Pay No Taxes for 6-Months!!!

semtex · 02-10-2009, 12:47 PM

I like the idea of not having to pay income tax for the first 6 months, but sadly, this will never happen. Know why? Because a large portion of Obama's constituency already doesn't pay income tax! You know who I'm talking about, right? The deadbeats he wants to give tax "rebates" to?

As for those of us who do pay income taxes, we're considered "the rich" in Obama's world view, hence giving us a break would amount to "a tax cut for the rich." And that, my friends, isn't going to happen under this administration.

The Weapon · 02-10-2009, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by semtex

I like the idea of not having to pay income tax for the first 6 months, but sadly, this will never happen. Know why? Because a large portion of Obama's constituency already doesn't pay income tax! You know who I'm talking about, right? The deadbeats he wants to give tax "rebates" to?

As for those of us who do pay income taxes, we're considered "the rich" in Obama's world view, hence giving us a break would amount to "a tax cut for the rich." And that, my friends, isn't going to happen under this administration.

Yep... he's a present day Robin Hood or.. Robbin' Da' 'Hood!

I bust my *** everyday to get everything I have and paid about 30k in taxes for 2008 and that's not including Medicare or SS so lazy *** people can sit at home and drink their 40's and smoke their crack.

There's a reason me and my wife don't want kids because we don't want to support anyone else other than ourselves and indulge ourselves as much as we can, but some how we still can't when we have to support deadbeats.

Asheth · 02-10-2009, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by semtex

I like the idea of not having to pay income tax for the first 6 months, but sadly, this will never happen. Know why? Because a large portion of Obama's constituency already doesn't pay income tax! You know who I'm talking about, right? The deadbeats he wants to give tax "rebates" to?

As for those of us who do pay income taxes, we're considered "the rich" in Obama's world view, hence giving us a break would amount to "a tax cut for the rich." And that, my friends, isn't going to happen under this administration.

His view is of upper class is $90,000 a year income it may be even higher but I know that it is definitely not anything less then $60,000 a year those are the people that are viewed as the fortunate in Obama's view. Its not just if you pay taxes your considered rich.

Edit:

Found this

Quote:

Obama Defines “Middle Class”
by Major Garrett

WASHINGTON — 9 p.m. EDT

I wanted to throw out for consideration and debate a question I’ve found myself asking Democrats, Republicans, Independents and economists for years: who is in the middle class?

In the 1990s, the answers I received were almost entirely linked to income figures - the income of a family of four, or three or of a single person in his or her twenties, or an elderly person on a fixed income determined how close or how far they were from “middle class” status.

About the time of millennium, I began to notice that the answer to who was “middle class” began to change from relatively precise figures to very broad income strata. It was as if politicians — particularly at the national level — began to believe that incomes varied as widely as the core cost of living. Therefore, an income designation, for example, linked to the U.S. Census Bureau definition of median or mean income for an individual or family, would no longer work as a means of defining with precision who was or was not middle class.

In other words, individuals or families in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, Boston or other high-cost urban areas could earn three times the median or mean family income and still feel strapped by month-to-month costs.

In other words, middle class status seemed over time to be less rooted in specific income figures, but regional differences in income and cost-of-living. It also seemed to reflect a sense among politicians and some economists that “middle class” is not just a matter of figures, but also a state of mind.

At my suggestion, my colleague Bill Hemmer was kind of enough to ask Sen. Barack Obama in London how he defined the middle class.

Here is the transcript of that exchange:

HEMMER: You mentioned the economy. You travel back to the U.S. this weekend. You’re going back to a country with a limping economy, “ailing,” I think, is one of the words The Economist used at the end of last week.

You have suggested that taxes will be raised on some Americans. You have also suggested that taxes will be lowered for some Americans. In a limping or an ailing economy, why raise taxes on anyone?

OBAMA: Well, the — because we also have a $400 billion or so budget deficit, because we’ve also got to invest in infrastructure. We’ve got to deal with the fact that a lot more people are unemployed and are going to need unemployment benefits. We’ve got to shore up the housing market because people are experiencing foreclosures.

And that’s why I’ve structured a change in the tax code where if you are making $150,000 a year or less, you’re getting a tax cut, 95 percent of the American families will get a tax cut.

HEMMER: What do you consider…

OBAMA: And the people who are going to see their income taxes raised, go up, are making more than $250,000 a year. So you and I will pay a little bit more in taxes because we can afford it. And what that allows us to do is to help the vast majority of Americans who are really hurting in this economy.

HEMMER: I know we’re pushed for time. Can you give me a definition of the middle class based on income, within a range?

OBAMA: You know, what I would say is, if you are making more than $250,000, than you’re more than middle class. You’re doing better. If you are making less than $250,000, then you are definitely somewhere in the middle class.

