Socialism in Obama's Home State

[mousewallrat]

This came from Chuck Muth's newsletter, and is so complete it needs no comment from me.


Robbing the Riverboat to Feed Mr. Ed
By Chuck Muth
June 8, 2008

While it may be just a coincidence, it is certainly instructive to read about how they do things in Barack Obama's home state of Illinois. And it wouldn't surprise me one bit to see this sort of socialism take root nationally should B.O. make it all the way to the White House. Here's the (stinking) deal.

According to the Associated Press, the amount of money wagered at the state's horse tracks dropped from $835 million a year to $482 million from 1992 to 2005. So to prop up this dying industry, the Illinois state legislature passed a law in 2006 requiring the state's top four riverboat casino companies to take 3 percent of their revenues and give it to the ailing horse racing industry. Not all of the casino companies, mind you. Just the largest and most successful.

This is like forcing Burger King, but not Taco Bell, to give part of its profits to Tom's Greasy Spoon down the street simply because more people choose to eat at BK than TB or TGS. It is redistribution of wealth in its rawest form. From each according to his ability; to each according to his needs. This is Karl Marx to the max.

And by the way, it bears pointing out that the riverboat casinos won't be paying this tax. The casinos will merely pass this tax increase along to you and me in the form of higher prices. So in the end, it's the private consumer who is really getting screwed here.

The casino companies challenged this rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul redistribution scheme in court, especially considering the fact that some casinos were hit with the horse tax and not others. Equal protection and all that. The good news is a judge agreed with the casinos last year and tossed the law out. The bad news is the judge's ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court. The worse news is that the Supremes, in a supreme example of blood-boiling judicial absurdity, overturned the common-sense judge's ruling.

So the four riverboat casinos must now cough up some $79 million and give 40 percent of it to the state's five horse-racing tracks. The other 60 percent will go into "purses" to be awarded to the winning horses to "subsidize horse-breeding and training."

Seriously. How can anyone, especially so-called learned judges, come to the conclusion that it's OK to take money spent in riverboat casinos and give a portion of it to a struggling competitor to help feed Mr. Ed?

One can only imagine how President Obama would use this precedent on a national level. Why not charge Microsoft a 3 percent tax and redistribute the revenue to smaller software companies which most of the public chooses not to use? Why not charge General Motors a 3 percent tax and redistribute the revenue to mass transit services which few people use? Why not charge Bank of America a 3 percent tax and redistribute it to struggling local banks?

Or better yet, why not charge uber-liberal MoveOn.org (http://moveon.org/) a 3 percent tax and redistribute the revenue to less well-funded conservative activist groups? Yeah, that's the ticket!

[Taurino]

This came from Chuck Muth's newsletter, and is so complete it needs no comment from me.


Robbing the Riverboat to Feed Mr. Ed
By Chuck Muth
June 8, 2008

While it may be just a coincidence, it is certainly instructive to read about how they do things in Barack Obama's home state of Illinois. And it wouldn't surprise me one bit to see this sort of socialism take root nationally should B.O. make it all the way to the White House. Here's the (stinking) deal.

According to the Associated Press, the amount of money wagered at the state's horse tracks dropped from $835 million a year to $482 million from 1992 to 2005. So to prop up this dying industry, the Illinois state legislature passed a law in 2006 requiring the state's top four riverboat casino companies to take 3 percent of their revenues and give it to the ailing horse racing industry. Not all of the casino companies, mind you. Just the largest and most successful.

This is like forcing Burger King, but not Taco Bell, to give part of its profits to Tom's Greasy Spoon down the street simply because more people choose to eat at BK than TB or TGS. It is redistribution of wealth in its rawest form. From each according to his ability; to each according to his needs. This is Karl Marx to the max.

And by the way, it bears pointing out that the riverboat casinos won't be paying this tax. The casinos will merely pass this tax increase along to you and me in the form of higher prices. So in the end, it's the private consumer who is really getting screwed here.

The casino companies challenged this rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul redistribution scheme in court, especially considering the fact that some casinos were hit with the horse tax and not others. Equal protection and all that. The good news is a judge agreed with the casinos last year and tossed the law out. The bad news is the judge's ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court. The worse news is that the Supremes, in a supreme example of blood-boiling judicial absurdity, overturned the common-sense judge's ruling.

So the four riverboat casinos must now cough up some $79 million and give 40 percent of it to the state's five horse-racing tracks. The other 60 percent will go into "purses" to be awarded to the winning horses to "subsidize horse-breeding and training."

Seriously. How can anyone, especially so-called learned judges, come to the conclusion that it's OK to take money spent in riverboat casinos and give a portion of it to a struggling competitor to help feed Mr. Ed?

One can only imagine how President Obama would use this precedent on a national level. Why not charge Microsoft a 3 percent tax and redistribute the revenue to smaller software companies which most of the public chooses not to use? Why not charge General Motors a 3 percent tax and redistribute the revenue to mass transit services which few people use? Why not charge Bank of America a 3 percent tax and redistribute it to struggling local banks?

Or better yet, why not charge uber-liberal MoveOn.org (http://moveon.org/) a 3 percent tax and redistribute the revenue to less well-funded conservative activist groups? Yeah, that's the ticket!


