| Author | Post |
|---|
EarnestLi
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 605 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 21st, 2008 12:30 am |
|
Bixby wrote: Speaking of rigid thinking.
You're not a thinker. you're a denier of fact. The current Supreme Court has the final say on Constitutionality under our Constitution. If they say its Constitutional, its Constitutional.
You really don't accept this. You really believe you are the final authority on what is Constitutional.
You don't like our government. You want it changed. You are a revolutionary. I'm more worried about you then I am about either Obama or McCain. Unfortunately, McCain thinks he needs your vote.
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1630 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 20th, 2008 07:41 pm |
|
Speaking of rigid thinking.
|
EarnestLi
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 605 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 20th, 2008 06:48 pm |
|
Bixby wrote: The constitutional basis for taxing is very clear in the Constitution and cannot be used for anything one or the Congress wants. The Framers were very emphatic on this, so JP's research is correct. Where is your research that states otherwise? The current members of the SC do have guidelines that are supposed to be adhered to. They stood pretty strong for nearly a couple of hundred years until Roosevelt began placing judges who have socialist tendencies and their own idea of reshaping America. (See the discussion between Roosevelt and Senator Glass on the eve of Roosevelt's inaguration. Working Paper 9504 - Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland Ohio) I grant that the liberal activist justices may have their own view which is why it is important to have those justices who are strict constructionalists. Has the SC ruled that there is a constitutional basis for government provided healthcare? JP's arguments are as mine but not as tyou describe. You say in his own rigid manner. He describes them in terms of the documents and papers of the Founding Fathers. It would do you well to read Story's Commentaries, especially VolI, Book III, Chapter V, pp. 397-456 - Rules of Interpretation of the Constitution. BTW, one can discuss how to best provide health care without using the government. The Constitution is not a part of it unless one tries an end-run around it by introoducing more socialism.
I have 3 comments. The first is that it is not productive to discuss current taxation issues with someone who takes your position because you do not agree that there is a Constitutional basis for almost all of our current taxes. You believe congress is misspending tax money. For example, anyone who attempts to discuss whether a tax used for health care is correct is wasting their time with you because you cannot conceive of any legitimate tax that would be used on health care.
Second, you either fail or refuse to accept and recongnize that under our Constitution the current members of the Supreme Court have the final voice on what is or is not Constitutional. There are numerous sources for how to interpret the Constitution. All that's very interesting, but when the current Court votes, that's what's Constitutional under our Constitution. The only remedy would be enacting new legislation or amending the Constitution.
Third, you are so rigid that you cannot allow yorself to even consider that something may rise to a level where it would be vital to the general welfare.
You argue by defining things in your own unique, rigid manner. Your arguements are circular and they all depend upon how you define words. For others to engage you in such discussions is a waste of time. Why discuss how best to provide for health issues with someone who really maintains that there is no basis for such concern on a national level regardless of what is happening or how it might affect our national well being?
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1630 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 20th, 2008 06:25 pm |
|
EarnestLi wrote: Jurisprudence wrote: If I may interject here, taxes for the military are acceptable because it is specifically stated. Taxes for health care is not specifically stated. You may not like Justice Story's Commentaries on the Constitution, but they are the established interpretations utilized by the United States Supreme Court. You may want to try Elliot's Debates which fortify Justice Story's Commentaries.
"The congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, in order to pay the debts, and to provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States;" that is, for the purpose of paying the public debts, and providing for the common defence and general welfare of the United States. In this sense, congress has not an unlimited power of taxation; but it is limited to specific objects, -- the payment of the public debts, and providing for the common defence and general welfare. A tax, therefore, laid by congress for neither of these objects, would be unconstitutional, as an excess of its legislative authority.
§ 906. The constitution was, from its very origin, contemplated to be the frame of a national government, of special and enumerated powers, and not of general and unlimited powers.
I have 3 comments. The first is that it is not productive to discuss current taxation issues with someone who takes your position because you do not agree that there is a Constitutional basis for almost all of our current taxes. You believe congress is misspending tax money. For example, anyone who attempts to discuss whether a tax used for health care is correct is wasting their time with you because you cannot conceive of any legitimate tax that would be used on health care.
