|
View Poll Results: Who will take the White House? | |||
Obama | 151 | 68.95% | |
McCain | 63 | 28.77% | |
Surprise? (Maybe Mr. Trout?) | 5 | 2.28% | |
Voters: 219. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools |
10-27-2008, 09:40 AM | #8551 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: North Carolina
|
States like Arizona, West Virginia, and Arkansas really will be for style--or for 400 electoral votes. Again, though, I don't think that we are going to end up there.
|
10-27-2008, 10:39 AM | #8552 | |
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
Quote:
It seems to me that Obama isn't as interested in raising revenue as he is in pandering (middle class tax cut) and fairness (not cutting cap gains for wealthy investors, raising payroll tax and raising corp rates). Last edited by Arles : 10-27-2008 at 10:40 AM. |
|
10-27-2008, 12:37 PM | #8553 |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
I just went and early voted and the Mormon missionaries were in full effect.
This is how it went down: My wife and I got in a fairly long line. The Mormon missionary got in line and said, "excuse me, sir? an you tell me what the candidates stances on abortion are? Im not looking for opinion just what they stand for." I answered very PC correctly with the GOP fan watching how i answered and I nodded to her for approval when I was done and she said, "You got that correct."
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL |
10-27-2008, 12:40 PM | #8554 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Dayton, OH
|
Quote:
Or maybe he actually thinks a middle class tax cut will help the economy?
__________________
My listening habits |
|
10-27-2008, 12:41 PM | #8555 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Quote:
However, let me ask, since the cap gains and other taxes we're already cut over the last 8 years (I understand that you can talk about comparative rates worldwide, and whether or not they should be lower or higher) when, if ever, can you justify bringing them back up to where they were before the cuts? Or do you just always cut cut cut until you get to a target rate of zero? At what point do we actually view the deficit as something we do actually have to pay off?
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL |
|
10-27-2008, 12:41 PM | #8556 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Sneaky Mormons!
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
10-27-2008, 12:46 PM | #8557 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Massachusetts
|
Quote:
fortunately i live in new england so i don't foresee this being much of a problem, but if they tried this with me i'd so love to fuck with them "I think the Republican candidate wants to gather up all of you polygamous, child-abusing freakjobs and send you over to Africa." (not what I really feel, just what I'd say to try to get a rise out of them) |
|
10-27-2008, 12:50 PM | #8558 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Quote:
Hypothetical question - if there were an economic fortune teller that could tell us, with 100% accuracy, that the best way to increase revenue over the next 4-8 years is do what Arles suggests (raise all marginal rates 2-3%, lower corp tax, keep the payroll tax where it is and reduce cap gains), would you be in favor of doing that, or would you still be against it because of fairness issues? I wonder if there's a distinction there - do you believe Obama's plan will increase revenue, or is just a fairness thing, or both? Which of those is more important if you could only have one? Last edited by molson : 10-27-2008 at 12:52 PM. |
|
10-27-2008, 01:11 PM | #8559 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Dayton, OH
|
Quote:
I think there is a balance that can be struck between encouraging growth and being fair. I am not 100% sold on Obama's tax policy, but I think it's worth a shot. I trust him to eventually try to solve tricky economic problems moreso than McCain. And for the GOP to be losing the mantle of budgetary frugality is embarrassing. I do not necessarily believe that Obama's plan will increase revenue. But I believe that some large deficit spending will likely be necessary in order to pull the nation out of the current economic situation. And I trust that once things settle down, Obama can pick up the mantle of Clinton (and at the time, fiscal conservatives) and try to balance the budget again and eventually start paying down the deficit. Also, are you saying that what Arles suggests doing is patently unfair?