To keep jobs for other people that's why.

I wouldn't mind toyota or nissan to be charged a percent to help out the ailing American Auto industry.

That would help out in buying OUR goods and helping better pay OUR citizens and keeping jobs for OUR people.

Tough times call for tough measures.

If you wanna continue to support foreign owned companies to make products and take away jobs from our citizens then go ahead and vote for mccain.

I'm a moderate.

I support the candidate not the party.

and the best candidate for presidency would be Obama at this point.

[mousewallrat]

Taurino, I'd have to say you're comparing apples and oranges; the article is about two domestic industries. I'd have to agree with you on the foreign imports, by the way. I'd like to see the foreign imports taxed to the moon. I'm a protectionist, and no apologies for that. I drive a domestic truck, and always have.
The problem with this thing in Illonois is that it's a blatant 'redistribution of wealth', which is one of the main planks of the Communist Manifesto, thus making the article relevant. I have to assume that at your job, you don't give credit for the work you did to someone else...Hell no, it's your good work! Do you give some percentage of your wages to the dickhead who is always sleeping and fucking off and is about to get canned? Hell no, it's not your fault he's doing badly, and it's your money. At school did you ask the teacher to give your A to the stoner in the class because he was failing? Fuck no. But that is what you're saying you want do to here, in effect.
I say let the free market decide if we want racetracks, or riverboats, and if they can't succeed, then go out of business. Who are these government assholes to take your money to give it to someone else poorer, or their money to give it to another industry? That removes any rights of private ownership, whether it happens to you or the gambling boats.
Another point; you want to help the racetrack workers keep their jobs...that's cool, but what about the jobs that might be lost by losing the money from the riverboats? Won't that hurt them? It's PRIVATE Industry, and should be left that way. Government has never been able to tax an industry into being sucessful.

[Quackers]

Tax foriegn imports to the moon and people will just export elsewhere or rise their prices, you will economy will suffer as a result. It's happened in America in the past.

[Dangle]

"I'm a protectionist"


They are doing just that...protecting the little guy....

Isolationism would be the plan. No Imports all American made products.

Obama is the clear cut choice...

Don't bother arguing with me...it's useless.

[breaker19]

Taurino, I'd have to say you're comparing apples and oranges; the article is about two domestic industries. I'd have to agree with you on the foreign imports, by the way. I'd like to see the foreign imports taxed to the moon. I'm a protectionist, and no apologies for that. I drive a domestic truck, and always have.
The problem with this thing in Illonois is that it's a blatant 'redistribution of wealth', which is one of the main planks of the Communist Manifesto, thus making the article relevant. I have to assume that at your job, you don't give credit for the work you did to someone else...Hell no, it's your good work! Do you give some percentage of your wages to the dickhead who is always sleeping and fucking off and is about to get canned? Hell no, it's not your fault he's doing badly, and it's your money. At school did you ask the teacher to give your A to the stoner in the class because he was failing? Fuck no. But that is what you're saying you want do to here, in effect.
I say let the free market decide if we want racetracks, or riverboats, and if they can't succeed, then go out of business. Who are these government assholes to take your money to give it to someone else poorer, or their money to give it to another industry? That removes any rights of private ownership, whether it happens to you or the gambling boats.
Another point; you want to help the racetrack workers keep their jobs...that's cool, but what about the jobs that might be lost by losing the money from the riverboats? Won't that hurt them? It's PRIVATE Industry, and should be left that way. Government has never been able to tax an industry into being sucessful.


I agree. The government needs to leave the free market alone and let it work itself out. If Obama gets into the White House he will regulate the free market out of existence and destroy our already frail economy. If you listen to his rhetoric it is obvious he is a communist. So are most liberals. History has shown us this system doesn't work. There is no incentive to work hard and be successful if the fruits of your labor will simply be taxed away and given to those who are not successful.
America was made great by Capitalism and the slow invasion by socialists has caused immeasurable damage to the country and will eventually cause economic collapse.
Case in point: California

California has the highest taxes in the nation, yet they are in another financial crisis. Why? Because they use the enormously high taxes to fund numerous social and welfare programs. The consequence.... California's most productive citizens are fleeing the state to escape the high taxes and the nation's least productive people (including illegal immigrants) are flocking there to take advantage of the welfare system and social programs.
Americans need to learn to take care of themselves instead of relying on government to do it for them. That's what makes our country great!:thumb:

[breaker19]

"I'm a protectionist"


They are doing just that...protecting the little guy....

Isolationism would be the plan. No Imports all American made products.

Obama is the clear cut choice...

Don't bother arguing with me...it's useless.

That makes no sense. There's nothing wrong with being the little guy, but even the little guy needs to fend for himself.

There's also nothing wrong with being one of the heavyweights.

I don't know about you, but the "Little guy" has never written me a paycheck.

[mousewallrat]

"I'm a protectionist"


They are doing just that...protecting the little guy....
Don't bother arguing with me...it's useless.

Little guy? Their income fell to $482,000,000, and that is the little guy? What are you smoking? This is Corporate Welfare, something I thought the Liberals were against. And at any rate this isn't about Obama...if you like him vote for him. This conversation is about Socialism in the Illonois Government, I thought.

