Race card sighting, race card sighting.

[DirkFTW]

I punched a man last week because I feared he might wrongly sue me for battery.

EDIT: It's a clever move by Obama. Now everything depends on "what the definition of is is" arguments.

Obama adviser David Axelrod said the Democrat's campaign will be on high alert for code words or innuendo meant to play on voters' racial sentiments. "We're going to be aggressive about pushing back on anything that we feel is inappropriate or misleading," he said. Link

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

calling somebody racist before they've done anything racist isn't the kind of "two-steps ahead" that anyone should be proud of.

It's sort of like pre-emptive war isn't it??

[rabbitproof]

A presidential candidate who's named Hussein and wears a turban? A building that's called the White House but run by a black guy?
John McCain's camp said it will tolerate neither race-based messages nor false accusations of racism.

Barack Obama's campaign will be examining its opponent's political messages for racial references.

Those political images and ideas already have found their way onto TV airwaves and campaign buttons, possible harbingers of racially tinged messages in a general election involving the first black candidate to head a major party's ticket.

[dude1394]

Another racial remark? If it's criticism, it's a racial remark.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/201270.php

Uppity-Watch, vol. 1
06.23.08 -- 1:53PM
By Josh Marshall

Karl Rove's latest to Republicans about how to message on Obama ...

"Even if you never met him, you know this guy. He's the guy at the country club with the beautiful date, holding a martini and a cigarette that stands against the wall and makes snide comments about everyone who passes by."

So this is also racial. Bulls***..

[chumdawg]

What is racial about that?

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by dude1394

A little early for the oh woe is me I'm a victim race card isn't it? All of those stupid white folks who are giving him internet money. I just can't stand race-mongers.



Man...5 more months of hearing this stroker whine about how anyone who doesn't vote for him's a racist.

I find this thread start absolutely hillarious (in a non funny way)...

given the fact that YOU have felt the need to smugly calling him Hussein --- I know, I know..its his name <wink wink> --- AND are constantly harping on "whitey hating" and absolute bullshit like that

Remind me again who is race mongering?

[alby]

There's only once race.




And that's the human race.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

I find this thread start absolutely hillarious (in a non funny way)...

given the fact that YOU have felt the need to smugly calling him Hussein --- I know, I know..its his name <wink wink> --- AND are constantly harping on "whitey hating" and absolute bullshit like that

Remind me again who is race mongering?

Obama

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by alby

There's only once race.




And that's the human race.

We were never in the human race in the first place?

[wmbwinn]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin
calling somebody racist before they've done anything racist isn't the kind of "two-steps ahead" that anyone should be proud of.


Quote:
Originally posted by Dude1394
It's sort of like pre-emptive war isn't it??
_________________________________________

Here's a pre-emptive anti-war ad...

++++++++++++

Have you seen the "Baby Alex" political ad that the radical-left, George Soros-funded organization MoveOn has produced? To some, it plays like a "Saturday Night Live" skit, but the intent is deadly serious: It is designed to damage John McCain.

In the ad, a young mother holding a baby says, "Hi, John McCain, this is Alex and he's my first . . . So, John McCain, when you say you would stay in Iraq for a hundred years, were you counting on Alex? Because, if you were, you can't have him."

I know, you think I'm making that up. No way.

These loopy MoveOn people spent more than one-half million dollars making and marketing the ad. No word on what Baby Alex's cut was.

My question is this: Who on earth would take that message seriously? What kind of voter is that supposed to reach?

The basic premise of the ad was a conversation from last January between Sen. McCain and the late Tim Russert. McCain told Russert that U.S. troops are needed around the world but we have to keep them safe. The Q&A went like this:

Russert: "President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years."


McCain: "Maybe 100 . . . We've been in South Korea — we've been in Japan for 60 years. That'd be fine with me, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed."

Now, Baby Alex might not understand the geo-political implications of the comment, but honest adults should. The U.S. military is stationed overseas to protect our interests and to defuse dangerous situations, like turmoil in the Persian Gulf. That's tough for a child to digest, but, come on, it's not a kooky position even if you disagree.

Propaganda aside, I liked the Baby Alex ad so much that I'm suggesting MoveOn produce a series of them. Let's see . . . how about Baby Alex thanking his mom for not aborting him? That has a political theme to it.

Also, Baby Alex could extend his gratitude to the FBI for keeping his parents safe since the attack on 9/11. Alex could also, through his perspicacious mother, demonstrate his eagerness to see Islamic fascism defeated — so he and all the other babies won't have to deal with it when they grow up.