And if you’re making $150,000 or less, than I think most Americans would agree that you’re middle class. So that’s why the fact that if you are making less than $250,000, you will not see your taxes go up under an Obama administration. And you will get tax cuts and more money in your pocket if you make less $150,000.

link

Asheth · 02-10-2009, 02:50 PM

Link to Stimulus Package details

Break down of the Obama Stimulus and Recovery Bill

$250,000

Quote:

Tax Cuts to Make Work Pay and Create Jobs: We will provide direct tax relief to 95 percent of American workers, and spur investment and job growth for American Businesses.

semtex · 02-10-2009, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asheth

His view is of upper class is $90,000 a year income it may be even higher but I know that it is definitely not anything less then $60,000 a year those are the people that are viewed as the fortunate in Obama's view. Its not just if you pay taxes your considered rich.

Edit:

Found this

link

Thanks for the clarification. Although, I must say that you kind of hit the nail on the head as to why Obama rubs me the wrong way. I get the impression that in Obama's view, those who make a good living (be that defined at a $60k+ threshold, $90k+, $250k+ or wherever) do so simply because they are "fortunate" or "lucky." It has nothing to do with working hard, being smart, and/or making better choices in life than others. In other words, it has nothing to do with merit -- it's just luck of the draw. Hence the justification for his 'share the wealth' philosophy. After all, those of us who make good livings didn't do anything to actually deserve it; we just lucked out, thus we should redistribute our income to those who aren't as lucky. Never mind that some (not all) low-income people are lazy, dumb, and/or make really bad choices in life.

In this article from Fox News, he talks about how people making more than $250k a year can afford to pay more taxes. Well, let's just say for the sake of argument that this is true. To me, that misses the point. Regardless of whether or not I can afford to carry a larger tax burden than others, why should I? If I make more than $250k a year (which I do not, btw), I would argue that I do so because of my hard work and wise choices, not simply because I 'got lucky'. In short, I've earned it! As a matter of principle, if I earn an above average income only for someone to come snatch it away -- the key word here being "earn," then that's theft of something that's rightfully mine! Being able to afford getting robbed doesn't make it okay to rob me.

Just my

Asheth · 02-10-2009, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by semtex

Thanks for the clarification. Although, I must say that you kind of hit the nail on the head as to why Obama rubs me the wrong way. I get the impression that in Obama's view, those who make a good living (be that defined at a $60k+ threshold, $90k+, $250k+ or wherever) do so simply because they are "fortunate" or "lucky." It has nothing to do with working hard, being smart, and/or making better choices in life than others. In other words, it has nothing to do with merit -- it's just luck of the draw. Hence the justification for his 'share the wealth' philosophy. After all, those of us who make good livings didn't do anything to actually deserve it; we just lucked out, thus we should redistribute our income to those who aren't as lucky. Never mind that some (not all) low-income people are lazy, dumb, and/or make really bad choices in life.

In this article from Fox News, he talks about how people making more than $250k a year can afford to pay more taxes. Well, let's just say for the sake of argument that this is true. To me, that misses the point. Regardless of whether or not I can afford to carry a larger tax burden than others, why should I? If I make more than $250k a year (which I do not, btw), I would argue that I do so because of my hard work and wise choices, not simply because I 'got lucky'. In short, I've earned it! As a matter of principle, if I earn an above average income only for someone to come snatch it away -- the key word here being "earn," then that's theft of something that's rightfully mine! Being able to afford getting robbed doesn't make it okay to rob me.

Just my

Excellent point! That is true and in a true capitalist the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and dog eat dog! Now lets say that when you started your job at the bottom or you job to make ends meet to get to where you are now. You benefited by those that are "More Fortunate" albeit maybe not with the best of benefits but still benefits nonetheless.

America really isn't capitalist anymore its more of a blend of Socialism and Capitalism. If it was Capitalist then Government Bailout wouldn't be apart of our vocabulary. Ford, GM, and Chrysler would have been allowed to burn and been bought by the highest bidder. Notably Nissan would have bought controlling shares of Chrysler they tried to purchase a large chunk recently but it didn't happen.

A Capitalist has more recently come to refer to someone who supports Capitalism or a free market ideology.

Quote:

A free market is a market that is free of government intervention and regulation, besides the minimal function of maintaining the legal system and protecting property rights[1], and is also free of private force and fraud. In a free market property rights are voluntarily exchanged at a price arranged solely by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers. By definition, buyers and sellers do not coerce each other, in the sense that they obtain each other's property without the use of physical force, threat of physical force, or fraud, nor is the coerced by a third party (such as by government via transfer payments).[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market

Quote:

Websters Definition of Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

None of these are apart of America anymore and haven't been for a long time

semtex · 02-10-2009, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asheth

Excellent point! That is true and in a true capitalist the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and dog eat dog! But lets say that when you started your job at the bottom or you job to make ends meet to get to where you are now. You benefited by those that are "More Fortunate" albeit maybe not with the best of benefits but still benefits nonetheless.