[Big Dave]

That makes no sense. There's nothing wrong with being the little guy, but even the little guy needs to fend for himself.

There's also nothing wrong with being one of the heavyweights.

I don't know about you, but the "Little guy" has never written me a paycheck.

I am case in point. I am a Small business owner. have been for five years.

I work my ass off, for MY future, not some unemployed geeker, and when I make it big and believe me I'm well on my way I'll be damned If I let anyone take what is mine from me.

Not to say I dont care about the underpriviledged.

It's the fact that I am an immigrant from a family of 10 and grew up poorer than most Americans, and if I can get by without handouts so can any healthy Male.

One day I hope that one of my companies becomes huge, but I would never be able to have pride in my accomplishments if I ever took money from another company who's only crime is success.

[Big Dave]

This conversation is about Socialism in the Illonois Government, I thought.

Sorry dude, you opened a can and Chuck Norris popped out haha

[mousewallrat]

Yeah, a conversation on File Cabi.net is sorta like trying to herd cats.

[JooX]

Its a totally absurd propposition.

If the state of Illinois wants to prop up this idustry they can all [state reps] take a pay cut and fund it themselves.

I dont mind hearing about the odd gov hand out, here in Australia, or a state hand-out to help prop up a local business now and then, it keeps people employed and gives them a chance to get back up and running... but you cant keep throwing money at these business' if they are not going to make some hard changes to keep themselves in the black.

If it works, then the state has saved themselves a shit load in the long run.


I cant be arsed going on right now, im tired and being annoyed. :mad:


Sum it up 'net' style..... thatz fukd up!


To keep jobs for other people that's why.

I wouldn't mind toyota or nissan to be charged a percent to help out the ailing American Auto industry.

That would help out in buying OUR goods and helping better pay OUR citizens and keeping jobs for OUR people.

Tough times call for tough measures.

If you wanna continue to support foreign owned companies to make products and take away jobs from our citizens then go ahead and vote for mccain.

I'm a moderate.

I support the candidate not the party.

and the best candidate for presidency would be Obama at this point.

I thought you left? :think:

[YourAfuckingMoron]

HEY LETS TRY THIS OUT. HOW ABOUT SNUFF DISTRIBUTE A PERCENTAGE OF THE HIGHEST REP HOLDERS ON THE FORUM AND GIVE IT TO ME.

[rubicks]

HEY LETS TRY THIS OUT. HOW ABOUT SNUFF DISTRIBUTE A PERCENTAGE OF THE HIGHEST REP HOLDERS ON THE FORUM AND GIVE IT TO ME.

well good analogy dickhead j/king


























or was i?

[jaba]

Damn these Yanks bashing socialist policies.
Socialism and democracy goes hand in hand to tickle the capitalist coffers without causing any problems usually. Don't cry - they aren't nasty Marxists or Communists hell bent on taking all your money. :cool:

[CaptainPlanet]

they aren't nasty Marxists or Communists hell bent on taking all your money. :cool:

Good point, 60% to 70% income tax rates don't qualify as all, just most :thumb:

[jaba]

Good point, 60% to 70% income tax rates don't qualify as all, just most :thumb:60% of say 800k still leaves enough for the greedy tax evading cunt. :smokin:

[Raidenator]

Ya but 60% of my taxes leaves me with jack shit. Fuck socialism.

[YourAfuckingMoron]

60% of say 800k still leaves enough for the greedy tax evading cunt. :smokin:

IF YOU THINK RAISING TAXES SOLVES TAX EVASION THEN YOU'RE AN IDIOT. AND WHY DO YOU THINK THOSE "GREEDY" 800K SALARY PEOPLE DESERVE TO BE TAXED WAY MORE THAN EVERYONE ELSE? WHY DIDN'T YOU GO TO COLLEGE FOR 4 YEARS, THEN MED SCHOOL FOR 4 MORE, THEN RESIDENCY FOR 7 YEARS SO YOU CAN MAKE A 800K SALARY INSTEAD OF TALKING ABOUT IT ON A FORUM. WAIT SOMEONE IS TOO LAZY SO NOW YOU SHOULD JUST ELECT PEOPLE IN POWER WHO WANT TO TAX THE SHIT OUT OF THEM AND YOU CAN BENEFIT FROM IT ALL.

[Willow]