Perhaps Baby Alex's mom could also explain to him that he will never have to live under a tyrant like Saddam Hussein because his country embraces freedom. And then, after all that, Alex could settle in for a nice nap knowing that a nutritious meal will be ready for him upon awakening — a meal millions of babies in other countries will never get.

Those ideas should keep MoveOn very busy this election year, and I am definitely looking forward to seeing the spots on TV. Thank you, George Soros. You're a patriot.

-Bill O'Reilly

++++++++++++++++++++

This just cracks me up.
1)take a history lesson from the Greek women who told their sons and husbands to come home from battle with their shields on or on their shields. Legend has it that one of these women killed her husband because he came home with a wound in his back (implying he retreated).

2)This ad implies that Obama is the anti-war candidate. This is also ludicrous. The only anti war candidate was Ron Paul. Obama has repeatedly said (when a clever newsman actually forced him to talk) that he has no plan to withdraw until we are victorious/successful.

3)This ad ignores the context of McCain's statement. McCain simply pointed out that we are in Korea and VietNam (and Germany and Japan for that manner) and all over the world in places where we suffer no losses and play various security roles by being deployed around the world. McCain said he intended to be succesful in Iraq (same thing Obama said) and see our men/women stop dying there...

This is another example of a completely stupid ad that focuses on the old yellow journalism trick called the "strawman" technique. First, definitions so you understand what I am saying:
yellow journalism: intentionally lying or giving a halftruth to promote your viewpoint. usually associated with bias and hatred.
strawman technique of yellow journalism: creating an entity that doesn't really exist and applying a label to it that is inaccurate and then destroying the "strawman". In this example above, the "strawman" is the suggestion that McCain intends to keep Americans in a line to die in Iraq. McCain has never said he expects 100 years of war and death in Iraq. Bush did not say that either when he said we may be in Iraq for 50 years. After this strawman is created, then it is destroyed.

Unfortunately, the Strawman technique is used widely in politics. McCain used it to narrowly beat Romney in Florida which catapulted him to the national victory in the Republican primary. He said that Romney supported a retreat from Iraq on a particular day. Romney never said that. So, McCain created a Strawman right before the vote (before Romney had time to de-bunk the myth) and then destroyed the strawman by saying Romney could not lead on national security...

Unfortunately, the Strawman technique was used by Obama when he implied that McCain was a racist. McCain has never said anything about Obama's race or heritage. But, Obama created the Strawman and then destroyed it.

The Strawman technique is a lie. I'm tired of being lied to.

[chumdawg]

Unfortunately, the Strawman technique is used widely in politics.

Of course it is. In fact, it's the very lifeblood of campaign politics. Surely you don't think this is something new, do you?

For that matter, the same sort of thing cuts the other way, too. Obama is routinely characterized as a person with "no real ideas" but just grand rhetoric instead. That is certainly nowhere nearer to true than the idea that McCain's foreign policy stance may result in unnecessary loss of American lives.

[FishForLunch]

Why would anyone want to vote for a old Man, we have enough worthless old gas Bags in the Senate. Why dont they all retire and move to Florida or Phoenix and let some younger people lead this country.

Does it really matter who is in power, all they care about is their own stupid party.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by FishForLunch

Why would anyone want to vote for a old Man, we have enough worthless old gas Bags in the Senate..

What a bigot.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by FishForLunch

Why would anyone want to vote for a old Man, we have enough worthless old gas Bags in the Senate. Why dont they all retire and move to Florida or Phoenix and let some younger people lead this country.

Does it really matter who is in power, all they care about is their own stupid party.

So age makes someone worthless? I agree we have a lot of "worthless old gas Bags" in the Senate, but we also have some worthless young gas Bags there too. Personally, I would rather have someone a little older run the country, because they tend to have more wisdom and experience. The young have great ideas, but minimal experience to prove their ideas. When Obama announced his run for the presidency, he had been a US Senator for less than 150 days.

EDIT: And Reagan wasn't exactly young either. So was he a worthless old gas Bag?

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Of course it is. In fact, it's the very lifeblood of campaign politics. Surely you don't think this is something new, do you?

For that matter, the same sort of thing cuts the other way, too. Obama is routinely characterized as a person with "no real ideas" but just grand rhetoric instead. That is certainly nowhere nearer to true than the idea that McCain's foreign policy stance may result in unnecessary loss of American lives.

Perhaps the issue of Obama not discussing specific plans is a Strawman lie.