Second, you either fail or refuse to accept and recongnize that under our Constitution the current members of the Supreme Court have the final voice on what is or is not Constitutional. There are numerous sources for how to interpret the Constitution. All that's very interesting, but when the current Court votes, that's what's Constitutional under our Constitution. The only remedy would be enacting new legislation or amending the Constitution.
Third, you are so rigid that you cannot allow yorself to even consider that something may rise to a level where it would be vital to the general welfare.
You argue by defining things in your own unique, rigid manner. Your arguements are circular and they all depend upon how you define words. For others to engage you in such discussions is a waste of time. Why discuss how best to provide for health issues with someone who really maintains that there is no basis for such concern on a national level regardless of what is happening or how it might affect our national well being? The constitutional basis for taxing is very clear in the Constitution and cannot be used for anything one or the Congress wants. The Framers were very emphatic on this, so JP's research is correct. Where is your research that states otherwise? The current members of the SC do have guidelines that are supposed to be adhered to. They stood pretty strong for nearly a couple of hundred years until Roosevelt began placing judges who have socialist tendencies and their own idea of reshaping America. (See the discussion between Roosevelt and Senator Glass on the eve of Roosevelt's inaguration. Working Paper 9504 - Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland Ohio) I grant that the liberal activist justices may have their own view which is why it is important to have those justices who are strict constructionalists. Has the SC ruled that there is a constitutional basis for government provided healthcare? JP's arguments are as mine but not as tyou describe. You say in his own rigid manner. He describes them in terms of the documents and papers of the Founding Fathers. It would do you well to read Story's Commentaries, especially VolI, Book III, Chapter V, pp. 397-456 - Rules of Interpretation of the Constitution. BTW, one can discuss how to best provide health care without using the government. The Constitution is not a part of it unless one tries an end-run around it by introoducing more socialism.
|
EarnestLi
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 605 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 20th, 2008 06:02 pm |
|
Jurisprudence wrote: If I may interject here, taxes for the military are acceptable because it is specifically stated. Taxes for health care is not specifically stated. You may not like Justice Story's Commentaries on the Constitution, but they are the established interpretations utilized by the United States Supreme Court. You may want to try Elliot's Debates which fortify Justice Story's Commentaries.
"The congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, in order to pay the debts, and to provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States;" that is, for the purpose of paying the public debts, and providing for the common defence and general welfare of the United States. In this sense, congress has not an unlimited power of taxation; but it is limited to specific objects, -- the payment of the public debts, and providing for the common defence and general welfare. A tax, therefore, laid by congress for neither of these objects, would be unconstitutional, as an excess of its legislative authority.
§ 906. The constitution was, from its very origin, contemplated to be the frame of a national government, of special and enumerated powers, and not of general and unlimited powers.
I have 3 comments. The first is that it is not productive to discuss current taxation issues with someone who takes your position because you do not agree that there is a Constitutional basis for almost all of our current taxes. You believe congress is misspending tax money. For example, anyone who attempts to discuss whether a tax used for health care is correct is wasting their time with you because you cannot conceive of any legitimate tax that would be used on health care.
Second, you either fail or refuse to accept and recongnize that under our Constitution the current members of the Supreme Court have the final voice on what is or is not Constitutional. There are numerous sources for how to interpret the Constitution. All that's very interesting, but when the current Court votes, that's what's Constitutional under our Constitution. The only remedy would be enacting new legislation or amending the Constitution.
Third, you are so rigid that you cannot allow yorself to even consider that something may rise to a level where it would be vital to the general welfare.
You argue by defining things in your own unique, rigid manner. Your arguements are circular and they all depend upon how you define words. For others to engage you in such discussions is a waste of time. Why discuss how best to provide for health issues with someone who really maintains that there is no basis for such concern on a national level regardless of what is happening or how it might affect our national well being?
|
Jurisprudence
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 28th, 2005 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 823 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 20th, 2008 05:46 pm |
|
If I may interject here, taxes for the military are acceptable because it is specifically stated. Taxes for health care is not specifically stated. You may not like Justice Story's Commentaries on the Constitution, but they are the established interpretations utilized by the United States Supreme Court. You may want to try Elliot's Debates which fortify Justice Story's Commentaries.
"The congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, in order to pay the debts, and to provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States;" that is, for the purpose of paying the public debts, and providing for the common defence and general welfare of the United States. In this sense, congress has not an unlimited power of taxation; but it is limited to specific objects, -- the payment of the public debts, and providing for the common defence and general welfare. A tax, therefore, laid by congress for neither of these objects, would be unconstitutional, as an excess of its legislative authority.