IF YOU THINK RAISING TAXES SOLVES TAX EVASION THEN YOU'RE AN IDIOT. AND WHY DO YOU THINK THOSE "GREEDY" 800K SALARY PEOPLE DESERVE TO BE TAXED WAY MORE THAN EVERYONE ELSE? WHY DIDN'T YOU GO TO COLLEGE FOR 4 YEARS, THEN MED SCHOOL FOR 4 MORE, THEN RESIDENCY FOR 7 YEARS SO YOU CAN MAKE A 800K SALARY INSTEAD OF TALKING ABOUT IT ON A FORUM. WAIT SOMEONE IS TOO LAZY SO NOW YOU SHOULD JUST ELECT PEOPLE IN POWER WHO WANT TO TAX THE SHIT OUT OF THEM AND YOU CAN BENEFIT FROM IT ALL.
I don't think the rich should pay "more" perse. I think the current system of 10%, 15%, 25% etc. is an unfair way to calculate income tax. Some states have an interesting way of calculating taxes. It's a flat tax on a percentage of gross income over a certain amount. Say the base amount is $30K. If you earn $25K per year, no income tax. If you earn $32K per year the taxable income is $2K. Earn $200K, the taxable amount is $170K. See what I'm getting at? While everyone isn't paying the same dollar amount, everyone IS paying the same percentage. Why a base amount? Try to care for a family of 4 on 30K per year and you'll understand why. We can't all be doctors making $200K per year. Next, a few of those bullshit tax credits and exemptions are going to have to go. Also, US businesses registering in the Caribbean using P.O. Boxes to avoid taxes should be persued as aggressively as Wesley Snipes was and they should be punished by HUGE fines and long prison terms for their officers. Those few changes would be a START.

[sib]

Sounds like were talking around the laffer curve. I personally favor a consumption tax, which imo, still protects the lower end of the income scale (they'll be consuming less) and fairly distributes taxes to those that require more resources.

[jaba]

Ya but 60% of my taxes leaves me with jack shit. Fuck socialism.Low incomes should be taxed at a much lower rate with added benefits Raid.

IF YOU THINK RAISING TAXES SOLVES TAX EVASION THEN YOU'RE AN IDIOT.High earners should pay more tax - simple.
Evasion was perhaps the wrong word to use for high earners who don't want to pay more tax. Tax evasion is largely down to low earners already on benefits whilst working, the self employed and wealthy people using offshore accounts to hide money.

AND WHY DO YOU THINK THOSE "GREEDY" 800K SALARY PEOPLE DESERVE TO BE TAXED WAY MORE THAN EVERYONE ELSE?Already fucking covered. :D

WHY DIDN'T YOU GO TO COLLEGE FOR 4 YEARS, THEN MED SCHOOL FOR 4 MORE, THEN RESIDENCY FOR 7 YEARS SO YOU CAN MAKE A 800K SALARY INSTEAD OF TALKING ABOUT IT ON A FORUM.I didn't fancy the medical profession for a start but I did get my honours degree after four years.
BTW it costs on average over £250,000 to train a basic UK doctor for which they pay back around £10,000 - not bad eh? Another reason for higher taxes on these professionals maybe? High earners are everywhere and in every discipline fella - not just the fucking medical profession.

WAIT SOMEONE IS TOO LAZY SO NOW YOU SHOULD JUST ELECT PEOPLE IN POWER WHO WANT TO TAX THE SHIT OUT OF THEM AND YOU CAN BENEFIT FROM IT ALL.Everyone benefits from taxation - even high tax payers.
So you think a rich man should pay a tax rate similar to a poor man then genious?

[CaptainPlanet]

I don't think the rich should pay "more" perse. I think the current system of 10%, 15%, 25% etc. is an unfair way to calculate income tax. Some states have an interesting way of calculating taxes. It's a flat tax on a percentage of gross income over a certain amount. Say the base amount is $30K. If you earn $25K per year, no income tax. If you earn $32K per year the taxable income is $2K. Earn $200K, the taxable amount is $170K. See what I'm getting at? While everyone isn't paying the same dollar amount, everyone IS paying the same percentage

What you're talking about is referred to as a flat tax as opposed to the progressive tax system that is in place today. Various groups have toyed around with the idea but it has never gotten serious/significant support at the Federal level. To put it in political terms a flat tax would be labeled by the Democrats as a tax cut for the rich, and everybody knows that anything "progressive" is a good thing, right? ...Even though the label in this case is being used accurately, as opposed to the political meaning of "progressive" which roughly translates to policies intended to move the country forward.

The idea is actually in use in some former Soviet Block countries in Eastern Europe, and the indications are that it's doing pretty well. If it can withstand the rich vs. poor politics there on the long term is still a concern IMO. It's important to note that an essential part of a flat tax system is the elimination of loopholes - while development and maintenance of various loopholes are essential parts of both Republican and Democrat Party platforms.

Where the rubber meets the road for me on the subject is that it could cut literally billions of dollars of cost from businesses and individuals in tax preparation fees. My company (~120,000 employees) spends an insane amount on managing taxes - I know our head Tax guy from the Finance Department. Anything that can reduce unnecessary overhead (which in my book includes the billions we spend in tax preparation) is a good thing.


Sounds like were talking around the laffer curve. I personally favor a consumption tax, which imo, still protects the lower end of the income scale (they'll be consuming less) and fairly distributes taxes to those that require more resources.

Personally, I like the idea of a consumption tax but seriously doubt we'd ever be able to get rid of income tax all together due to its political popularity.

The Laffer Curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Laffer-Curve.svg) just illustrates the relationship between income tax rate and government revenue - the big lesson there is that past a certain point of taxation there is more and more disincentive to earning money - so as you approach a 100% income tax rate people would just opt to stay home and wait for handouts. The graph is a useful tool for demonstrating the Law of Diminishing Return as applied to taxation, but like many economic concepts it can't be directly applied to real world economies.

