan......and the list goes on and one.....taxing energy consumption will be his biggest revenue generating tool......it just won't apply to the "free loaders"......er, i mean the po' folks who don't want to work.....it is all part of "the plan".....to tax folks into conservation and unknowingly to bankrupt the economy...this idiot has no clue when it comes to economics......green jobs my ***!


----------



## LuckCounts (Aug 8, 2008)

And then there's the tax policy report that says,

Obama, has put together a fairly conventional Democratic tax plan that if inacted would raise the national debt by a staggering $3.3 trillion over the next decade.

Who pays for that?


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

Longshot said:


> R y a n said:
> 
> 
> > I'm speechless. Never have I had more of my thoughts mischaractereized, distorted and twisted to try and make me look bad. This is so far WAY off base, I'll not even bother commenting further.
> ...


 :beer:


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Ryan ... this whole thought process you have going on here can be made to sound silly in so many ways it's truely rediculous.

You are implying it's OK for you to walk up my street knocking on doors with a gun in hand ... telling each of my neighbors (including myself) as we open the door how much of our aquired wealth we need to give to YOU.

So that you can in turn go give that money to folks whom you think deserving.

Since you know full well you could never get away with showing up at my door with a gun in hand telling me how much of my personal wealth I must give you ... you hire someone else to do it ... a Politician.

And before you say, "that's just silly thinking" ... Keep one thing in mind ... If I fail to pay taxes for long enough there will indeed eventually be a man with a gun knocking on my door because those politicians want my wealth.

The Founders of this Great Country would cry out loud over what the Country has become ... however they did in deed see the realities and were very, very fearful of this very thing.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" ... straight out of the Communist Manifesto my young lad.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

I'll also add this:

The Bush tax cuts expire in 2010. Obama can pretend that by not extending them he had no part in that tax increase ... and trust me that one will affect everyone cross the board, unless you are someone paying nearly no taxes at all to begin with.


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

And this is why obama is going down in a ball of flames.

We have learned many different times in the past that if you try to screw over the most properous amongst us what happens? They quit spending money, therefore rampant iflation, small buisiness failures, and LESS revenue for the government, less jobs for the people, rampant unemployment, and business's leaving the country.

Taxes are not the issue, government spending and handouts are the issue.

Quit paying for illegals healthcare, medicare is going to have to have some serious changes, because as it stands, it is going to cost more than social security within 10 years, boot the illegals out of the country, and their kids, and fine the crap out of any company hiring them. Quit sending billions to foreign countries until our economic situation stabilize's. Use our resources to stabilize Iraq and get out.

Get back to the basics, roads, bridges, infrastructure, energy research, which in turn rewards citizens for hard work and ingenuity, and gets us well in front of the rest of the world, which is exactly where we belong. Although NOFREAKINGBAMMA would call that unfair.

Politicians can't face the fact that nothing in life has to do with being fair. Being fair gets you crap. The government needs to get back to regulating to protect the majority of the population from those that are unscrupulous and have the power to manipulate the finacial world and get out of trying to legislate how the population lives.

The American way has always been that the best and the hardest working reap the rewards, it is nothing but blatant communism to take those rewards to redistribute to those whom have done nothing to recieve them.

Now there is a certain percentage of the population that may face some issues not of their fault, be it mental or physiological, that the government will have to take care of, but that is probably less than one tenth of a percent of the population.

Anyone can move in this country to find better work, pretty much everyone can go to college to better themselves, why should those that do better themselves pay for those that dont.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

I think the way Professor Kamerschen explains why the idea of taxing the rich at a higher rate sucks so badly is the best I've seen so far. And don't forget that MANY of the problems we are facing as a nation nowadays is a result of this stupid idea that as long as it doesn't directly affect me...it must be OK !!!!!!! 

Keep this in mind when you're casting your ballot in November!

Bar Stool Economics (AKA; The Liberal / Democrat Agenda)

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers, he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.

But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings) .
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings) .
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'

'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. ' I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'

'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them
for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Csquared said:


> I think the way Professor Kamerschen explains why the idea of taxing the rich at a higher rate sucks so badly is the best I've seen so far. And don't forget that MANY of the problems we are facing as a nation nowadays is a result of this stupid idea that as long as it doesn't directly affect me...it must be OK !!!!!!!


*sigh*

Just like most analogies tumbling around the internet, there's a glaring problem with this explanation that gets completely overlooked.

The tenth man actually drinks *71% of the beer (wealth)* while the first four men only drink less than 1%. (How's that 1 oz. shot of beer taste boys?) :roll:

In fact, if that tenth man were named...ohhhh, I don't know, _*Warren Buffet*_, he'd tell you that he actually pays less of a percentage for the beer he drinks than his secretary, who is probably one of the first four guys. He'd even give a million beers to another tenth-guy-in-a-bar who could prove they pay more as a percentage for beer then the first four guys (google "buffet challenge ceo's").

Furthermore, consider where is the tenth man going to move to if he does get beaten up? Haiti? Have fun. His standard of beer would drop significantly. Oh no, I bet its Europe because there is lots of beer there. Wait, now he's paying more for beer!

