I think that will actually be included in next years 1040s. There will be box under the tax exemptions status giving you the option to "Not hand over a single dime to you rat-commies on account of my belief in the American Dream." I'm sure the IRS will be very understanding. You might want to ask this guy how your plan will work out:
Disclaimer: This is not to say all rich people feel this way but this is for those who may think in this regards or who may be responsible. The well-to-do own the companies that ship jobs and money away from the economy. The well-to-do made obscene amounts of money from unwell-to-do's bad mistakes on mortgages and credit. The well-to-do were bailed out by the not so well-to-do to make sure they keep going. Ghetto Cheeze and all who think like you: We are all responsible for each other in some way or another. No man has became rich without gov't or unwell-to-do peoples help. Even lottery winners. If you are making 500K at your company you own. You probably employ unwell-to-do's who you want to pay the same taxes as you eventhough the rising cost of living is more effective on them then yourselves. The well to do who owns a company that allows him to reap more than 250K also is able to reap all the benefits IRS gives to business owners. That which you unwell to do employees don't have There are unwell to do people who take advantage of welfare. There are ALSO well to do's that take advantage of the welfare system. There are lazy people who mismanage their money. But there are wealthy people who are lazy and mismanage money. What matters is who can afford to do and cannot afford to do? Well to do can afford to mismanage there money on more occasions than a non well-to-do can? A Well-to-do can invest and be rewarded much better on most occasions than a non well-to-do. A well-to-do afford losses in the market much better on most occasions that a non well to do Which allows me to believe that well-to-do can afford a bit more tax increase then a non well to do
With everything I have learned from ling ling and ghettocheeze, I can't wait for the new administration. Since my last name begins with an "A" I sure hope they redistribute the wealth in alphabetical order. When they begin redistributing the land I got dibs on the W property in Crawford.
ok, I feel better now. Everyone is going to get taxed more. http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/10/marginal-tax-ra.html October 9, 2008 Marginal Tax Rates Under Obama (50%), McCain (40%) The Tax Foundation has published How Do the Presidential Candidates’ Tax Plans Affect Taxpayers’ Marginal Tax Rates?, by Robert Carroll: The Presidential candidates have proposed comprehensive tax plans that reshape tax policy in important ways. The two candidates have put forward two very different visions, with Senator Obama's tax plan emphasizing redistribution and Senator McCain's tax plan focusing more on economic growth. A perhaps neglected aspect of their tax plans is how they alter effective marginal tax rates, the amount of tax that people pay out of their last dollar of income. ...
If this tax was only going to affect wall street hedge fund managers and the mortgage loan sharks I hope you wouldn't hear nearly as much complaining about the tax. Fact is those people made millions upon millions of dollars by manipulating the system and screwing ordinary people. They made much more in a year than 250K. If you're looking for someone to tax I hope no one has a problem taxing them more. But you're making the mistake those very same people want you to make... you're mixing them and ambitious upper middle class people together as if they were one and the same. They are not.
Remember the disclaimer at the top of my post. It was not to group them together. But to make a reference to those who have. Take a look.
You are making less sense by the minute, cheezeman. And what's a "prole?" Having trouble with your spelling?
You want to dive into the deep sea of technicality then so be it. 1) I am not opposed to a tax increase if the economy needs it and quite frankly our deficit at this time has no real solution other than taxation so I am ready in the future for a tax increase. However the current reward the poor to buy votes for Barrack Obama campaign fraud has no appeal to me. 2) America's economic crisis is a result of the people and the government both playing equal parts. The average American is not a producer but a consumer who lives above his means through debt and credit. While the big government overspends billions of dollars and create a massive deficit knowing all too well that the indebted consumer has no means to cover this deficit through taxation. 3) Now here's a question to you, this proposed bailout plan for 700 billion, who do you think will pay for this, the rich or the poor who pay no taxes? Now some will argue that the taxpayer is paying nothing upfront right now but tell me where is the money coming from? The treasury is printing money and injecting like steroids into the financial banking system. At some point in the future it will have to monetize this through taxation. 4) So now its understood, the taxpayer and the highest bracket within will cover this bailout in the near future but the gravy train doesn't stop there. Barrack Obama wants to reward those with zero net contribution with more free cash to promote more irresponsible spending. 5) Both McCain and Obama have no plans to cut spending, their proposed budgets are similar to the spending of the current administration. So how will the government balance the deficit? Look I am not applauding the current system and calling it "fair" and "perfect" but there are degrees to everything and it was acceptable to me. The new plan is not in my best interest and I have given you my laundry list of reasons why.