[CaptainPlanet]

Low incomes should be taxed at a much lower rate with added benefits Raid.

High earners should pay more tax - simple.

Everyone benefits from taxation - even high tax payers.
So you think a rich man should pay a tax rate similar to a poor man then genious?


Your argument is a value judgment, and for me having a progressive tax introduces a disincentive to working harder and earning more money because the harder you work and the more money you make, the bigger chunk the government is going to take from you. In the US we jokingly refer to a "Tax Emancipation Day", which is the day at which you've theoretically paid all your taxes for the year. For most people this is somewhere around May-June. I can assure you that the rate effects many people's psychology but I'm not sure what research has been done on its impact to behavior.

If you replace "tax rate" in your comments with "amount taxed" or something along those lines I'd actually agree with you. I don't think it's unfair for a rich person to pay more taxes than a poor person, but I think it is fundamentally unfair for any person's income to be taxed at 60-70% - which roughly means for every $3 you earn the government takes $2, or put another way until September you're working solely to pay your taxes for the year.


Evasion was perhaps the wrong word to use for high earners who don't want to pay more tax. Tax evasion is largely down to low earners already on benefits whilst working, the self employed and wealthy people using offshore accounts to hide money.

Evasion is definitely the wrong term for what you were trying to describe. If the government doesn't want people to use/exploit loopholes it should close them. It is fundamentally irrational for someone not to try and minimize their tax burden legally - "evading" taxes is already illegal.

[YourAfuckingMoron]

[/B][/I] High earners should pay more tax - simple.
Evasion was perhaps the wrong word to use for high earners who don't want to pay more tax. Tax evasion is largely down to low earners already on benefits whilst working, the self employed and wealthy people using offshore accounts to hide money.

HIGH EARNERS ALREADY DO PAY MORE TAXES, IN FACT WAY MORE. SOMEONE WHO EARNS $350,000 WILL PAY $101,574 IN INCOME TAXES. SOMEONE WHO EARNS $50,000 WILL PAY $8,924 IN INCOME TAXES. THE WEALTHIER PERSON IS PAYING 29% OF HIS INCOME FOR TAXES WHILE THE PERSON MAKING $50K (WHICH ISN'T EVEN REALLY CONSIDERED POOR) IS PAYING 17% OF THEIR INCOME. THE WEALTHIER PERSON IS PAYING 92% MORE IN TAXES. THAT'S THE CURRENT SYSTEM AND YOU THINK IT WOULD BE FAIR TO RAISE THE TAX FOR THE HIGHER INCOME PERSON EVEN MORE? ROFL NOOB GTFO.

TO ADDRESS YOUR COMMENT ON TAX SHELTERS THEY ARE A DIFFERENT PROBLEM. THEY SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH TAX RATES SO DON'T BASE YOUR IDEALS ON THOSE WHO USE THEM. YOU ARE UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT EVERY WEALTHY PERSON USES THEM BUT IN REALITY THE MAJORITY DON'T. YOU SHOULDN'T RAISE TAXES BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE USE LOOPHOLES TO AVOID PAYING AS MUCH. ALSO ITS MORE OF A PROBLEM WITH COROPORATIONS THAN INDIVIDUALS.

I didn't fancy the medical profession for a start but I did get my honours degree after four years.
BTW it costs on average over £250,000 to train a basic UK doctor for which they pay back around £10,000 - not bad eh? Another reason for higher taxes on these professionals maybe? High earners are everywhere and in every discipline fella - not just the fucking medical profession.


WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT? PAYBACK ETC..


Everyone benefits from taxation - even high tax payers.
So you think a rich man should pay a tax rate similar to a poor man then genious?

ROFL TELL ME WHERE THE $350,000 INCOME PERSON IS GOING TO BENEFIT FROM PAYING $101,574 IN INCOME TAX. I'M NOT SAYING SOMEONE WHO IS RICH SHOULD PAY THE SAME AS SOMEONE WHO IS POOR. BUT I THINK IT IS RIDICULOUS THAT THE RICH SHOULD BE TAXED EVEN MORE THAN THEY CURRENTLY ARE BECAUSE THEY ALREADY PAY 90% OF THE TAXES IN THIS COUNTRY. OBAMA WANTS TO INCREASE TAXES ON THE RICH EVEN MORE WHILE LEAVING EVERYONE ELSE THE SAME TO PAY FOR THE PROGRAMS HE WANTS TO IMPLEMENT. SO NO I DON'T SEE EVERYONE BENEFITING. IF YOU LOOK AT ALL THE PROGRAMS THE GOVERNMENT CURRENTLY HAS YOU WON'T FIND A SINGLE ONE THAT USES IT'S MONEY EFFICIENTLY.

