[quote]My local congressman has proposed a bill to establish a 'tax holiday' whereby taxpayers (income and FICA) are exempt from tax for January and February 2009.[/quote] While it is an interesting idea this will never pass because an uproar will begin that this benefits the rich when it's the poor that are struggling.
[quote]Perhaps a donation to the treasury of a patriotic portion of the 750mil he raised? Wishful indeed; Hillary broke her ass for him like no other politician campaigned yet is he contributing to her debt?[/quote] Obama is barred by campaign finance laws to use that money that he raised for anything other than expenses related to his campaign for office (which does include his inauguration I believe), or for future campaigns. He can't use it to "donate" to the national debt or
[quote]Meanwhile with defence (i.e. the army), both the poor and the rich person have their lives protected from invasion, and while the rich might also benefit more from the protection of their property rights against an invasion that might destroy them, the poor person might be more likely to be forced into the army to fight, or at greater risk of death since they would have reduced means with which to flee the country compared to a rich person.[/quote] This is an argument for why t
[quote]El Dude, you're asking the guy that wouldn't put his hand over his heart for the national anthem to be patriotic? Come on now, that would be uncharacteristic of him.[/quote] I'm just asking the guy to put up or shut up. If he is going to lecture people on what it is to be patriotic then he should lead by example. If he isn't willing to contribute more to the federal government than he shouldn't be asking others to do just that.
[quote]He let Biden carry the ball--pay more taxes dammit and you shall feel the thrill of patriotism.[/quote] If it's so patriotic to pay more taxes why didn't Obama or Biden write checks to the government for more than they owed in taxes? There is no law that prevents you from just sending in money to the government so if giving the government money is the patriotic thing to do then why don't Obama and Biden lead by example?
[quote]Poor people are now ~$1999 better off, rich people are ~$8k worse off. In other words the government has, via this public good, taken $8k from the rich and given it to the poor.[/quote] This is where you're a little wrong. Rich people tend to own more property whether it be a business or private residences. If any of those properties border public property (ie publice streets) then the government may end up provided 3 or 4 street lights to a rich person for every on
[quote]No, their attention will shift to Jeb or Sarah.[/quote] There attention may focus on those two but they will still be equating both to Bush.
[quote who="stevendedalus" reply="9" id="1953914"]Your tax rate is based on "taxable income" which means the excess[or profit] above and beyond what the cost is to survive. The reason taxes is progressive is that "survival" doesn't mean the cost of a yacht or the latest fashion so that the more you make the more you spend on frivolity which will cost you another marginal percentage above the base tax. A person making $20,000 probably pays 10% on the amount s
[quote]Ive gone on record about him not being able to balance the budget before the election and got called all sorts of names and was labled a hater. I saw things as it was... I had the blinders off... to bad most of the US didnt. Now they all get to sleep in the beds they made, but the sad fact is those of us that didnt want this are going to have to sleep in it also[/quote] I agree completely. I am very fearful for what Obama might do to this country financially, but I guess
[quote who="watertown1978" reply="2" id="1952860"]why are people so for taxes? Okay not taxes but raising them? Dont we already get taxed enough? You have your payroll tax... things you buy besides food gets taxes you pay fees to get a stupid sticker on your plates for your car...gas gets taxed.... just about EVERYTHING gets taxed and sometimes doubled taxed... if not taxed more. I wonder how many times a can of tuna gets taxed from the catching of the fish right down to the store that sells
Maybe the auto makers should spend a little less on lobbying congress and a little more on making cars people actually want to buy. While the gas crisis over the summer certainly increased the demand for fuel efficent vehicles that demand has been rising for years now and the big three have been very slow to respond to it. Then take safety standards, the latest rankings came out today and Honda scored extremely high (in every single class of vehicle) yet Chrysler didn't even place
I could be wrong but I think we already do this with the "standard deduction" that is used when we file for taxes every year. Yes there are ways to itemize and possibly end up with a higher deduction but everyone is given at least the "standard" deduction. It's not quite the same thing that you are talking about but it certainly seems to be pretty darn close.
