Attention citizenry! Important CHANGE notice!

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jan 25, 2009 | 08:00 AM
  #16  
momalle1's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
From: Massachusetts
Originally Posted by Frank S
Not by means of taxation. Keep in mind that increasing taxes on the wealthy(which are usually business owners), will only cause less job creation and business investment in the future. What we should all work to do is fight for lower taxes and lower government spending. That is going to put more money in the pockets of everyone without wasteful gov't spending. This is not a Republican or Democratic ideal. This is what is needed so that people that are willing to work and make a living for themselves will have more come retirement.
I think we need the lower spending before the lower taxes, but it's unlikely we'll see that with either party. I always hear that increasing taxes on the wealthy causes less job creation, but no one can show me that when they get tax cuts, that job creation increases. McCain's plan redistributed wealth towards the rich, the only difference in this election was which way the redistribution went. I disagree with the feed the rich theory, when you give the middle class money, they spend it, thus feeding business and the rich.
 
Reply
Old Jan 25, 2009 | 10:26 AM
  #17  
chris1450's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 774
Likes: 1
From: western washington
Originally Posted by momalle1
Every candidate since I've been alive has used change, even McCain tried it for a while.

If you believed the wealth was currently distributed unfairly, wouldn't redistributing it be the right thing to do?
Wow. You think that wealth is distributed unfairly? So someone who works for there wealth is unfair? I suppose your going to say how CEO's and big wigs are unfairly compensated and should have to give up some of there wealth. People get paid what they are worth. Research ben and jerry ice cream. Those hippie libs wanted to hire a CEO at a rate that they couldn't get a qualified person. They had to pay market value to attract someone. And if you look at the number of those multi millionaire CEO's, you would find that there just aren't that many of them. It is really unfair to talk about punishing the CEO's when in fact that if they made $1 a day that wouldn't change a thing.
The vast majority of us make a living at a company. We work hard for our money. Why should I have to give up what I make to the government so they can decide how my charity is spent. And that is exactly what it is. It is me being forced to give to charity to people for the most part chose not to be productive and get ahead. Most large companies are run by a board of directors. There goal is to make as much money for the company as they can. They want to grow to make more money. And yet you want to tax them more and there reaction is to stay smaller and not hire more people. It is self defeating.
 
Reply
Old Jan 25, 2009 | 10:58 AM
  #18  
momalle1's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
From: Massachusetts
Originally Posted by chris1450
Wow. You think that wealth is distributed unfairly?
Where did I say that? You have quite an imagination.

Originally Posted by chris1450
So someone who works for there wealth is unfair? I suppose your going to say how CEO's and big wigs are unfairly compensated and should have to give up some of there wealth. People get paid what they are worth. Research ben and jerry ice cream. Those hippie libs wanted to hire a CEO at a rate that they couldn't get a qualified person. They had to pay market value to attract someone. And if you look at the number of those multi millionaire CEO's, you would find that there just aren't that many of them. It is really unfair to talk about punishing the CEO's when in fact that if they made $1 a day that wouldn't change a thing.
You can suppose all you want, it's what you do, but as usual, you are wrong. I've never complained about CEO salaries. Not one of their, there ot they're salaries.

Originally Posted by chris1450
The vast majority of us make a living at a company. We work hard for our money. Why should I have to give up what I make to the government so they can decide how my charity is spent.
Every worker will pay less taxes under Obama's plan than they would have under McCain's, McCain wanted to give millionaires a bigger cut than you would get.
 
Reply
Old Jan 25, 2009 | 03:41 PM
  #19  
keith97xlt's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 1
From: mass.
the millionaires pay most of the taxes...let them get a break if it means working folks can get ahead and earn more. the millionaire is most likely providing the jobs. im never gonna feel guilty because i worked harder than someone else ..got educated and enjoy a better standard of living.
 
Reply
Old Jan 25, 2009 | 04:52 PM
  #20  
chris1450's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 774
Likes: 1
From: western washington
Originally Posted by momalle1
Where did I say that? You have quite an imagination.



You can suppose all you want, it's what you do, but as usual, you are wrong. I've never complained about CEO salaries. Not one of their, there ot they're salaries.



Every worker will pay less taxes under Obama's plan than they would have under McCain's, McCain wanted to give millionaires a bigger cut than you would get.
"If you believed the wealth was currently distributed unfairly, wouldn't redistributing it be the right thing to do?"