§ 906. The constitution was, from its very origin, contemplated to be the frame of a national government, of special and enumerated powers, and not of general and unlimited powers.
|
EarnestLi
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 605 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 20th, 2008 12:19 am |
|
Bixby wrote: EarnestLi wrote: How would you interpret "and general Welfare of the United States"? This seems to me like it would cover virtually anything. Do you see that differently?
My interpretation is meaningless, as is yours, and has no effect on what the Founders intent was. The explanation given by Justice Joseph Story is the one that is officially recognized.
It may seem to you to likely cover anything and that argument is used by social liberals and reformers to justify the redistribution of wealth. It is my presumption that it is this you are alluding to. To the Founding Fathers it meant something entirely different and was a specific grant of limited government and its powers. The official interpretation was meant to provide for the general welfare of the Union and not the people. It applied to infrastructure of the country and those items specifically enumerated in the whole context of the constitution.
Thank you for your response.
The general welfare of the country might require us to take into account the general welfare of the people. I can't understand how you have a sound country if the people are not surviving.
I'm not ready to cede complete responsibility for interpretation of our Constitution to any single justice. Especially one who is dead. Times change and circumstances change with them.
How this applies to the tax question is another matter. Are you saying that the Constitution specifies that our congress may not choose to collect taxes and spend them on what it deems necessary to the general welfare of the country at the time?
As for redistribution of the wealth, why did you bother to insert that? What place does that have in the context of this conversation. You seem to be unable to help yourself from inserting a partisan political message.
I was and still am trying to find out if there is a common basis for agreement on what constitutes justifiable taxation. Maybe you have answered that, but I wish you would be more specific. I don't want to put words in your mouth.
For example, are you saying that taxation for sustaining a military is okay and that taxation for health care is not?
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1630 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 19th, 2008 07:11 pm |
|
EarnestLi wrote: How would you interpret "and general Welfare of the United States"? This seems to me like it would cover virtually anything. Do you see that differently?
My interpretation is meaningless, as is yours, and has no effect on what the Founders intent was. The explanation given by Justice Joseph Story is the one that is officially recognized.
It may seem to you to likely cover anything and that argument is used by social liberals and reformers to justify the redistribution of wealth. It is my presumption that it is this you are alluding to. To the Founding Fathers it meant something entirely different and was a specific grant of limited government and its powers. The official interpretation was meant to provide for the general welfare of the Union and not the people. It applied to infrastructure of the country and those items specifically enumerated in the whole context of the constitution.
|
EarnestLi
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 605 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 19th, 2008 01:50 pm |
|
EarnestLi wrote: Bixby wrote: EarnestLi wrote: Bixby, it would be nice to hear what services you think we should provide from tax money. I am using the word services in the broadest sense; that would include the military. Those functions as found in Article One, Section Eight (paragraph 1) of the Constitution. Paragraphs 12,13 and 16 include the military. Paragraph 17 also extends to the military regarding Congressional purchases of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings.
Thank you for your response. Here is Article One, Section Eight, Paragraph 1:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and
Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general
Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be
uniform throughout the United States;
It seems to cover a fairly broad range of options. The paragraphs immediately following it give some specific examples as well.
How would you interpret "and general Welfare of the United States"? This seems to me like it would cover virtually anything. Do you see that differently?
I thought I'd repeat my request.
|
EarnestLi
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 605 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 19th, 2008 01:32 pm |
|
Here is something:
http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2008/10/16/tax-calculators-for-life-under-obama-or-mccain/
I believe there is also something of the sort on each candidates webstie.
Here is a CNN comparison on McCain's tax plan vs. Obama's tax plan.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/index.htm
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Sun Oct 19th, 2008 05:43 am |
|
| Has anyone found a good tax calculator where you can plug in your numbers and get a comaprison under the plans put out so far by the candidates? Last edited on Sun Oct 19th, 2008 05:59 am by Hartlyboy
|
EarnestLi
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 605 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 18th, 2008 08:43 pm |
|
Bixby wrote: EarnestLi wrote: Bixby, it would be nice to hear what services you think we should provide from tax money. I am using the word services in the broadest sense; that would include the military. Those functions as found in Article One, Section Eight (paragraph 1) of the Constitution. Paragraphs 12,13 and 16 include the military. Paragraph 17 also extends to the military regarding Congressional purchases of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings.