[PlaneswalkerX]

YAFM, you know nothing about taxes. You're taking some stupid class in college and now you think you've figured it all out. There are many things you aren't taking into account. Instead of wasting my time explaining it to you, just go here:

http://www.zompist.com/richtax.htm

[YourAfuckingMoron]

YAFM, you know nothing about taxes. You're taking some stupid class in college and now you think you've figured it all out. There are many things you aren't taking into account. Instead of wasting my time explaining it to you, just go here:

http://www.zompist.com/richtax.htm

ROFL WHAT DOES THAT LINK HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING. IT ARGUES HAVING A PROGRESSIVE TAX OVER A FLAT TAX. WE ALREADY HAVE A PROGRESSIVE TAX WHAT'S YOUR POINT? I'M NOT ARGUING FOR A FLAT TAX IM SAYING IT SHOULDN'T BE EXPONENTIALLY PROGRESSIVE WHICH IT WILL BE IF OBAMA IS IN POWER. WHAT I DESCRIBED IN MY LAST POST WAS INCOME TAX AND THE WAY IT'S CURRENTLY WITH ACTUAL NUMBERS. YOU DON'T NEED TO BE IN A CLASS GO GOOGLE THE TAX RATES.

[CaptainPlanet]

YAFM, you know nothing about taxes. You're taking some stupid class in college and now you think you've figured it all out. There are many things you aren't taking into account. Instead of wasting my time explaining it to you, just go here:

http://www.zompist.com/richtax.htm


Seriously PWX, that link is full of crap

[jaba]

AND YOU THINK IT WOULD BE FAIR TO RAISE THE TAX FOR THE HIGHER INCOME PERSON EVEN MORE? ROFL NOOB GTFO.They should definitely pay more taxes - they can still afford it.
Come on how much money does one person need to have a fulfilled life?

TO ADDRESS YOUR COMMENT ON TAX SHELTERS THEY ARE A DIFFERENT PROBLEM. THEY SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH TAX RATES SO DON'T BASE YOUR IDEALS ON THOSE WHO USE THEM. YOU ARE UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT EVERY WEALTHY PERSON USES THEM BUT IN REALITY THE MAJORITY DON'T. YOU SHOULDN'T RAISE TAXES BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE USE LOOPHOLES TO AVOID PAYING AS MUCH. ALSO ITS MORE OF A PROBLEM WITH COROPORATIONS THAN INDIVIDUALS.Really?
Corporations pay a high salary for many of their empty 'chairs' yes. These people are responsible for influential political brokering to ensure their affluence of course.


WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT? PAYBACK ETC..You buy something for 10 dollars which is worth 250 dollars.
Then you go to the US and earn 900 dollars and fuck the paymaster.


ROFL TELL ME WHERE THE $350,000 INCOME PERSON IS GOING TO BENEFIT FROM PAYING $101,574 IN INCOME TAX. I'M NOT SAYING SOMEONE WHO IS RICH SHOULD PAY THE SAME AS SOMEONE WHO IS POOR. BUT I THINK IT IS RIDICULOUS THAT THE RICH SHOULD BE TAXED EVEN MORE THAN THEY CURRENTLY ARE BECAUSE THEY ALREADY PAY 90% OF THE TAXES IN THIS COUNTRY. OBAMA WANTS TO INCREASE TAXES ON THE RICH EVEN MORE WHILE LEAVING EVERYONE ELSE THE SAME TO PAY FOR THE PROGRAMS HE WANTS TO IMPLEMENT. SO NO I DON'T SEE EVERYONE BENEFITING. IF YOU LOOK AT ALL THE PROGRAMS THE GOVERNMENT CURRENTLY HAS YOU WON'T FIND A SINGLE ONE THAT USES IT'S MONEY EFFICIENTLY.If I was a multi millionaire... I would like to drive my new Lambo on a road without potholes and phone the police when you steal it from the Hilton car park ok?

[PlaneswalkerX]

ROFL WHAT DOES THAT LINK HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING. IT ARGUES HAVING A PROGRESSIVE TAX OVER A FLAT TAX. WE ALREADY HAVE A PROGRESSIVE TAX WHAT'S YOUR POINT? I'M NOT ARGUING FOR A FLAT TAX IM SAYING IT SHOULDN'T BE EXPONENTIALLY PROGRESSIVE WHICH IT WILL BE IF OBAMA IS IN POWER. WHAT I DESCRIBED IN MY LAST POST WAS INCOME TAX AND THE WAY IT'S CURRENTLY WITH ACTUAL NUMBERS. YOU DON'T NEED TO BE IN A CLASS GO GOOGLE THE TAX RATES.

No, that link gives reasons why the rich pay higher taxes. I only read the first few paragraphs. Obama isn't going to exponentionally increase taxes. I think he's calling for a 2% raise on the highest bracket. What is that, an extra 7,000 dollars a year for the highest bracket? HAHAAHAH. What a joke. Rich people can afford a 2% increase, poor people can't. We were doing good with Clinton until George Bush came in with a bunch of idiots and fucked everything up.

[Raidenator]

HIGH EARNERS ALREADY DO PAY MORE TAXES, IN FACT WAY MORE. SOMEONE WHO EARNS $350,000 WILL PAY $101,574 IN INCOME TAXES. SOMEONE WHO EARNS $50,000 WILL PAY $8,924 IN INCOME TAXES. THE WEALTHIER PERSON IS PAYING 29% OF HIS INCOME FOR TAXES WHILE THE PERSON MAKING $50K (WHICH ISN'T EVEN REALLY CONSIDERED POOR) IS PAYING 17% OF THEIR INCOME. THE WEALTHIER PERSON IS PAYING 92% MORE IN TAXES. THAT'S THE CURRENT SYSTEM AND YOU THINK IT WOULD BE FAIR TO RAISE THE TAX FOR THE HIGHER INCOME PERSON EVEN MORE? ROFL NOOB GTFO.