__________________
My listening habits |
|
10-27-2008, 01:23 PM | #8560 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Kansas City, MO
|
Quote:
This comment summarizes this election cycle in a nutshell. Basically speaking, the partisan nature of the past 8 years reached a level that people are willing to put a man in office based on the idea that he can 'have a shot' as opposed to finding a candidate that has legitimate ideas on how to make good changes for the future of the country. It should be noted that I'm not implying at all that McCain has all the answers, but it's extremely frustrating to go into this situation fully knowing that the plans that McCain and Obama have in mind are questionable at best. |
|
10-27-2008, 01:31 PM | #8561 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
That's pretty much always the case with a non-incumbent Presidential election, though.
|
10-27-2008, 01:34 PM | #8562 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Kansas City, MO
|
Quote:
Could be. Perhaps I'm just more annoyed than usual. I'm over 30 now, so I must have a political grumpy streak. I do think the person that is elected this time will probably be a one-and-done president. I just think both have far too many problems in front of them. |
|
10-27-2008, 01:44 PM | #8563 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Dayton, OH
|
Quote:
That's what I was thinking. I doubt I will ever find a candidate I agree 100% with on everything. I'm sure we all have our own wants for policy out of our leaders. I tend to align on the liberal end of the spectrum, which is still way more centrist than the socialism that Obama is being accused of by McCain. And obviously, the current economic policies are not working and I expect Obama much more than McCain would work to reverse or amend those policies.
__________________
My listening habits |
|
10-27-2008, 02:33 PM | #8564 |
lolzcat
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
|
I think it is a grave error to suggest that tax policy is as simple as "this is best, anything else is wrong." Even to suggest that there is only one *best* way to raise revenue is an oversimplification bordering on absurdity.
Tax policy involves balancing a number of goals, among them short term economic disturbance, long term behavioral disturbance, administrative complexity, vertical equity, horizontal equity. And to be perfectly honest, there's no such thing as a clear message from history, since every single "experiment" has been done in real life, not in a controlled environment. You tax something more, and doing it becomes incrementally less attractive to do. Tax it less, and it's incrementally more attractive. That's about as far as the universal agreement can go here. It's simply not the case that every economist or expert agrees that raising revenues is a simple exercise with the same solution, and it's just that the politicians are just mucking it up. |
10-27-2008, 02:39 PM | #8565 | |
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
Quote:
Whether people want to acknowledge it or not, the top 5-10% drive this economy - they are the "golden goose" of sorts. Most either own their business or are key decision makers in businesses. If you start sticking it to them on cap gains, corp tax rates, marginal rates, closing loopholes, payroll tax, estate tax and whatever other methods you can think of - the golden goose may either stop laying as many eggs or take their eggs elsewhere. Now, you can get away with this if you do it in a strong economic climate as the incentives are still there. But, 2009 isn't looking all that strong. It sounds nice to give money back to people making under 200K, hold their cap gains rate and not add a tax burden to them, but those people (myself included) don't create jobs or drive investment in the economy. We need the top 10% to keep investing, creating jobs and spending money. If they stop, we all suffer. The best thing we can do to help the economy is to make investing an attractive option for the top 10%, but it doesn't seem like either candidate wants to do that. And, the only reason that I can think of for that is because of some sense of "unfairness" in not sticking it to the rich in tough times. Maybe that's the key to winning an election, but I don't know that it will help us recover any quicker over the next 2 years. In the end, maybe we don't want to ease the burden on people and just let the free market correct itself. But, it certainly seems like both candidates are saying otherwise. Last edited by Arles : 10-27-2008 at 02:43 PM. |
|
10-27-2008, 02:44 PM | #8566 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Quote:
I don't have a great understanding of taxes, the economy, or the moving parts that make things go. But a purely raw level, the Democratic idea of such things just always FELT oversimplified to me, and I've always been suspicious of it and the motivations for it. If I was an alien and learning about about this thing called an "economy" and government, I'd think, "well, the oil companies make billions, lets take from them to fund the government...and regular citizens have much less, let's just take a lot less from them". I have no doubt that people who understand this better than me can have legitimate, economic-based rational for the Democratic tax plan. But for some reason, they don't usually want to go there. It's enough for a candidate to just rant about the oil industry's "record profits", and hype that they're "looking out for the middle class with tax cuts". But it's not really that simple, is it? If not, why don't Democrats go beyond that? The obvious cynical answer is that they need the votes of the uneducated masses who can't get beyond that 1st idea, and can't burden themselves with the possibility of a more complicated economy. So even though I appreciate Obama's Reagan-like ability to make Americans feel better about themselves - I just don't trust him, or really Democrats in general. Conservatives aren't any better about brining their ideas to the masses, either, of course. But their general ideas on taxes, by necessity, have to go at least one step beyond the analysis of "tax the rich!". It seems like in terms of economics, the "dumbed down" Republican idea goes 1 step from the obvious, and the "dumbed down" Democratic idea goes 0 steps. Last edited by molson : 10-27-2008 at 02:47 PM. |
|
10-27-2008, 02:45 PM | #8567 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
|
Quote:
TESTIFY!