If so, then educate me:
1)foreign policy: we should talk to people
2)Iraq: we should end the war (but he says he has no plan to retreat before we are successful in Iraq)
3)Healthcare: we should give all Americans access to a plan inspired by the plan for Federal Employees. Details?
4)border security? We should be nice to people
5)Social Security: re-assess the SS tax to people making 250K per year (no tax from 103K to 249 a year). Does that make the system fluid and livable in the future?
6)Taxes: repeal the tax cuts to the wealthy and increase tax breaks to the middle class. What is the magic dividing line between the untaxed and the supertaxed? What are the details of the increased tax to the "wealthy" and how are the "wealthy" defined as "wealthy". What are the details of tax alleviation for the middle class? How is the middle class defined?
7)definition of marriage? Legal issues of marriage?
8)Define his approach to the influence of the USA in the world? His view on the UN? His view on NATO? His view on Afghanistan (I have only heard him talk about Iraq). View on N. Korea? What about his plans for Russia in our foreign policy? Go talk to Putin and fix everything? View on missile defense system? I have heard him slam the missile defense technology and say that funding will be reduced. What part of the military will not be funded? What part of the military will be funded besides the VA expansions?

Anyway, if Obama's vague approach to politics is a Strawman, then perhaps you can show me otherwise?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Perhaps the issue of Obama not discussing specific plans is a Strawman lie.

If so, then educate me:
1)foreign policy: we should talk to people
2)Iraq: we should end the war (but he says he has no plan to retreat before we are successful in Iraq)
3)Healthcare: we should give all Americans access to a plan inspired by the plan for Federal Employees. Details?
4)border security? We should be nice to people
5)Social Security: re-assess the SS tax to people making 250K per year (no tax from 103K to 249 a year). Does that make the system fluid and livable in the future?
6)Taxes: repeal the tax cuts to the wealthy and increase tax breaks to the middle class. What is the magic dividing line between the untaxed and the supertaxed? What are the details of the increased tax to the "wealthy" and how are the "wealthy" defined as "wealthy". What are the details of tax alleviation for the middle class? How is the middle class defined?
7)definition of marriage? Legal issues of marriage?
8)Define his approach to the influence of the USA in the world? His view on the UN? His view on NATO? His view on Afghanistan (I have only heard him talk about Iraq). View on N. Korea? What about his plans for Russia in our foreign policy? Go talk to Putin and fix everything? View on missile defense system? I have heard him slam the missile defense technology and say that funding will be reduced. What part of the military will not be funded? What part of the military will be funded besides the VA expansions?

Anyway, if Obama's vague approach to politics is a Strawman, then perhaps you can show me otherwise?

Well, first off, I'll be very candid with you: I don't know the answers to all the questions you asked, and for some of them I'm not even inclined to find out.

However, I think that you, even as you seemed to characterize Obama as a bad choice for president, still proved my point, at least in part. See, you DO know of certain specific ideas Obama has in mind. You would like to know more of them, in more specific detail, I recognize. But still and all, you do have a sense of where he is coming from. Most of the people who say he's "all hat and no cattle" couldn't come anywhere close to articulating a list like you just put forth. Instead, they have identified Obama with some prototype they have in their head, and they are content to run with that.

It's just like the McCain thing, which is what I was saying. Yes, there are plenty of people who will hear that one soundbite from McCain (about staying in Iraq a hundred years) and immediately identify HIM with a prototype they have in their minds, without being able to explore the issue with any sort of depth.

That's the way that presidential politics is played. I feel very comfortable with my estimation that fully 50% or more of the people who vote in a presidential election do not understand what they are voting for.

If that's true, then ask yourself: Does the smart candidate reside in the details, like a Gore or a Ron Paul, or does he reside in the imagery and the rhetoric? What actually wins campaigns? If eggheads like you or me, who actually understand this stuff and make informed decisions, don't decide the elections...but the easily swayed do...who does the smart candidate pander to?

In other words, the less Obama says about his specific ideologies, the better chance he has to win the election. But that most certainly does NOT mean that he doesn't have those ideologies. To believe that would be simply foolish.

[Flacolaco]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

If so, then educate me:
1)foreign policy: we should talk to people

i.e. Negotiate with terrorists...

2)Iraq: we should end the war (but he says he has no plan to retreat before we are successful in Iraq)

If he said that, it's the only good thing he's ever said. ever.

4)border security? We should be nice to people

Unfortunately neither of our "fine" candidates seem to concerned about the drain mexico is putting on our country. All these...err....fine posters here on this board who bitch about how much Iraq is taking away from the American people should refocus their energy on Latin America. They are way more draining than the war on this country, sending money back home from 2 or 3 jobs, not paying taxes, wasting tax payer money on law enforcement and health care....

Build a fence dammit.

5)Social Security: re-assess the SS tax to people making 250K per year (no tax from 103K to 249 a year). Does that make the system fluid and livable in the future?
6)Taxes: repeal the tax cuts to the wealthy and increase tax breaks to the middle class. What is the magic dividing line between the untaxed and the supertaxed? What are the details of the increased tax to the "wealthy" and how are the "wealthy" defined as "wealthy". What are the details of tax alleviation for the middle class? How is the middle class defined?