Actually, here's a better question. How often do these rich beer drinkers actually change their bars?

Hmm?

For those who understand, no explanation is needed. 
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

:eyeroll:


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Please find where it says the tenth man drank more beer and post it, because I didn't see it.

But if you're talking figuratively, the wealthy man takes virtually nothing out of the fund as a whole. He is merely a contributor. The poor are the takers....or "drinkers" in this case, because they pay nothing but receive the funds.

Don't confuse money earned with money given :wink:


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Oh, almost forgot......

Thanks for the reply :beer:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Good grief. Ryan try again you clearly didn't get it. Nothing is said about ow much beer they are drinking, nothing is implied, just stick with the data we have. Try not to put liberal spin on absolutely everything in life. I mean wiping your behind with Charmin instead of White Cloud doesn't make you a rich pig. Don't leave the reason reservation on us.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

I read your post again, Ryan, and I think your mistake is assuming the beer in the professor's analogy is representative of wealth.

It is not.

The beer represents that umbrella of protection provided by the U.S. to all it's citizens.

All that comes with a price...just like beer, but the ones who huddle under that umbrella the most, pay the least. So I think it would be far more accurate to assume the 4 guys who didn't pay drank the most beer !!!! 

Sorry I missed your point the first time


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Woah!

Wait a minute here!

Come to think of it....Isn't that unpatriotic to your bar to change when you already pay less as a percentage for the amount of beer you drink than your fellow bar patron?

Someone does need to kick this tenth guy's butt, he's drinking all our beer and not loyal to our bar!

How dare he! His buddies are so thirsty and have gotten fat off his generosity in so many ways.

Shall we keep continuing with the false analogy?

[edit] Sorry 'bout missing your update above. I was typing when you sent this.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Csquared said:


> I read your post again, Ryan, and I think your mistake is assuming the beer in the professor's analogy is representative of wealth.
> 
> It is not.
> 
> ...


Sure it is wealth. Don't misconstrue the intent.

That is_ *the* _problem with the analogy.

No worries about missing the point. Most folks do quite often. They truly don't understand the context of the taxation issue, even though they think they do.

Have a great night.

Ryan


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> No worries about missing the point. Most folks do quite often. They truly don't understand the context of the taxation issue, even though they think they do.


 :eyeroll:


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

> No worries about missing the point. Most folks do quite often. They truly don't understand the context of the taxation issue, even though they think they do.


I understand perfectly. All the money I earn in January, February, March, April and the first week in May goes to the government. Very basic in my mind. Under NO bama that will extend till Independce Day which in case you don't know is July 4th :lol:

Ryan do a search and find out which famous Democrate said "You can't tax this country into prosperity" Back then I was even a Democrate.
Holy Moly I even scare myself sometimes :wink:


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Ryan wrote:


> The tenth man actually drinks 71% of the beer (wealth) while the first four men only drink less than 1%. (How's that 1 oz. shot of beer taste boys?)


Ryan also wrote:


> Sure it is wealth. Don't misconstrue the intent.


Ryan, seriously, you need help. Nowhere does it mention the amount of beer consumed, nor is it pertinent, and it's very obvious to everyone but you that all 10 men are enjoying the BEER equally. Could not be the case if the beer represented wealth, as it was clearly explained that all 10 men were in different tax brackets. The beer was not the question. The issue in question is how it was paid for.

I'll try to remember to search some sites specializing in grade school analogies for your benefit next time. I guess professors are over your head.

How do you say that.....whoooosh?

You have a great night also :beer:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Back then I was even a Democrate.
> Holy Moly I even scare myself sometimes


Don't worry Zogman I was once a democrat also, but Jimmy Carter cured me. 
It's like that old joke and I'll change the names to bring it up to date.

Obama sees this little boy sitting in his yard with a batch of puppies. He says to the little boy "my those are cut pups you have". The little boy says "yes, they are democrat puppies". Obama thinks this is cute, pats the little boy on the head and proceeds on his way. A couple weeks later he sees the same little boy and asks "how are your democrat puppies"? The little boy says "they are republican puppies now". Obama says "oh, why is that'? The little boy says "last week they opened their eyes".


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Update on Biden's comments. It looks like he might have earned himself some handlers. Now the democrat party has to have handlers for their two top guys. Ya, they must be geniuses. :rollin: I guess Biden has always been known for having a big mouth. I didn't know that until watching some people talking about his past performance. He evidently has a reputation of opening his mouth before putting his brain in gear.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> I guess Biden has always been known for having a big mouth. I didn't know that until watching some people talking about his past performance. He evidently has a reputation of opening his mouth before putting his brain in gear.


yep he does...

no doubt there..


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I had to laugh at (darn I can't remember his name at the moment) he said "isn't Biden going to give poor people the opportunity to be patriotic too? If paying taxes makes you patriotic he had a point. Good sense of humor anyway.


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

Ryan, you already answered why taxing the rich won't work and didn't know it.

The rich, or so called rich, can afford to "hide" their money, hence less money comes in.