Thank you for your response. Here is Article One, Section Eight, Paragraph 1:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and
Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general
Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be
uniform throughout the United States;
It seems to cover a fairly broad range of options. The paragraphs immediately following it give some specific examples as well.
How would you interpret "and general Welfare of the United States"? This seems to me like it would cover virtually anything. Do you see that differently?
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1630 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 18th, 2008 08:34 pm |
|
EarnestLi wrote: Bixby, it would be nice to hear what services you think we should provide from tax money. I am using the word services in the broadest sense; that would include the military. Those functions as found in Article One, Section Eight (paragraph 1) of the Constitution. Paragraphs 12,13 and 16 include the military. Paragraph 17 also extends to the military regarding Congressional purchases of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings.
|
EarnestLi
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 605 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 17th, 2008 11:44 pm |
|
| Bixby, it would be nice to hear what services you think we should provide from tax money. I am using the word services in the broadest sense; that would include the military.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 17th, 2008 10:42 pm |
|
Blogging time for the homebound.
EarnestLi wrote:
What specifically do you believe we should tax our citizens for?
|
EarnestLi
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 605 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 17th, 2008 07:45 pm |
|
| What specifically do you believe we should tax our citizens for?
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1630 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 17th, 2008 07:43 pm |
|
Taxes are a necessary function of government and only the staunchest of libertarian thinkers would have none at all, as impractical as it may be. Our Founding Fathers provided for taxes but their consciousness was aware that the power to tax is also the power to destroy. I think that a majority of posters here feel that taxation for the purpose of social engineering is an unfair practice and that it is mainly an attribute to socialism. Albert Jay Nock said something to the effect that if we strive for money, it is because it offers us the widest choice in enjoying the fruits of our efforts.
|
EarnestLi
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 605 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 17th, 2008 07:25 pm |
|
| I think you have yet to assertain that we all agree that there should even be a budget. That might sound silly, but I think there are people arguing about taxes who are arguing that they should be cut or reprioritized and that they should never have been allowed in the first place.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 17th, 2008 07:20 pm |
|
Agreed. I think all of us would agree that the budget, and therefore the taxes needed to run it, is too large. However, WHERE we should cut has always been the big debate.
My thoughts are that if you are going to get serious, you have to go after the big ticket items. Many people here prefer to go after smaller programs, but it makes them feel better to complain about a million dollar program rather than address multiple billion dollar programs where a "small" cut in their budget (5%, say) would more than dwarf the others.
We spend half a trillion dollars on defense. I KNOW there is waste there, and I would bet there is more waste in the half trillion by percentage than any other catagory. I believe we could cut the budget there without harming our national defense. I once killed a thread here by simply pointing out that our costs on defense equal the sum that the next 10 or 11 countries in the world spend on it.
I am not saying to leave other areas out, but if you want to cut costs, you've got to go where the big bucks are.
|
EarnestLi
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 605 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 17th, 2008 07:08 pm |
|
| Before arguing over a particular tax plan, it might be a good idea to see if you have common ground on whether taxes are necessary. I get the feeling that when it comes to taxes, people are often talking at each other as opposed to talking to each other.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 17th, 2008 07:01 pm |
|
Any taxes can be seen as the government taking something. The two campaigns have made it clear where they are going to get the money to pay for the government we have...if you can defend McCain's plan and are happy with it, fine. I tend to think that getting a tax cut for the middle class and to a larger amount of people has several advantages to it, not the least of which is that more people are slightly better off not paying as much in taxes as they were before.
How one can say that paying less in taxes is a handout is more Orwellian than anything, if we are going to throw references around. Obama is paying for this tax cut by partially offsetting it with higher taxes on those making more money. He isn't hiding this basic fact of his tax cut program.
|
EarnestLi
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 605 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 17th, 2008 06:47 pm |
|
| I enjoyed reading Rand. I have read several of her novels. Her novels are fiction. It's important to remember that. They are an excellent tool to focus a conversation or structure a debate. They should not be taken literally. They are oversimplistic. Life is a lot more complicated than she makes it.
|
The Insyder
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 548 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 17th, 2008 06:12 pm |
|
Fred wrote: Bixby wrote: “Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others.”