__________________
To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers |
|
10-27-2008, 02:49 PM | #8568 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
|
Quote:
Really? "Tax cuts always good," seems about the end of things for most Republicans. Of course providing a simple, incomplete, emotionally resonate argument is what politicians do and what gets them elected. Nobody's going to vote for QS's accurate, yet complex message on taxation.
__________________
To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers Last edited by JPhillips : 10-27-2008 at 02:49 PM. |
|
10-27-2008, 02:58 PM | #8569 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Quote:
Even if "tax cuts are always good", it takes SOME kind of economic theory to get there when it comes to corporations. Democrat: They have money, so they should fund the government more. Republican: They have money, but we should let them keep it so they can hire people and stimulate the economy. I'm not saying one's better than the other. But the first one's a much easier sell to the masses, whether or not it's the right thing to do. That's what makes it scarier to me. The first one could be a strictly anti-corporation/class warfare sentiment. The second one requires some opinion about the way the economy works (unless you're actually a corporation, but corporations don't vote - I know, I know, just stay with me here). People lache on to one or the other no matter the circumstance when I don't think history tells us anything other than the real answer: "it depends". Last edited by molson : 10-27-2008 at 03:01 PM. |
|
10-27-2008, 03:05 PM | #8570 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
|
I think it's cyclical. Nationally the tax cut message doesn't resonate well this cycle because most people don't see taxation as a major problem. People do see growing income inequality as a problem, so Obama's tax ideas play better.
In IN, however, excessive property taxes have been a huge issue and supporting a constitutional limit on property taxes is damn near mandatory to being elected to a statewide office.
__________________
To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers |
10-27-2008, 03:13 PM | #8571 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Dayton, OH
|
Quote:
Except that's not what they've been doing. We have years of capitalism operating with few bounds to prove that low taxes + high borrowing power + few regulations = HOLY FUCK. I could go a step further and say that the Republicans general idea regarding the economy is to let the free market have its way. That is what has happened for most of the '90s and 2000's, and here we are in a huge hole that is collapsing in on itself. That is why the Democratic message is playing so well right now. Not because tax cuts play well to the average citizen. But because the Democratic message of "beware unchecked capitalism" is being played out in the news media every day.
__________________
My listening habits |
|
10-27-2008, 03:14 PM | #8572 |
College Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Federal Way, WA
|
Curious question for those that lean (or more than lean) conservative:
How do you feel about everyone being taxed for social security to allow it to remain solvent for a MUCH longer time? I rarely hear conservatives debate about this possibility, so I am curious to hear viewpoints from the right. Last edited by Tigercat : 10-27-2008 at 03:14 PM. |
10-27-2008, 03:21 PM | #8573 | |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Colorado Springs
|
Quote:
I'm not a fan of most of the aspects of social security period, so my position on that should be obvious. Also...it wouldn't be (as much) of an issue if the gov't had some semblence of fiscal responsibility / money management skills. |
|
10-27-2008, 03:24 PM | #8574 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Quote:
But isn't the oft-repeated line here that Obama only wants to be where we were in the 90s under Clinton, and that he's not any more "socialist" than that? |
|
10-27-2008, 03:39 PM | #8575 | |
College Prospect
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Boston, MA
|
Quote:
Regulation and taxation aren't the same thing. |
|
10-27-2008, 04:19 PM | #8576 | |
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
First, I think there are times where you can increase taxes. It just depends on the climate and what your goal is. If we were in the mid to late 90s, in an economic boon, you could choose a slight increase to capital gains and marginal rates because the incentive to invest/build your business was still there. So, you could say "Hey, we are all doing real well and we'd like to raise a little extra revenue to pay down the deficit. We have an across the board 3% rate hike combined with a 5% hike on cap gains." In a good economy, that probably wouldn't impact behavior/confidence and generate some extra revenue.
