Grrrrr! This irritates me.
10-17-2008, 08:05 AM
#32
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 15,447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sure. Higher percentage of a way smaller sum doesn't equal a tiny percentage of what the wealthy
spend.
Proof is in the percentage of taxes paid by the top 5% of earners.
These people spend more on items annually than the rest combined.
Mike S
Proof is in the percentage of taxes paid by the top 5% of earners.
These people spend more on items annually than the rest combined.
Mike S
10-17-2008, 08:07 AM
#34
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 15,447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bingo, Shon. Makes no economic sense and countless top university economists have said so. They
likely didn't miss Econ 101, either.
Those who support these taxes need to explain the Carter financial success.
Mike S
Those who support these taxes need to explain the Carter financial success.
Mike S
10-17-2008, 08:23 AM
#36
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 15,447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have to search for the post, unless you deleted it. You absolutely posted about double eligibility
years ago and it was talked about "behind your back" by many who were shocked. You don't have your finger on the pulse of everyone in the chapter, Mark. Emails fly behind both our backs, apparently. One of them even cost someone really hard on the forum in the last months.
The fact you deny it now means nothing to those who read it.
As to your other points, I will address below:
- My point as to tax code is you show 2009 taxation samples, which very likely will be inaccurate. Your odd point of your thinking that I was somehow feeling that McCain could get his tax code in faster shows you did not get it. I don't care if McCain's code ever gets in, I am happy with Bush's tax code. The only major change to those in the top tax brackets comes if Obama gets in. I didn't even bring McCain into this. Your point is irrelevant.
- What I am talking about is not "rhetoric", but my situation and many of my friends/associates. If Obama takes part in his plan, I will be in the "sell your home" category, having to pay his huge percentage of my home sale. I would, therefore, have the above mentioned capital gain and would have to pay it. No example or theory, reality in my case.
I am already taxed over 50% with all taxes included. $25,000 in taxes on fuel and tolls alone in 2007. I paid six figures in tax in 2007.
I don't want to eliminate positions in my companies, I don't want to stop investing, I don't want to change my lifestyle, I don't want to not be able to take my financial gain on MY MONEY, MY RISK, MY HARD WORK and pay Barrack roughly $100K on the sale of my home that could be moved forward into my new home.
I certainly don't want a large chunk of my tax money being handed to someone who lives miles from me and chooses not to be work.
We are a democratic society, not a socialist society. Wealth redistribution is pure socialism.
Mike S
The fact you deny it now means nothing to those who read it.
As to your other points, I will address below:
- My point as to tax code is you show 2009 taxation samples, which very likely will be inaccurate. Your odd point of your thinking that I was somehow feeling that McCain could get his tax code in faster shows you did not get it. I don't care if McCain's code ever gets in, I am happy with Bush's tax code. The only major change to those in the top tax brackets comes if Obama gets in. I didn't even bring McCain into this. Your point is irrelevant.
- What I am talking about is not "rhetoric", but my situation and many of my friends/associates. If Obama takes part in his plan, I will be in the "sell your home" category, having to pay his huge percentage of my home sale. I would, therefore, have the above mentioned capital gain and would have to pay it. No example or theory, reality in my case.
I am already taxed over 50% with all taxes included. $25,000 in taxes on fuel and tolls alone in 2007. I paid six figures in tax in 2007.
I don't want to eliminate positions in my companies, I don't want to stop investing, I don't want to change my lifestyle, I don't want to not be able to take my financial gain on MY MONEY, MY RISK, MY HARD WORK and pay Barrack roughly $100K on the sale of my home that could be moved forward into my new home.
I certainly don't want a large chunk of my tax money being handed to someone who lives miles from me and chooses not to be work.
We are a democratic society, not a socialist society. Wealth redistribution is pure socialism.
Mike S
10-17-2008, 08:27 AM
#38
OTOH, when 1/3 of tax filers pay 0 taxes, that's seriously f**ked up.
EVERYBODY should feel the sting of taxes, not just those making $x.
BTW, sounds like both Obama and McCain's plans will exempt 45%+ of filers from taxes instead of the current one-third.
Our system is no longer progressive, but confiscatory and an act of class warfare.
BTW, sounds like both Obama and McCain's plans will exempt 45%+ of filers from taxes instead of the current one-third.
Our system is no longer progressive, but confiscatory and an act of class warfare.
10-17-2008, 08:31 AM
#39
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 15,447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not confusing anything. I am relating exactly what will happen to me. Perhaps you and Mark know
my case better than I or my CPA do?
And I am not alone. Mark, Bill Baas and many more you know are in this boat.
All are looking at moving and selling existing homes, are in the higher tax brackets, etc.
Nobody can say something is rhetoric or non-factual without knowing someone's finances.
Your blanket dismissal is what is non-factual.
Example:
You may not feel you are rich, but what if Obama determines you are per his tax code, once he puts it into effect?
You suddenly take home less money and can't make your house payment. You want to sell your home to move somewhere cheaper, but Obama will take upwards of 35% of your sale of your home, costing you tens of thousands.
Now the business you work for is hit hard by the corporate tax increases and lowers your salary.
This may not happen to you, but to people who fall into his tax increase zone, those who will be paying much more, this can easily happen. Doesn't matter how rich you are once you are let go or your company goes under.
Sure, it's all speculation, but it will happen to some people due to his plans.
Now, can anyone answer how taxing those who employ more will result in less unemployment, higher investment, higher salaries, etc? Nobody has been able to do it. Not one.
Mike S
And I am not alone. Mark, Bill Baas and many more you know are in this boat.
All are looking at moving and selling existing homes, are in the higher tax brackets, etc.
Nobody can say something is rhetoric or non-factual without knowing someone's finances.
Your blanket dismissal is what is non-factual.
Example:
You may not feel you are rich, but what if Obama determines you are per his tax code, once he puts it into effect?
You suddenly take home less money and can't make your house payment. You want to sell your home to move somewhere cheaper, but Obama will take upwards of 35% of your sale of your home, costing you tens of thousands.
Now the business you work for is hit hard by the corporate tax increases and lowers your salary.
This may not happen to you, but to people who fall into his tax increase zone, those who will be paying much more, this can easily happen. Doesn't matter how rich you are once you are let go or your company goes under.
Sure, it's all speculation, but it will happen to some people due to his plans.
Now, can anyone answer how taxing those who employ more will result in less unemployment, higher investment, higher salaries, etc? Nobody has been able to do it. Not one.
Mike S