This keeps me up at night. Hey! How about start taking away percentage points from kids who score well on tests in elementary school, and redistributing them amongst the lower grades?? It's the EXACT same concept. Punishment for effort and determination. Socialism FTW? Yay.

Oh and I must spread reputation before giving it to wmb again.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

This keeps me up at night. Hey! How about start taking away percentage points from kids who score well on tests in elementary school, and redistributing them amongst the lower grades?? It's the EXACT same concept. Punishment for effort and determination. Socialism FTW? Yay.

You ARE aware, aren't you, that this is the way it works presently, and the way it has basically always worked? Tax brackets have been around since before you or I were born, and the higher income folks have always paid more. Let's not act like this is some new concept. We're not talking about the concept...we're talking about the degree.

It's a pretty simple concept. It goes like this: We need more money, as a federal government...where do we get it? Let's get it from the people who can most readily afford to give it, without throwing our economy all out of whack.

That's why when Bush cut taxes, everyday folks got $600 back this year (and $300 back a few years ago) but folks in high income brackets got nothing. Same concept, bro. It's about how meaningful the changes on the margin are.

The counterargument is that higher taxes on the higher income brackets create a disincentive to earn money. But let's get real. If you are earning 250K and paying taxes on it at 40%, but every dollar over 250K gets taxed at 50%, are you going to say, "You know what, screw it. I don't want those extra dollars if I only get 50% of them as opposed to the 60% I am getting now"? I doubt it.

[Flacolaco]

Well it sucks, and it always has.

Here's what Thomas Jefferson had to say about it:

To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

http://www.treasury.gov/education/fa...es/ustax.shtml

Smart man.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

The counterargument is that higher taxes on the higher income brackets create a disincentive to earn money. But let's get real. If you are earning 250K and paying taxes on it at 40%, but every dollar over 250K gets taxed at 50%, are you going to say, "You know what, screw it. I don't want those extra dollars if I only get 50% of them as opposed to the 60% I am getting now"? I doubt it.

The same thing holds true for the lowest brackets. These people receive the Earned Income Tax Credit, so why should they try harder to earn more, when the government will simply give them money if they are poor? How many people collect unemployment checks with no intention of getting a job? They have a free ride, and they like it. They fill out job applications to fill the requirements of the government, but they openly tell the potential employer they don't want the job.

So we have two opposite extremes. The lowest extreme is paying NO taxes and living off the tax payers in the form of welfare, and the highest extreme is making lots of money by their own hard work, and paying a huge tax percentage for it. When politicians say "they make so much, they won't miss it", I just shake my head and think, "I would miss it."

So yes, the tax brackets have always been this way, and I agree with Flaco.... it has always sucked. Everyone should pay their share, in the form of a flat tax and/or a consumption tax (national sales tax).

Here is an article on Russia's flat tax:

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed032403.cfm

And from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax):

Some claim the flat tax will increase tax revenues, by simplifying the tax code and removing the many loopholes corporations and the rich currently exploit to pay less tax. The Russian Federation is a claimed case in point; the real revenues from its Personal Income Tax rose by 25.2% in the first year after the Federation introduced a flat tax, followed by a 24.6% increase in the second year, and a 15.2% increase in the third year

[mary]

The same thing holds true for the lowest brackets. These people receive the Earned Income Tax Credit, so why should they try harder to earn more, when the government will simply give them money if they are poor?

Yes, we all know those poor bastards absolutely HATE to work. That's why they're poor in the first place, right?

I think characterizing the "poor" in this way is every bit as fallacious as characterizing the rich as greedy capitalists who only care about themselves.

I really don't believe that many low-income families are planning their lives around the Earned Income Tax Credit. It's a really a stupid statment, when you think about it.

Sure there may be those that are taking advantage of it by voluntarily keeping their incomes low. But I don't think that is the case most of the time.

Be careful with those broad strokes you're using...


Excuse me for a moment, but I absolutely HATE the way some people treat social programs with such disdain...as if they will surely never need them, and as if those who receive help surely aren't worthy of it.

That's such utter bullcrap.

I've been on welfare.

I've been on foodstamps.

I've been on unemployment.

Let me tell you...it was no effing picnic. (yes...NEWSFLASH..being poor sucks ass!!). I wasn't sitting around thinking..."boy, this is the life." My mom was doing everything she could to support us and if those social programs wouldn't have existed, my life would've turned out very differently.