However, in a bad or poor economy, any small activity to penalize investment scare people off. Right now we need to cut the cap gains rate because people aren't investing. Look at it this way: Think of stocks like a product. You are selling 100 items for a profit of $200 each. But, if you lower the price $50, you could sell 200 or 300 for a profit of $150. Wouldn't you lower the price? Right now, we have a ton of stocks "sitting in a warehouse" and want to sell them. Does it make sense to raise their price by upping cap gains? Quote:
Last edited by Arles : 10-27-2008 at 04:19 PM. |
|
10-27-2008, 04:32 PM | #8577 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Washington, DC
|
Quote:
If that is the case, I should not be paying into social security.
__________________
Sixteen Colors ANSI/ASCII Art Archive "...the better half of the Moores..." -cthomer5000 |
|
10-27-2008, 04:34 PM | #8578 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Federal Way, WA
|
Quote:
Agreed, I think 67-68 makes a lot more sense right now. I just find it curious that we don't have everyone pay into social security. Not because I think like Michael Moore and want to scream injustice over it. The idea not to have everyone contribute to social security just doesn't jive with the ideology of our government social programs as a whole. |
|
10-27-2008, 04:51 PM | #8579 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Washington, DC
|
Quote:
Call me ignorant, but who doesn't pay into social security? Those making under a certain amount of money? And, isn't the amount of money you are paid from social security directly related to the amount you put in?
__________________
Sixteen Colors ANSI/ASCII Art Archive "...the better half of the Moores..." -cthomer5000 |
|
10-27-2008, 04:52 PM | #8580 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Quote:
However, this will not get sold to the masses and the corporations wont sit idly by and agree with you. They will fight against it just as strong as they ever did or would. A corporate tax increase will NEVER be something that they agree to just accept as being "a time where you can increase taxes." So we might as well agree that we're simply talking about when is the least worst time to increase taxes on, well really, anyone.
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL |
|
10-27-2008, 05:10 PM | #8581 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Quote:
Nobody wants their own taxes increased. That doesn't mean it never happens (or should never happen). Last edited by molson : 10-27-2008 at 05:11 PM. |
|
10-27-2008, 05:11 PM | #8582 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: The State of Insanity
|
well, the odds on the Democrats getting 60 senate seats just improved a bit.
Jury finds Stevens guilty on corruption charges - CNN.com WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A jury found U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska guilty Monday of all seven counts in his federal corruption trial.The jury found Stevens guilty of "knowingly and willfully" scheming to conceal on Senate disclosure forms more than $250,000 in home renovations and other gifts from an Alaska-based oil industry contractor. Stevens faces a maximum sentence of up to to 35 years in prison -- five years for each of the seven counts. Legal experts note the judge has the discretion to give Stevens as little as no jail time and probation when he is sentenced. He sat expressionless as the seven verdicts were read out at the end of his trial, less than a day after the jury began deliberations from scratch because of a change in jurors. After the second guilty verdict was read, Stevens' lead defense attorney, Brendan Sullivan, patted his back, leaving his hand there. As Stevens left the defense area, he and his wife exchanged a kiss on the cheek. Stevens said: "It's not over yet." Stevens' defense team said they will move for a new trial. Stevens left the courthouse without comment. Stevens accepted "hundreds of thousands of dollars of freebies" from a major oil services company in his state, acting assistant Attorney General Matthew Friedrich said after the verdict. "This company was not a charity," he said, saying it solicited Stevens for help in Washington at the same time it was transforming Stevens' single-story A-frame Alaska house into a two-story structure with a deck, new gas grill and other accouterments.
