This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Chisum on 28 October 2008 - 08:10
by Chisum on 28 October 2008 - 09:10
by Chisum on 28 October 2008 - 09:10
by seriously on 28 October 2008 - 12:10
by keepthefaith on 28 October 2008 - 14:10
If someone has a business that grosses 250,000, but only takes home 60,000, he will pay the higher tax rate. He's going to have to lay off workers, and this will cause hardship right down the line.
Mickey, where is your support for the above statement? It is the NET INCOME of a business that would be subject to taxes not the gross revenue or the gross income. It is how the present tax system works and I have not seen one iota of information to indicate otherwise except at right wing blogs.
To do so on anything other than NET profit would be ridiculous. A business can have $250K in sales and actually lose money on a net basis. So based on what you are saying above, that business would have to pay taxes.
Further, it is any income above $250K that would be subject to the higher marginal tax rate under Obama's plan - a marginal tax rate that would be the same as it was when Clinton left office. It was a period of exceptional prosperity and job creation.
This is a summary of Obama's tax plan in terms of some of the main features.
online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121867201724238901.html
by Blitzen on 28 October 2008 - 14:10
Since when is socialism a dirty word in this country. We already have social security, medicare and a sliding scale tax system that is based on net incomes.
If you all really want to know which candidate is offering what you yourself feel will be best for the country, then go to an independednt site like factcheck.org and get educated. Or you can just keep laughing at racist remarks and photos generated by the PDB Uncle Toms that depict Obama as a cartoon figure or ones generated by the lunatic fringe that depict McCain as a dottering old fool who can't make up his mind.
by Micky D on 28 October 2008 - 14:10
"Mickey, where is your support for the above statement?"
Actually, KTF, an Obama volunteer was asked "are you talking net, or gross", and she answered, "gross", when asked about the $250,000 threshold. I suppose I could go digging through You Tube, but that's going to take days.
So, let's say someone nets $250,000 from their business. They wouldn't possibly use that income for capital investment down the road, would they? And surely, they would never use that money for their retirement, or to educate their children, I'm sure.
I'm not so young that I don't remember Clinton and Gore, while campaigning, promising that their tax plan would only effect the rich. Well, all that flew out the window once they were safely in office. They began to slowly reveal that, whoops, they had been overconfident, and that some in the middle class would be called on to "invest in America". Two years later, after the Democrat controlled Congress pushed through a gigantic elevation in taxes, (remember the huge raise in the gas tax?) the American people cried, "enough!" and ushered in the 1st republican majority in Congress in 40 years.
Sadly, the republicans got complacent, and eventually forgot their small government roots. They have only themselves to blame for their ouster in 2006.
Micky
by keepthefaith on 28 October 2008 - 15:10
Mickey, you don't need to scan through youtube or elsewhere to find what an Obama volunteer may have misstated regarding Obama's tax plan. It is hardly relevant unless it is outlined in a concrete proposal by Obama. Frankly, commonsense would suggest that if what you said was accurate the Republicans would have cited it repeatedly.
As to the merits of whether one should tax higher income workers - whether it is $250K or any other number - and its impact on the economy, it is something that people can differ in good faith.
by Blitzen on 28 October 2008 - 15:10
by Micky D on 28 October 2008 - 16:10
>As to the merits of whether one should tax higher income workers - whether it is $250K or any other number - and its impact on the economy, it is something that people can differ in good faith.<
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top