I agree with Chum. All of this nonsense about the tax structure creating a dis-incentive, is just that - nonsense. The incentive to have more is and always has been there. Jeez, the tax structure isn't that progressive to begin with.

So crap all over social "welfare" all you want.

Easy come, easy go...you might be there one day.

[/rant]

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by mary

Yes, we all know those poor bastards absolutely HATE to work. That's why they're poor in the first place, right?

I think characterizing the "poor" in this way is every bit as fallacious as characterizing the rich as greedy capitalists who only care about themselves.

I really don't believe that many low-income families are planning their lives around the Earned Income Tax Credit. It's a really a stupid statment, when you think about it.

Sure there may be those that taking advantage of it by voluntarily keeping their incomes low. But I don't think that is the case most of the time.

Be careful with those broad strokes you're using...

You're right, it's not fair to put all the poor into that category. I over-simplified, but somewhat on purpose to illustrate the extreme. I have heard from friends in the past that intentionally limited their hours at work, because if they made another $1k they would lose the Earned Income Tax Credit. So while it's not fair to paint such broad strokes, there are a lot of people who do in fact plan their lives around taxes in those lower brackets. I was the same when I was that poor too. It's not a criticism, just an observation.

And my comments about those who intentionally remain unemployed were not related to the EITC. That was a statement about the welfare system in general. Again, talking just about the extreme... take a walk through a large government subsidized living community. The welfare system has so demoralized some of these people, that they do not even try to find employment.

But I digress.... we were really talking about taxes, and not those "poor bastards who hate to work."

Here is the IRS tax table for 2007:

http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article...164272,00.html

If I file my taxes as Married Filing Jointly, and I make $50k after all tax deductions, then my tax bill is $7,061 (14.12%). If I double my income to $100k after all tax deductions, then my tax bill is $17,847.50 (17.85%). By working hard to double my income, I get to pay more than double in taxes. Sounds great, huh? This is why I get so annoyed at the phrase "tax cuts for the rich". If my tax rate at 100k was the same 14.12% it was at 50k, I would still be paying more in taxes than someone at 50k. I'm still "paying my fair share". It's just a lower percentage.

[alexamenos]

When politicians say "they make so much, they won't miss it".........

yeah, i agree that this is very often the rationale for taxing some people more -- they won't miss it, they've got plenty, etc..., etc....

the thing of note about this rationale is that it is as amoral as it is irrational. Is it rightfully their money? If so, then don't take it from them. Is their money rightfully the domain of the public? Then don't give me shit about the individual taxpayer's feelings when the issue is a matter of the public interest and the greater good.

That is to say, the "they make so much, they won't miss it" isn't so much about the taxpayer as it is about the money-taker.....it is an effort (in vain, i think) to ease the conscious of those doing and advocating the taxing -- basically "we're taking from you, but we're not doing you harm."

this is a common theme among State agents ala the el dorado mormon thread -- "we're taking your kids, but we're not punishing you." "we're pounding your church with tanks, but we're not attacking you." "we've got you by the short hairs and we're going to take your home and your business and garnish your wages, but we're not forcing you to do anything."

two plus two is five, iow.

i think a good question, an interesting question anyway, is whether the State is a divine being endowed with an ethical/moral code that exists on another plane from we mortals. that is, is it ethical for the State to do things which would be considered entirely unethical if carried out by some other institution???

If a group of church ladies showed up at your house and demanded 10% of your earnings (for the children, of course) under threat of stoning, would we consider this reasonable behavior according to prevailing ethical mores?

So yes, the tax brackets have always been this way, and I agree with Flaco.... it has always sucked.

not so much have they always been this way -- income taxes, such as they are, go back to 30's or so, to the hey-day of socialism. they're inherently socialist, although the socialists will fight tooth and nail to prevent anyone from labeling progressive income taxation as a socialist measure.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by mary

I agree with Chum. All of this nonsense about the tax structure creating a dis-incentive, is just that - nonsense. The incentive to have more is and always has been there. Jeez, the tax structure isn't that progressive to begin with.

I would say that the federal income tax system is quite progressive, but the entire monetary system/federal state and local tax system in total is probably closer to regressive than progressive....



(social security and medicare taxes, for instance, are harshly regressive, and despite the fact that they are taxes upon income they are generally not considered in analyses of our federal income tax system)

[mary]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

I would say that the federal income tax system is quite progressive, but the entire monetary system/federal state and local tax system in total is probably closer to regressive than progressive....

(social security and medicare taxes, for instance, are harshly regressive, and despite the fact that they are taxes upon income they are generally not considered in analyses of our federal income tax system)

Don't forget that both corporate and estate taxes are less progressive than they used to be.

And I was referring to the entire federal tax structure, not just the income tax.