__________________
Check out Foz's New Video Game Site, An 8-bit Mind in an 8GB world! http://an8bitmind.com |
10-27-2008, 05:15 PM | #8583 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Quote:
Right so I have a hard time swallowing the "Taxes shouldnt go up (put your date in here)" argument because there will never be a time where the opposite is then true, IMO. I'd like to see it at least and Ill eat crow but I just dont think you'll ever see a corp head say, "You know now is a good time to tax the business I run." etc. That being said, I think now is a bad time to increase taxes and am hopeful that Obama and his advisors will put there heads together and come up with a great gameplan for our country's future.
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL |
|
10-27-2008, 05:20 PM | #8584 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Quote:
Isn't that just the nature of our relatively balanced, 2-party system? We're somwhere in the middle of what people want. So republicans can "always" want lower taxes without it necessarily following that they should be zero. And democrats can "always" want to increase corporate taxes without it necessarily following that they should be taxed 100%. But on the other hand, I agree, and I expressed the frustration of this from the other side. People know vaguely where they stand on things, and can recite it ad nauseam, but I REALLY pay attention when someone sees a specific situation and goes against their regular schtick/viewpoint. |
|
10-27-2008, 05:31 PM | #8585 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkeley
|
Quote:
The less money you earn, the higher percentage of that income you spend on goods and services. Therefore, if you cut taxes on those making less money, a higher percentage of that money will in turn be spent. Money spent goes right back into the economy stimulating businesses and generating tax revenue. |
|
10-27-2008, 05:38 PM | #8586 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Quote:
Fair enough. I wonder how many people at a typical Obama rally would come up with that answer though. I think the raw sentiment there is still just "we're not pro-corporation like the Republicans". That's just based on my impression and experiences though. And yes, obviously your standard Republican rally would have ALL kinds of frighting REAL answers to why people vote the way they do. That's the heart of what I've been getting at - why do people vote the way they do, and how do candidates exploit that. I think if we had a better understanding of that part of the American soul, democracy suddenly wouldn't seem like that great an idea. Last edited by molson : 10-27-2008 at 05:43 PM. |
|
10-27-2008, 05:42 PM | #8587 |
College Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkeley
|
That's why I don't want "someone who's just like me" to be president or veep.
|
10-27-2008, 05:46 PM | #8588 |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
|
10-27-2008, 05:53 PM | #8589 | |
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
Quote:
In the end, taxes are a little like the fed rates or oil prices. The actual impact of an increase or decrease often pale in comparison to the confidence created/degraded. If you were to announce a cut in cap gains rate, it would spur on a lot more investment just from the mental side. A lot of the market's roller coaster state is based on uncertainty - both about the economical and political climate. The more certainty you can add in from a market-positive, the more investment you will see. Last edited by Arles : 10-27-2008 at 05:55 PM. |
|
10-27-2008, 06:01 PM | #8590 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Federal Way, WA
|
Quote:
If you make OVER a certain amount (around 100k) you don't pay in on amount earned over that amount. So its not so much that you don't pay any social security, its that you pay such a small percentage more money you make. Its almost a regressive tax. |
|
10-27-2008, 06:06 PM | #8591 |
Death Herald
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Le stelle la notte sono grandi e luminose nel cuore profondo del Texas
|
It seems that the so-called "Red" states seem to be benefitting the most from wealth redistribution, based on the amount they pay per capita in taxes versus what they get per capita in government spending.
source link: http://www.christiangrantham.com/200...wealth-around/
__________________
Thinkin' of a master plan 'Cuz ain't nuthin' but sweat inside my hand So I dig into my pocket, all my money is spent So I dig deeper but still comin' up with lint Last edited by cartman : 10-27-2008 at 06:13 PM. |
10-27-2008, 06:22 PM | #8592 | |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Colorado
|
Quote:
Public employees have their own retirement account and do not pay into SS (at least in some/all? states). |
|
10-27-2008, 07:04 PM | #8593 |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
|
Ugh. Two White Supremacists' plans were foiled by the government. Their plan? Kill black people and Obama.