Your words. It sure implies you think that wealth needs to be redistributed to me!
Now you tell me... in your own words, why you think wealth should be redistributed. Just to clear the air you know.

Quit bringing up mccain. He lost. No self respecting Conservative liked him anyways. That argument holds as much water as a sieve
 
Reply
Old Jan 25, 2009 | 05:20 PM
  #21  
Agent47's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
It will be intersting to see what the future holds. I am very cynical about politics thats one reason why I do not vote. Simply put I think that the vast majority of politicians could not give a rats *** about the average person (or any others) they are simply looking after themselves & there friends in big buisness. Obama says its time for a change and its way to early to see if he will do anything good for the people. At the moment there is a lot of emotional hype about him let him be judged on his actions to come. As for "shrub" I do not think he was especially bad except over the war issue & not doing anything major about the oli prices etc. One thing in his credit was that he did keep his "pecker" where it belongs
 
Reply
Old Jan 25, 2009 | 05:55 PM
  #22  
4.6 Punisher's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,778
Likes: 10
From: Douglasville GA
Just like I said once, I'll say it again.

Cry me a god damn river....
 
Reply
Old Jan 25, 2009 | 05:59 PM
  #23  
s2krn's Avatar
Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by 4.6 Punisher
Just like I said once, I'll say it again.

Cry me a god damn river....
You shed so much insight on the subject. It reminds me of NuGuy during the election...
 
Reply
Old Jan 25, 2009 | 06:25 PM
  #24  
momalle1's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
From: Massachusetts
Originally Posted by chris1450
"If you believed the wealth was currently distributed unfairly, wouldn't redistributing it be the right thing to do?"

Your words. It sure implies you think that wealth needs to be redistributed to me!
Only someone with English comprehension skills would think it implies that.

Originally Posted by chris1450
Now you tell me... in your own words, why you think wealth should be redistributed. Just to clear the air you know.
I don't. I also don't think giving tax breaks to the middle class is redistribution, I think it's good for our economy.
 
Reply
Old Jan 25, 2009 | 06:54 PM
  #25  
chris1450's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 774
Likes: 1
From: western washington
Originally Posted by momalle1
Only someone with English comprehension skills would think it implies that.



I don't. I also don't think giving tax breaks to the middle class is redistribution, I think it's good for our economy.
He is not giving tax cuts to the middle class. He has said he will let the bush tax cuts expire. That is a tax increase by default. And that was for the middle class. I have english comprehension skills.. thanks for the compliment.
 
Reply
Old Jan 25, 2009 | 07:42 PM
  #26  
momalle1's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
From: Massachusetts
Originally Posted by chris1450
He is not giving tax cuts to the middle class. He has said he will let the bush tax cuts expire. That is a tax increase by default. And that was for the middle class.
Funny, under the plan i saw, I make out better with Obama than I have been under Bush.

Originally Posted by chris1450
I have english comprehension skills.. thanks for the compliment.
Then I guess you deliberately twisted what I said.
 
Reply
Old Jan 25, 2009 | 08:19 PM
  #27  
chris1450's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 774
Likes: 1
From: western washington
Originally Posted by momalle1
Funny, under the plan i saw, I make out better with Obama than I have been under Bush.



Then I guess you deliberately twisted what I said.
If you make out better under obama's plan, then your a welfare mom with a couple of kids.. ready to pop out some more. Can I see a curtsy?
 
Reply
Old Jan 25, 2009 | 09:00 PM
  #28  
momalle1's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
From: Massachusetts
Originally Posted by chris1450
If you make out better under obama's plan, then your a welfare mom with a couple of kids.. ready to pop out some more. Can I see a curtsy?
As usual Chris, you have no clue what you are talking about. The chart below illustrates the proposed change in tax rates from what you had from the Bush tax cuts. I don't think any welfare mothers are making upwards of $226k.


 
Reply
Old Jan 25, 2009 | 10:38 PM
  #29  
chris1450's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 774
Likes: 1
From: western washington
and if you choose to believe this bs and ignore things he has said since.. well your a fool. BTW.. you proved my point. the bottom three catagories that obama is "cutting taxes" to don't pay taxes.
 

Last edited by chris1450; Jan 25, 2009 at 10:40 PM.
Reply
Old Jan 25, 2009 | 11:16 PM
  #30  
anaheim_drew's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,082
Likes: 0
From: Anaheim, Ca.
Originally Posted by chris1450
the bottom three catagories that obama is "cutting taxes" to don't pay taxes.
 
Reply



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:43 PM.