For the purposes of worrying about wether or not the federal tax system provides a dis-incentive, I see no need to differentiate.

(eta: not to nitpick, but there is no ceiling for medicare tax)

[jefelump]

Mary,
Clearly I offended you. That was not my intention, and for that I apologize. My comments were not directed at everyone who has ever benefited from a social program. I have been there too. I'm sure many of us have.

Chum said, "The counterargument is that higher taxes on the higher income brackets create a disincentive to earn money." So my comments were simply in the context of the opposite extreme... talking about those who are the poorest of the poor who have lived on welfare most of their lives, and who continue to do so with no effort to break out of it. My point was only to show that same disincentive in the two extremes. Clearly the welfare system has it's place, and is needed as a temporary assistance. Again, I was referring to those who make their living on it with no effort to break out of the cycle...

[mary]

If I file my taxes as Married Filing Jointly, and I make $50k after all tax deductions, then my tax bill is $7,061 (14.12%). If I double my income to $100k after all tax deductions, then my tax bill is $17,847.50 (17.85%). By working hard to double my income, I get to pay more than double in taxes. Sounds great, huh? This is why I get so annoyed at the phrase "tax cuts for the rich". If my tax rate at 100k was the same 14.12% it was at 50k, I would still be paying more in taxes than someone at 50k. I'm still "paying my fair share". It's just a lower percentage.

Techincally, you haven't doubled your income. You've doubled your "after-tax" income. Those tax deductions can make a difference, no?

If they didn't, the AMT wouldn't exist, right?

[mary]

Originally Posted by jefelump

Mary,
Clearly I offended you. That was not my intention, and for that I apologize. My comments were not directed at everyone who has ever benefited from a social program. I have been there too. I'm sure many of us have.

Chum said, "The counterargument is that higher taxes on the higher income brackets create a disincentive to earn money." So my comments were simply in the context of the opposite extreme... talking about those who are the poorest of the poor who have lived on welfare most of their lives, and who continue to do so with no effort to break out of it. My point was only to show that same disincentive in the two extremes. Clearly the welfare system has it's place, and is needed as a temporary assistance. Again, I was referring to those who make their living on it with no effort to break out of the cycle...

I understand, no apology necessary. It was just something I had to say.

I don't often feel the need to express my socialistic, liberal, and down-right un-American views on this forum. But, I'm really busy at work today, so it seemed like a good time to do it.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by mary

Techincally, you haven't doubled your income. You've doubled your "after-tax" income. Those tax deductions can make a difference, no?

I intentionally based my numbers on "gross adjusted income", or the income after deductions. I have two kids. If I had 7 kids, then my gross adjusted income would be lower. If I own my house instead of rent, I have a deduction from property taxes and interest paid on my mortgage. Instead of trying to discuss deductions, I went on gross adjusted incomes. If my gross adjusted income is 50k, then I probably make 65-70k if I own my own home. If my gross adjusted income is 100k, then I have those same deductions, and therefore probably make 115-120k. So you're right, I haven't doubled my income. I make less than double, but now I'm paying more than double in taxes.

[wmbwinn]

wow. I posed a question asking if anyone really knew what Obama's taxation plan was. And, instead of an answer (there is no answer because he won't really talk about it), we get a debate on taxes in the more general sense.

Well, I would say that if we go back to my original list of questions about Obama's plan, that I would have to conclude that no one knows more than I do about his plans and policies. So, the idea that Obama is a great speaker who says nothing is not a "Strawman Lie".

Does it bother anyone that we are going to elect a person with a great smile and great speaking skills when we really know nothing about his plan? Apparently, the details don't matter.

Well, speaking of "change" and "taxes", I'd rather have the dollar than the change...

Here's a tax trivia question for you. What groups gets hurt the most by taxes (as determined by what percentage of their income/assets they pay)?

Answer: The wealthy (as defined by Obama's 250K magic line in the sand) who are EMPLOYED.
If you own a snow cone stand and make 250K, you can write off many things and reduce your taxable income significantly. If you are an employee, your entire salary and benefits shows up in a 1099 and you are SCREWED. If you make that much, most personal deductions are eliminated (there are clauses that say you can't deduct this thing and that thing because you make too much to take the deduction). If you are successful in taking deductions, then the AMT hits (alternative minimum tax). As soon as the AMT hits, your minimum tax is established and taking additional deductions is offset by an increase in the AMT to make sure that you pay a minimum tax.

So, the worse thing you can do is to be a well paid employee. And, now, Obama is going to make that worse. Now, the well paid employee is going to get hit with a recurrence of the Social Security tax for all salary and benefits above 250K. And, your employer pays an equal amount in payroll social security tax. So, your employer is now motivated to pay you less (to keep your salary below 250K).