Please don't kill our future president, idiots! |
10-27-2008, 07:12 PM | #8594 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Colorado
|
I wonder how many assasination attempts and murder plots have been foiled by the government over the past 30 years (since Kennedy and King)?
|
10-27-2008, 07:15 PM | #8595 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: The State of Insanity
|
Apparently the Republicans are going to double down on their Palin as Reagan bet..
Republican fears of historic Obama landslide unleash civil war for the future of the party - Telegraph Jim Nuzzo, a White House aide to the first President Bush, dismissed Mrs Palin's critics as "cocktail party conservatives" who "give aid and comfort to the enemy". He told The Sunday Telegraph: "There's going to be a bloodbath. A lot of people are going to be excommunicated. David Brooks and David Frum and Peggy Noonan are dead people in the Republican Party. The litmus test will be: where did you stand on Palin?" If they go with Palin in 2012, they will have guaranteed eight years of Obamania.
__________________
Check out Foz's New Video Game Site, An 8-bit Mind in an 8GB world! http://an8bitmind.com |
10-27-2008, 07:18 PM | #8596 | ||
Stadium Announcer
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Burke, VA
|
Quote:
I like this quote from Burke: Quote:
My theory, btw, is that as we've become more democratized and have assumed greater powers in the shaping of the government, we have also not assumed the character and education of those who held that power previously. Therefore, it's pretty much our fault that things have gotten to this ridiculous point.
__________________
I don't want the world. I just want your half. |
||
10-27-2008, 08:59 PM | #8597 | |
n00b
Join Date: Sep 2003
|
Quote:
the social security wage base (amount of income that is subject to the 6.2 FICA payroll tax) is indexed to inflation and is increased yearly (historical table http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/cbb.html) the amount of your SS benefit is based on your 35 highest years of income over your working life. the benefit is capped though (this cap also increases yearly), so that is why instituting the payroll tax on incomes over $250K is just a "re-distribution of the wealth" since people paying it on income over $250K will not see any of that money coming back to them. if given the choice between contributing to social security, or having the money instead directed to an IRA that i could control, i would take the IRA choice every day and twice on sunday.
__________________
d'oh |
|
10-27-2008, 10:22 PM | #8598 | |||
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Washington, DC
|
Quote:
How is it regressive? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but, as I said, isn't the amount you receive based on how much you put in? The logic that it is not "fair" if higher incomes are not paying in money beyond $103k, but are not receiving anything extra for their income beyond $103k, what is the harm? I have to look back at the original thread, but I'm not sure where the complaint was. People put in a certain amount of money, and in theory they receive money based on that contribution. Am I mistaken somewhere? Quote:
Again, I don't see the problem here. If you're not receiving anything from SS, I don't care if you're not putting into it. I assume this is a "Republican" idea, and I, at this point in my life, consider myself more of a Democrat, but I'm having trouble seeing what the original complaint was. Quote:
The Tax Foundation - Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2005
__________________
Sixteen Colors ANSI/ASCII Art Archive "...the better half of the Moores..." -cthomer5000 Last edited by lordscarlet : 10-27-2008 at 10:23 PM. Reason: removed duplication of image |
|||
10-27-2008, 10:23 PM | #8599 | |
Resident Alien
Join Date: Jun 2001
|
Quote:
That seems to be a no-brainer. |
|
10-27-2008, 10:31 PM | #8600 | |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Tennessee
|
Quote:
We got a lot of big government growth that stinks. Of course nobody is pushing to elect W in this election. But if you are saying that since W was bad, then Obama can be bad and it is fair. Well, that is a very pessimistic approach. |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|