Thanks for the response. But how is Obama unique in that? Every candidate on both sides offers middle class tax cuts during a campaign. Agree with this. I disagree - I expect the bailout to be a net positive to the taxpayer (or at least, fairly close to breakeven). Barring the total collapse of the US banking system, the $250B being invested in bank equity should net a profit. And assuming we avoid a depression, the purchase of the MBS should also come out somewhere near even or profitable. As do Republicans - this is the idea behind the tax rebates that both parties support. I agree - this is a very real problem. Fair enough - but the seeming sticking point of the Obama tax proposal is just not that big a change. It's weird to be so harshly against it. It involves moving the tax rates for the top tier back to 1999 levels (about 4% higher). That's about it. It's not like we're going to pre-Reagan levels - that was a real shift. Everything the last 10-15 years has been fairly minor tweaks.
Major. I think I need clarify my biggest issue that is my belief that everyone including the government and the citizens are responsible for the current situation of the economy. So everyone needs to pay the price. The government needs to stop spending so much money. The people especially the middle class need to cut back on their high living standard through credit and debt. The middle class doesn't need more money to live but better understanding on how to mange their money. I was once too part was of the struggling middle class but I managed my income properly to get ahead in life. We need to learn lessons the hard way not by government handing out money to those who don't know how to manage it in the first place.
But don't you think that the people who are really affected by the current state of the economy are already learning the hard way? The effects of the proposed tax cuts by both candidates won't stop middle-class and lower-class people from paying the price.
First off most people who can are paying the price. You say the middle class needs to have better understanding of money management. I retort everyone should. Its just that well-to-do have the money not to have to. So on that maybe you're right. But I have seen wealthy people go broke also. I have seen many people work hard and manage their money good but circumstances still caused disarray in their life that included their finances. Since you say no one needs gov't handouts then I guess bailing out wall street we middle class money should stop also. I know you are too above the clouds to care whether giving some help to those who need could benefit America as a whole. To me it sounds like you have a dog eat dog mentality and if that's the case. Without a strong middle class you no longer have a strong country. Without a middle class you no longer have the rich, wealthy well-to-do, or upper middle class able to sustain their wealth. I see you complaining of giving crumbs while the middle class bakes the bread they helped you to buy.
I'm sorry I wasn't clear. It came from Warren Buffet. Plese click on the link and video for more information. Have a nice day! http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/27/AR2007062700097.html <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3z_UrOKtjHk&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3z_UrOKtjHk&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
The need to reach some common ground among you guys is now a necessity before we continue with this debate so lets get this out of the way. 1) We agree everyone is to blame for this economy. 2) We agree neither Obama/democrats nor McCain/Republican have any proposal to cut spending and curb America's appetite for easy money. 3) We agree future tax increases are inevitable. Now here is where my viewpoint shifts. 1) So far in the elections I don't support either parties' economics policies. When I criticize Obama that doesn't automatically mean I am supporting McCain either. I am a independent voter and made that claim on the very beginning of this thread so don't bring up partisan comparison. 2) I argue more against Obama's proposal because McCain is simply the same thing as Bush. Now people who blame Bush do so rightfully, but his problems were overspending and lassez fair attitude toward regulation not the tax cuts that doomed the economy. I believe if you still keep the current tax system with reduced spending in the budget and better oversight of the economy through regulation than things will get better. 3) Both candidates have no real solution to the problem so they propose these quasi-socialist plans which will place the burden on a segment of the population [wealthy] that will have no choice but to pay the taxes and bailout these failed presidential candidates. Someone making a lot of money will not argue too much about 3% because he doesn't feel any imminent threat to his lifestyle from a small increase like that. However, in broad terms it is unfair to time and again, make one group bail out the rest and wash their mistakes. In all honesty, I think our government has broken a social promise to us of properly managing our money and in order for me to continue with this contract, the next administration must first show us it will fix the problems plagued its predecessor before they use their god given right to tax us.
It's a derogatory term for people who work for wages. To Supermac34 and wakkoman: You both ignored a critical factor in my argument. Did you know that, in the 1950s, a man could work at a gas station and support a family, buy a house, without his wife working? Yeah, that really happened. The point I'm making is that the typical wage, adjusted for changes in inflation, is MUCH lower than it was in the past - people from a couple generations back had a much, much, much better chance of moving up the ladder than people who were born in the last twenty-thirty years. I noted that the ideal of social mobility may have been true in the past (though it was never as pervasive as many claim), it is rapidly disappearing from the realm of possibility. It's fairly well established that a college education is the single biggest predictor of upward social mobility. But that's becoming a problem as well since, for the last 20 years, the cost of college tuition has been rising at double the rate of inflation: And from a more recent article at CNNMoney ... There is information out there. Times have changed.
Very good post. Excellent to post about one ordinary worker supporting a wife and family. Ditto with the cost of college. There is more to the American dream than saving 3% on your NET income above $250k. Ghettocheeze, those who work and go to college or send their kids there are not deadbeats.
First of all, the group with zero net contribution are those who get refunded all of their taxes. This doesn't mean they're unemployed and the government is handing out welfare checks. It's for honest tax paying working citizens who are part of the lowest bracket who are barely making enough to survive. So calling them "irresponsible" or lazy isn't fair. The same thing happened with the stimulus package. If you didn't make enough in the year(I believe it was $3000 or less), you weren't eligible for the reward.