How come every time in history that the US has reduced taxes has the federal goverments revenue went up? Reinvestment. By having more money to reinvest in business and expand, more money enters the system, getting recycled through to be taxed again at a lower rate. It also increases production which reduces prices.

Look at CA, old Gray out Davis was going to tax the states way to prosperity, which got him recalled as the large companies exited left and right. Old Arnold gets in, throws all the tax increases out, and Walla, revenue's go up for the gov't.

Some day we will wake up and see how stupid the income tax system is and revert to a national sales tax.

NoBamma is a communist, plain and simple. Socialism has been proven to fail over and over. Democracies fail when the people let them change over to socialism.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

southdakbearfan said:


> Ryan, you already answered why taxing the rich won't work and didn't know it.
> 
> The rich, or so called rich, can afford to "hide" their money, hence less money comes in.
> 
> ...


We agree SDBearfan!

But they can't hide payroll taxes, and they can't shelter all of their capital gains. In the end they still get taxed much more heavily than you or I.

I also agree on a small national sales tax with a locked in 10 year rate, however I'd combine it with a lower income tax rate across the board. In that fashion, we'd have a true use tax combined with a smaller income tax, whilst removing loopholes for multi billionaires.

However we do need to maintain certain types of tax breaks that allow small corporations certain advantages. It provides many smaller startup companies, and saavy entrepreneurs the ability to start small, and get ahead of the rat race. Without those small advantages, (being able to write down business expenses, etc), most companies would fail in even higher percentages than currently is the case. Good ideas or services that might have a chance to survive would get walloped trying to get their feet on the ground by more established competitors.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Subject: Heaven or Hell
While walking down the street one day a US senator is 
tragically hit by a truck and dies.
His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance.
'Welcome to heaven,' says St. Peter. 'Before you settle in,it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we're not sure what to do with you. No problem, just let me in,' says the man.
'Well, I'd like to, but I have orders from higher up. What we'll do is have you spend one day in hell and one in heaven.
Then you can choose where to spend eternity. Really, I've made up my mind. I want to be in heaven,says the senator. I'm sorry, but we have our rules.
And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him.
Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people.
They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and champagne.
Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly guy who has a good time dancing and telling jokes. They are having such a good time that before he realizes it, it is time to go.
Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises...
The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens on heaven where St.Peter is waiting for him.
Now it's time to visit heaven.
So, 24 hours pass with the senator joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns.
Well, then, you've spent a day in hell and another in heaven. 
Now,choose your eternity.
The senator reflects for a minute, then he answers: Well, I 
would never have said it before, I mean heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in hell.
So St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down,down, down to hell.
Now the doors of the elevator open and he's in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage.
He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more trash falls from above.
The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulder. 
'I don't understand,' stammers the senator. 
'Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, and danced and had a great time. Now there's just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable. 
What happened?'

The devil looks at him, smiles and says, 'Yesterday we were 
campaigning... Today you voted.

Sorry ....couldn't resist ryan :wink:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> But they can't hide payroll taxes, and they can't shelter all of their capital gains. In the end they still get taxed much more heavily than you or I.


OK, one step at a time. In the end Ryan who pays those taxes?


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Ryan we fall into that bent over tax bracket. I don't have tax shelters or anything like that. We are still paying on student loans which we cannot deduct from taxes. Can you? Why are we second class citizens because we went to school for 11 years, finished with 150,000 dollars in student loans, work an AVERAGE work week of 80-100 hours? You think since we worked that hard we must be the ones to pay for the ones that work 20 hours a week, put more money into beer, cigerettes, lotto and gambling than there retirement fund. (If you want to generalize and stereotype then I can too). There are 7 medical providers in my clinic. There are 110 employees that have a job because of those 7 providers. Slap us with MORE of the tax burden and likey we will be looking for a job in a more populated place with a mere 60 hour work week and more time to be spent with our families.

Now if you can extrapolate that very small scenario out to a big corporation. Lets say ummmm Microsoft. How much will the guys running the company have to pay before they just outsource to say Vietnam? Then when the jobs are cut I can pay for them too. The wealthy are not an untapped well they are already nearly tapped out.


----------



## crna (Nov 7, 2002)

i believe that the fundamental difference between people who agree with democrats and those who agree with republican thinking can be illustrated in the Katrina disaster. it perfectly illustrates the problem with socialism in this country. we have people who absolutely need help from the government and those that suck the government dry and then cry racism towards the federal government when no one picks them up and takes them to safety meanwhile their gutless mayor is hiding out in a hotel and a state government whose plan was to hope and pray it would never get this bad. Ryan, contrast Katrina with what happened in Iowa this summer or in grand forks in 1997. did you hear people complain that the federal government was not there right away to help, no, what you saw was people both rich and poor roll up their sleeves and getting to work. 
a democrats mentality = you can't do it yourself so the government will do it for you and that means taking from somenone else.
a republicans mentality = we will provide you with the OPPORTUNITY to do it but its up to you to make it a reality
Ryan, no person here says that someone should live in udder poverty or sickness, we all believe that people should have a life of dignity but not entitlement!!


----------