That right there is a load of bullshit. I know from personal experience. I don't even make 50k a year and I still pay at least 25% of my paycheck to taxes. So LEWL GG.

[YourAfuckingMoron]

That right there is a load of bullshit. I know from personal experience. I don't even make 50k a year and I still pay at least 25% of my paycheck to taxes. So LEWL GG.

ROOOOOFL NOOB THERE CAN BE A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT ITEMS WITHHELD FROM YOUR PAYCHECK OTHER THAN INCOME TAX. GO BACK TO GENERAL CHAT PLZ.

[Raidenator]

ROOOOOFL NOOB THERE CAN BE A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT ITEMS WITHHELD FROM YOUR PAYCHECK OTHER THAN INCOME TAX. GO BACK TO GENERAL CHAT PLZ.

I'm a single independent. You can't get anymore basic than that. Rich people are subject to the some objections that "poor" people are. They still get a tax break for having kids just as much as the poor do. So stfu with that shit. Don't talk to me in capslock and even think that you're smarter than I am. We've long since proven the limit of your intelligence here.

[YourAfuckingMoron]

WHAT I POSTED WAS FOR SINGLES NOOB WOW GTFO. STFU WITH WHAT SHIT? TAX BREAKS FOR KIDS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CONVERSATION. ARE YOU EVEN ARGUING THE SAME TOPIC AS I AM?

[Raidenator]

ROOOOOFL NOOB THERE CAN BE A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT ITEMS WITHHELD FROM YOUR PAYCHECK OTHER THAN INCOME TAX. GO BACK TO GENERAL CHAT PLZ.

WHAT I POSTED WAS FOR SINGLES NOOB WOW GTFO. STFU WITH WHAT SHIT? TAX BREAKS FOR KIDS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CONVERSATION. ARE YOU EVEN ARGUING THE SAME TOPIC AS I AM?

OK so what are you talking about then? You said that there are items that can be withheld from your taxes and generally that means kids. There are other things that can be deducted from taxes, but rich people are just as subject to these breaks as poor people. I may have assumed that you meant kids, but the situation still stands.

I'm a single, full time working adult independent. I make less than 50k a year and I get taxed roughly 25%, closer to 30% I believe. A person that makes over 50k a year that is single, independent, full time worker will not be taxed more than the amount that I'm being taxed simply because he makes more money. He's going to be taxed 25% just like I am. So don't tell me that the poor get nice tax breaks and that the rich pay more.

[Willow]

Sounds like were talking around the laffer curve. I personally favor a consumption tax, which imo, still protects the lower end of the income scale (they'll be consuming less) and fairly distributes taxes to those that require more resources.It sounds like you're talking about a "luxury tax." On the scale you're you're talking, it'll never fly; the ones having to pay the luxury tax are the ones who have the power to vote against it and the ones who have the money to influence the ones who have the power to vote against it.

[Willow]

HIGH EARNERS ALREADY DO PAY MORE TAXES, IN FACT WAY MORE. SOMEONE WHO EARNS $350,000 WILL PAY $101,574 IN INCOME TAXES. SOMEONE WHO EARNS $50,000 WILL PAY $8,924 IN INCOME TAXES. THE WEALTHIER PERSON IS PAYING 29% OF HIS INCOME FOR TAXES WHILE THE PERSON MAKING $50K (WHICH ISN'T EVEN REALLY CONSIDERED POOR) IS PAYING 17% OF THEIR INCOME. THE WEALTHIER PERSON IS PAYING 92% MORE IN TAXES. THAT'S THE CURRENT SYSTEM AND YOU THINK IT WOULD BE FAIR TO RAISE THE TAX FOR THE HIGHER INCOME PERSON EVEN MORE? ROFL NOOB GTFO.

TO ADDRESS YOUR COMMENT ON TAX SHELTERS THEY ARE A DIFFERENT PROBLEM. THEY SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH TAX RATES SO DON'T BASE YOUR IDEALS ON THOSE WHO USE THEM. YOU ARE UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT EVERY WEALTHY PERSON USES THEM BUT IN REALITY THE MAJORITY DON'T. YOU SHOULDN'T RAISE TAXES BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE USE LOOPHOLES TO AVOID PAYING AS MUCH. ALSO ITS MORE OF A PROBLEM WITH COROPORATIONS THAN INDIVIDUALS.


WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT? PAYBACK ETC..