Now, a high percentage of persons making over 250K are not employed. Those persons use a large number of tricks to avoid taxable income. I know a man who has his own business. He divides that business across about 5 legal entities or names. He pays his household a very limited salary that covers his bills. His wife handles that account to pay the household bills. His vehicles belong to one or another of the business entities to write off as much as possible and avoid assigning the vehicle or its costs or asset allocation to his family or personal taxes...
And, he buys assets to show losses... buy a piece of land or a house and don't sell it in the current tax year of question. Now, the investment is a complete loss on tax determinations. Sell it the next tax year for a profit and then immediately buy additional property to show another loss (or non profit yielding asset). Anyway, you get the idea.

If we wanted to increase our tax receipts, it would make more sense to close loopholes than to increase tax rates...

Now, how many politicians are poor? How many of them are motivated to change the tax code in a way that hurts themselves???
How many lawyers want to remove the structures and loopholes they depend on and use themselves? How many accountants want to remove the strategies that they get paid to explain to you to save you money in taxes so that you pay them?

Why would anyone really expect those in power to act in faith to "fix" things to their own disadvantage?

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

wow. I posed a question asking if anyone really knew what Obama's taxation plan was. And, instead of an answer (there is no answer because he won't really talk about it), we get a debate on taxes in the more general sense.

Well, I would say that if we go back to my original list of questions about Obama's plan, that I would have to conclude that no one knows more than I do about his plans and policies. So, the idea that Obama is a great speaker who says nothing is not a "Strawman Lie".

Does it bother anyone that we are going to elect a person with a great smile and great speaking skills when we really know nothing about his plan? Apparently, the details don't matter.

Well, speaking of "change" and "taxes", I'd rather have the dollar than the change...

Here's a tax trivia question for you. What groups gets hurt the most by taxes (as determined by what percentage of their income/assets they pay)?

Answer: The wealthy (as defined by Obama's 250K magic line in the sand) who are EMPLOYED.
If you own a snow cone stand and make 250K, you can write off many things and reduce your taxable income significantly. If you are an employee, your entire salary and benefits shows up in a 1099 and you are SCREWED. If you make that much, most personal deductions are eliminated (there are clauses that say you can't deduct this thing and that thing because you make too much to take the deduction). If you are successful in taking deductions, then the AMT hits (alternative minimum tax). As soon as the AMT hits, your minimum tax is established and taking additional deductions is offset by an increase in the AMT to make sure that you pay a minimum tax.

So, the worse thing you can do is to be a well paid employee. And, now, Obama is going to make that worse. Now, the well paid employee is going to get hit with a recurrence of the Social Security tax for all salary and benefits above 250K. And, your employer pays an equal amount in payroll social security tax. So, your employer is now motivated to pay you less (to keep your salary below 250K).

Now, a high percentage of persons making over 250K are not employed. Those persons use a large number of tricks to avoid taxable income. I know a man who has his own business. He divides that business across about 5 legal entities or names. He pays his household a very limited salary that covers his bills. His wife handles that account to pay the household bills. His vehicles belong to one or another of the business entities to write off as much as possible and avoid assigning the vehicle or its costs or asset allocation to his family or personal taxes...
And, he buys assets to show losses... buy a piece of land or a house and don't sell it in the current tax year of question. Now, the investment is a complete loss on tax determinations. Sell it the next tax year for a profit and then immediately buy additional property to show another loss (or non profit yielding asset). Anyway, you get the idea.

If we wanted to increase our tax receipts, it would make more sense to close loopholes than to increase tax rates...

Now, how many politicians are poor? How many of them are motivated to change the tax code in a way that hurts themselves???
How many lawyers want to remove the structures and loopholes they depend on and use themselves? How many accountants want to remove the strategies that they get paid to explain to you to save you money in taxes so that you pay them?

Why would anyone really expect those in power to act in faith to "fix" things to their own disadvantage?

Expecting a rich politician to close tax loop holes is like expecting a pharmaceutical company to cure diabetes. They make WAY more money treating the disease over a period of years than they would by finding a cure.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by jefelump

Expecting a rich politician to close tax loop holes is like expecting a pharmaceutical company to cure diabetes. They make WAY more money treating the disease over a period of years than they would by finding a cure.

I wouldn't go quite that far with metaphors. Scientists studying pathology and pharmacology (including those working for pharmaceutical companies) are much more likely to act for the better good than a politician.

[dude1394]

My biggest concern with ultra-progressive income taxes (which it has become) is that the majority of the electorate have no skin in the game when it comes to the federal budget being increased. Who cares if it goes cuckoo, I"m not paying anything.