[quote]Slavery ~= forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another ~= government taking money from one person+giving to another = taxation => Slavery ~= taxation. Still keep saying it's off topic+in no way related to either the original article or later posts to avoid answering any awkward questions if you want, I'm sure it will make a very convincing rebuttal . Oh and just to help you a bit more (incase you start reading the sequence in reverse), taking money from on
[quote]This was disproven in Argentina several years ago.[/quote] Actually you have proven my point. Someone had to get the "idea" to use the factories rather than letting them rust. Someone had to have the "idea" to purchase the factory from whomever owned it or else the profits that the workers made from the factory would have been stealing as was pointed out by maudlin27. The bottom line here is that there was still someone or some group who had the idea to use th
[quote]And how does owning a company that employs workers produce, exactly? A better argument is that you should be rewarded for the risk you take with your money when investing in said company. But, then, how did you get that money in the first place?[/quote] If the person (or persons) didn't own the company how would the employees have a job? Someone has to be at the top overseeing the actions of the company. They may not do any physical labor but that doesn't mean they
It's rather amusing how Artyism did exactly what Doc Guy said some liberal would do. Artyism the question wasn't about taxation, I think everyone can agree that some level of taxation is necessary for society to function. The question was whether an "extra" tax should be levied on one person, or a small group of people to benefit one other person or small group of people. In the example should a neighbor be forced to pay to have his neighbors lawn mowed because that "old lad
[quote]When you turn around and discover that we don't own our own country anymore and that the shots at GMC are being called in Beijing, then you will regret that we didn't undercut that whole thieving ethos via what I'm calling for.[/quote] And who exactly is going to pay for what you are calling for? Our national debt is owned by other countries, China being one of them. The other countries already own us and could very easily cripple us if they were call in their chips
[quote]Unreal. Unions are a legitimate political funding group. UAW was outfunded by auto companies that contributed to the Republicans.[/quote] And your point is? Both the unions and the auto companies should have put more money into fixing their businesses rather than buying politicians.
Why continue to funnel tax payer money into a business that is failing? The big three are failing miserably because they aren't changing. They keep on asking for more and more money yet little is changing on their end. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results, and that is exactly what is happening here. The big three need to completely restructure their business. They need to recognize where the auto
[quote]Unemployment insurance a hand out? Skilled employees have no choice is what you're saying--they should take the first minimum wage available. You want to put us right back in the position of millions during the Depression. [/quote] UI is intended to bridge the gap between jobs. It isn't intended as a long term solution. Like I said earlier this is a "hand up" as long as the person receiving UI is activly seeking another job as watertown1978 pointed out. <
[quote]but I don't think that propping them up is going to help for long.[/quote] It will only delay the inevitable. GM got a 25 billion dollar loan a couple of months ago which they have burned through and now they want another one. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results, I think that applies here.
[quote]What's the hand out determinant of Katrina, earthquake victims, the unemployed and the downtrodden of plumbers stuck in cesspools?[/quote] Victims of Katrina, earthquake victims, etc would be classified as people falling on hard times who need a hand up, that's what FEMA is for. But going to the government because you are running out of money due to a failed business plan is a hand out. Choosing to remain out of work because the government will continue to give you
[quote]Most of us wouldn't know what the middle class was without the dedication of unions.[/quote] I don't think anyone here is denying the importance that unions had to creating decent working environments and livable wages in this country. The problem is that some unions today are actually killing businesses and how exactly does that help the employees? If GM goes out of business is that going to help the workers? No, but is that any reason for the government to s
My opinion on this issue is that the automakers should declare chapter 11 and start restructuring their business plans. One area that definitely needs to be restructured in the union contract, the current one needs to be scapped so that the business can survive. Once the automakers have restructured (including pay cuts for their execs as well as workers) then we can talk about the government giving them a loan to allow the automakers to survive the bankruptcy and hopefully come ou
[quote]The catch is they are not required to vote for the canidate who won the state.[/quote] This is not entirely true. In some states they aren't legally bound to vote for the candidate the popular vote in that state dictates but there are a handful of states that legally bind their electors. I have no idea what the punishments are for violating the state's popular vote but they are legally bound to vote for a particular candidate. I do agree that the electoral c