ROFL TELL ME WHERE THE $350,000 INCOME PERSON IS GOING TO BENEFIT FROM PAYING $101,574 IN INCOME TAX. I'M NOT SAYING SOMEONE WHO IS RICH SHOULD PAY THE SAME AS SOMEONE WHO IS POOR. BUT I THINK IT IS RIDICULOUS THAT THE RICH SHOULD BE TAXED EVEN MORE THAN THEY CURRENTLY ARE BECAUSE THEY ALREADY PAY 90% OF THE TAXES IN THIS COUNTRY. OBAMA WANTS TO INCREASE TAXES ON THE RICH EVEN MORE WHILE LEAVING EVERYONE ELSE THE SAME TO PAY FOR THE PROGRAMS HE WANTS TO IMPLEMENT. SO NO I DON'T SEE EVERYONE BENEFITING. IF YOU LOOK AT ALL THE PROGRAMS THE GOVERNMENT CURRENTLY HAS YOU WON'T FIND A SINGLE ONE THAT USES IT'S MONEY EFFICIENTLY.YAFM, you made some intelligent, thoughtful points here. I just wish it didn't seem as though you were jabbing your finger at me and hollering at me. :omg:

[Willow]

That right there is a load of bullshit. I know from personal experience. I don't even make 50k a year and I still pay at least 25% of my paycheck to taxes. So LEWL GG.

ROOOOOFL NOOB THERE CAN BE A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT ITEMS WITHHELD FROM YOUR PAYCHECK OTHER THAN INCOME TAX. GO BACK TO GENERAL CHAT PLZ. Some perspective fellas? If your filing status is Single, your Standard Deduction (in 2007) was $5350, and your personal exemption was $3400. That makes your TAXABLE INCOME $41,300 (if your gross income is $50,000) Your income tax, if you qualify for no other deductions, such as education credits, child tax credits, etc., was $6755, or about 16%. Everyone also pays FICA tax (Social Security & Medicare) of 7.65%, so on gross earnings of $50,000, that's another $3825 out of your pay. Combine the two, and yes, you're near 25% that the federal government takes without so much as a please or thank you.

Raid, do you get a refund when you file your taxes? If you do you can change the amount deducted from your pay so it ends up closer to your actual tax amount being deducted by the end of the year. Otherwise, you are letting the government borrow money from you to pay back at a later date interest free.

[rubicks]

All i can say is people come budget time we will GIVE you XXXX (but we will take XXX/in hidden stuff)true worldwide sucked in yet again please prove me wrong

[Killa-B]

I'm a single independent. You can't get anymore basic than that. Rich people are subject to the some objections that "poor" people are. They still get a tax break for having kids just as much as the poor do. So stfu with that shit. Don't talk to me in capslock and even think that you're smarter than I am. We've long since proven the limit of your intelligence here.


Actually no they don't. The first year I had my daughter I only made 21,000. I in taxes got almost 2,000 just because of her. Now I make over 30,000 a year and get nothing back because of the higher income.

Everything that YOURAFUCKINGMORON has said makes sense.

[Willow]

Actually no they don't. The first year I had my daughter I only made 21,000. I in taxes got almost 2,000 just because of her. Now I make over 30,000 a year and get nothing back because of the higher income.

Everything that YOURAFUCKINGMORON has said makes sense.Um... you pay higher taxes because you make more. Also, you probably got 2000 back as "Earned Income Credit."

But you still get the same "tax breaks" as everyone else: You get your standard deduction, exemptions, child tax credit. You probably get a child and dependent care credit too if your kid is in daycare.

The reason you go nothing back is because you made more money so no (or very little) EIC, plus you probably paid in just enough to cover what you would owe at the end of the year.

[Heero Valentine]

if he's going to raise taxes...what's the point of having a high income job?
in most cases you need to attend more years of school for it...
and if they keep this rate up :/ in the end you'll have the same income because the richer people are paying far more tax.

i mean...if we do get this far...a lot of people will be like...well fuck it...it's the same pay.
but for this simple job i don't need to go to school anymore.

[jaba]

if he's going to raise taxes...what's the point of having a high income job?
in most cases you need to attend more years of school for it...
and if they keep this rate up :/ in the end you'll have the same income because the richer people are paying far more tax.

i mean...if we do get this far...a lot of people will be like...well fuck it...it's the same pay.
but for this simple job i don't need to go to school anymore.Nonesense.
You seem to equate high earners with high educational achievement which is fucking simply not true. Some jobs require a high standard of education yes - such as consultant doctors or barristers but the truth is that most high incomes are achieved by hard work, luck and personality. Many rich cunts don't even need to work hard for their income but still make fucking hundreds of thousands. The gap between rich and poor has been widening considerably in most western economies and low earners should be given more incentive to carry on working by giving them much better tax breaks and benefits. Mr 'I'm a rich cunt' should fucking pay more tax because he can fucking afford it.

[Heero Valentine]

Nonesense.
You seem to equate high earners with high educational achievement which is fucking simply not true. Some jobs require a high standard of education yes - such as consultant doctors or barristers but the truth is that most high incomes are achieved by hard work, luck and personality. Many rich cunts don't even need to work hard for their income but still make fucking hundreds of thousands. The gap between rich and poor has been widening considerably in most western economies and low earners should be given more incentive to carry on working by giving them much better tax breaks and benefits. Mr 'I'm a rich cunt' should fucking pay more tax because he can fucking afford it.

yeah i was just talking from the point that higher paying jobs mostly needed a lot of education.
though yeah...if you go into business...you just need a good head on your shoulders
and certainly a lot of luck on the market.