The social security/medicare taxes need to stay regressive as they are used by the majority of folks and there needs to be some sort of restraint on the programs. I fear that the democrats will begin to try and reduce those taxes as well to buy votes.

When the social security ponzi scheme really starts to hurt they'll be very,very tempted to make the ponzi-scheme taxes progressive as well as reducing the benefits for the "well-off".

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by dude1394

My biggest concern with ultra-progressive income taxes (which it has become) is that the majority of the electorate have no skin in the game when it comes to the federal budget being increased. Who cares if it goes cuckoo, I"m not paying anything.

The social security/medicare taxes need to stay regressive as they are used by the majority of folks and there needs to be some sort of restraint on the programs. I fear that the democrats will begin to try and reduce those taxes as well to buy votes.

When the social security ponzi scheme really starts to hurt they'll be very,very tempted to make the ponzi-scheme taxes progressive as well as reducing the benefits for the "well-off".

I definitely expect Social Security to be modified with a "Means Test" that will eliminate benefits to those deemed to not need them...

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

So, the worse thing you can do is to be a well paid employee.

Once again, to get back to the crux of the argument, is this REALLY the "worst thing you can do," to be a well paid employee? C'mon, now. I don't figure that the guy making 300K as an employee is all that keen to swap places with the 50K employee just so his taxation will be more "fair." Do you?

[Flacolaco]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Once again, to get back to the crux of the argument, is this REALLY the "worst thing you can do," to be a well paid employee? C'mon, now. I don't figure that the guy making 300K as an employee is all that keen to swap places with the 50K employee just so his taxation will be more "fair." Do you?

The crux of the argument is, why are people being penalized for doing well for themselves? It's like if you were to tell the Celtics, "Hey, since you guys won the Finals, you have to give more of your pay to the players association." And the Celtics would then (rightly) say "wtf? all the other guys had an EQUAL chance to make it to the Finals, why the hell should we be punished for playing by the exact same rules and doing a little better for ourselves?"

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

The crux of the argument is, why are people being penalized for doing well for themselves? It's like if you were to tell the Celtics, "Hey, since you guys won the Finals, you have to give more of your pay to the players association." And the Celtics would then (rightly) say "wtf? all the other guys had an EQUAL chance to make it to the Finals, why the hell should we be punished for playing by the exact same rules and doing a little better for ourselves?"

If there's a socialist argument here, it's the one you just made. No, everybody doesn't play by the same rules, and no, everyone doesn't have exact equal chances to attain wealth in our society. Maybe theoretically they do, in one sense, but they don't in practice.

To continue your sports analogy, it's kinda like the revenue sharing that we see in the NFL and other sports. They recognize that large-market teams have an inherent advantage over small-market teams when it comes to generating revenue. So they spread money around to keep the league competitive. Same idea.

But even still...I wince at the idea you espoused in your post, that people are "penalized" if they pay higher taxes. Why do you view it as a penalty? Shouldn't every God-fearing, redblooded American appreciate the opportunity to give something back to their great country? If it's all about you, then even the first tax dollar is a "penalty" the way you describe it. If it's not all about you, then taxes aren't penalties, they are the contribution you make in order to enjoy a nice and healthy country.

Where do you think charitable donations come from, after all? America's first billionaire, John Rockefeller, gave tremendous sums to charities. Bill Gates does the same. It's something to think about.

[rmacomic]

^you're assuming the rich will play by the same rules as everyone else. Laughable.

edit:chum beat me to the punch, and with a better argument.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Where do you think charitable donations come from, after all? America's first billionaire, John Rockefeller, gave tremendous sums to charities. Bill Gates does the same. It's something to think about.

The difference between charity and taxes is that charity is voluntary. Nobody is going to come knocking on your door and haul your ass off to court for not paying to charity. Try not paying your taxes, and see what the IRS does about that. Charity should not be viewed as a penalty, but as an opportunity to help others in need. Taxes aren't charity.

[dude1394]

Ah excellent. Now we have Joe Klein reminding us of the racism card. If you think it was presumptious and way over the top, you are a racist, I guess. If you don't like barack hussein obama then you are a racist ( I get that one). Nice of Times magazine to so enlighten the electorate.

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2..._overload.html

Lots of speculation on the web, and in whispering circles, about why Obama's foreign trip--a slam-dunk success substantively and in photo-op terms (Obama laughing with Petraeus in the helicopter was the best)--hasn't resulted in a polling bump. The emerging conventional wisdom seems to be that the trip is a bit too grand, too...presumptuous and voters are wary of that. (And presumption, of course, always comes with the subterranean tinge of racism.) Maybe so.