But America really isn't capitalist anymore its more of a blend of Socialism and Capitalism. If it was Capitalist then government bailout wouldn't be apart of our vocabulary. Ford, GM, and Chrysler would have been allowed to burn and been bought by the highest bidder. Notably Nissan would have bought controlling shares of Chrysler they tried to purchase a large chunk recently but it didn't happen.

Well, let's not forget that Nissan had to be bought/bailed out by Renault many years ago! But yes, I agree, America isn't truly capitalist anymore, and it hasn't been for decades. For the record, I have no objection to the wealthy helping out the less fortunate via taxes. It's not like I'm against taxation or anything like that. What irks me (and has irked me long before Obama came onto the scene), is progressive taxation, where the more you make, the greater percentage you pay. I would prefer a system where everyone pays a flat percentage of their income as income tax. So it doesn't matter if you make $10k per year or $500k, you're always going to pay the same percentage to income tax. The wealthy are still going to end up contributing more to the public treasury than lower income individuals, as n% of $500k is going to be a lot more than n% of $10k. Point being, one doesn't have to make the wealthy pay a higher percentage in order for the lower income folks to benefit from their wealth.

Asheth · 02-10-2009, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by semtex

Well, let's not forget that Nissan had to be bought/bailed out by Renault many years ago! But yes, I agree, America isn't truly capitalist anymore, and it hasn't been for decades. For the record, I have no objection to the wealthy helping out the less fortunate via taxes. It's not like I'm against taxation or anything like that. What irks me (and has irked me long before Obama came onto the scene), is progressive taxation, where the more you make, the greater percentage you pay. I would prefer a system where everyone pays a flat percentage of their income as income tax. So it doesn't matter if you make $10k per year or $500k, you're always going to pay the same percentage to income tax. The wealthy are still going to end up contributing more to the public treasury than lower income individuals, as n% of $500k is going to be a lot more than n% of $10k. Point being, one doesn't have to make the wealthy pay a higher percentage in order for the lower income folks to benefit from their wealth.

I totally agree flat tax would be a great idea! I would be all for that but what about inflation and the cost of living rising do you think a flat would still be effective? Would a flat tax be able to offset the rising costs?

semtex · 02-10-2009, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asheth

I totally agree flat tax would be a great idea! I would be all for that but what about inflation and the cost of living rising do you think a flat would still be effective? Would a flat tax be able to offset the rising costs?

Depends. The question is -- would wages rise in pace with inflation? They're supposed to, right? It's what they call 'indexing'. If wages keep pace with inflation, then it should be a wash. Let's say cost of living goes up 5%. Well, if wages also go up by 5% to match, then the dollar amount the government gets from income tax will also automatically go up by 5% without having to actually increase the tax rate. And voila, you have your offset of rising costs.

Where things get muddy is when cost of living goes up but wages don't keep pace. If everyone's cost of living goes up by 5% but their wages stay the same (wage stagnation), then everyone is effectively taking a 5% pay decrease. At that point, the revenue generated by the flat tax will not be keeping pace with inflation. But that's when one has to wonder -- why should it keep pace with inflation in such a scenario? If everyone else has to take an effective 5% wage cut, why shouldn't the government also take an effective 5% cut in revenue? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right? If the government raises the flat tax rate by 5% to offset inflation in this scenario, then tax payers will be taking a double-hit. First their cost of living increases by 5% and they have no matching wage increase. Then the government comes and jacks up the tax rate on top of that. Talk about adding insult to injury!

This hypothetical scenario of the double-hit would make me laugh were it not so close to the truth. People are losing their jobs en masse, some people are taking pay cuts, and most people who are lucky enough to keep their jobs don't dare dream of getting actual raises. But what do politicians do? They vote themselves pay increases and raise taxes to pay for the machine known as the modern state, which keeps getting bigger and bigger.

02-10-2009, 12:47 PM	#1 (permalink)
semtex A True Z Fanatic Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Behind enemy lines Age: 55 Posts: 5,995 Drives: People to drink Rep Power: 34	I like the idea of not having to pay income tax for the first 6 months, but sadly, this will never happen. Know why? Because a large portion of Obama's constituency already doesn't pay income tax! You know who I'm talking about, right? The deadbeats he wants to give tax "rebates" to? As for those of us who do pay income taxes, we're considered "the rich" in Obama's world view, hence giving us a break would amount to "a tax cut for the rich." And that, my friends, isn't going to happen under this administration. __________________ "There are no small accidents on this circuit." -- Ayrton Senna 316.8whp & 248 ft/lbs (Dyno Dynamics) \| 319whp & 256 ft/lbs (DynoJet) (04/23/10) Stillen G3 CAI, CBE, Pulley / F.I. LTH / GTSpec Ladder Brace / Setrab Oil Cooler / UpRev-tuned by Forged Perf.