(Ayn Rand )
I don't buy the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Good science fiction, with an emphasis on fiction. Maybe you don't but her quote seems to ring true. Remember Joe Biden's "we're gonna take your money and spread it around." An emphasis on "take."
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 17th, 2008 04:24 pm |
|
Bixby wrote: “Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others.”
(Ayn Rand )
I don't buy the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Good science fiction, with an emphasis on fiction.
|
EarnestLi
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 605 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 17th, 2008 02:08 pm |
|
| All taxes are an interference. Without taxes we have anarchy. Do you advocate anarchy?
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1630 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 17th, 2008 01:48 pm |
|
“Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others.”
(Ayn Rand )
|
EarnestLi
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 605 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 17th, 2008 02:23 am |
|
| Who here has been there? Declare yourselves and shed some light on this.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 17th, 2008 01:31 am |
|
| Never having been there, I doubt you are qualified to pass that judgement.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 17th, 2008 01:29 am |
|
Even if true, every other point still stands.
However....think about how much you pay a plumber, times that by about 2000 billable hours a year. Realize this is gross, and you have all of your standard deductions.
If you hire a few plumbers, you aren't going to pay them the full rate, of course, but you can't short-change them, either. You'll make some money off of these workers, but they will cost you at least somewhere around half of the hourly rate.
And, as I said, the marginal difference is probably not going to make the difference between whether one goes into business, or hires the extra plumber, or how to stash the cash in other areas.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 16th, 2008 09:57 pm |
|
Think outside the Delaware Box Fred. If I am a good plumber with a reasonable business volume and I can't make $250,000 a year and have a few people on the payroll, I can't afford to live in NY, NJ, MA, CA, CO, CT, FL to name a few states.
Fred wrote:
I don't know, but most successful business people don't have money as a primary or even secondary motivation. It is the chance to build a business, it is the chance to succeed, it the chance to be one's boss that motivates most at the top.
If you are going to have a tax cut, it needs to be as broad based as possible, to provide some measure of relief to the greatest number of taxpayers. Those that have businesses or want to do so will not stop; while small businesses may well do 250K of business, I doubt there are that many small business owners who can pull 250K profit for themselves.
Obama's plan has flaws, McCain's plan has flaws, and NEITHER will make it through Congress untouched. I would rather see the money go towards paying for the Iraqi War and the bailout rather than pass this debt on, but if you are going to have a tax cut, Obama's makes more sense.
|
countrynow
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 8th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 284 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 16th, 2008 09:41 pm |
|
| Skjuda- absolutely perfect. My sentiments as well. McCain may not be a perfect choice, but the option being Obama- I well take McCain every day of every week. I will politely refrain from mention of Joe Biden.
|
EarnestLi
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 605 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 16th, 2008 08:53 pm |
|
| Thanks again.
|
Skjuda
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 16th, 2008 08:50 pm |
|
Another point -
6 - In every election we are not only voting for president but we are voting for who would replace that person in the event something happens ie death. So we are voting for Palin or Biden. In this election it is a strong possibility that we may have a vice president have to step in to serve.
With Palin I feel she will do a good job as president and will look out for the American people. Will she be perfect heck no. She is a fast learner well educated and very competent to do the job. Since she is not part of the good ole boy network she actually might be able to stop some of the abuse from happening. At the very least she will inform us regular folk on the abuse going on and then we can act on it.
I live in Delaware and know who Biden really is, I have never voted for him and never will. He is the poster boy for the good ole boy network and uses it to his advatage whenever it suits him. I do not like he was able to get his son a job with lobbyists for 1.2 million a year and not have to do anything to earn it other than be Bidens son. Biden is what is wrong with congress and it is his policies that are the reason for so much of the mess we are in now with the financial sector. I do not believe he will make a good president and will only harm America with his nitwitted ideals and short sighted actions.
|
EarnestLi
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 605 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 16th, 2008 08:43 pm |
|
| Thank you for sharing that.
|
Skjuda
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 16th, 2008 08:23 pm |
|
EarnestLi wrote: Skjuda wrote: I am voting for McCain for a myriad of reasons but there are some points of view I do not agree with, such as the taxes.
Would you mind sharing why you are voting for McCain if you do not agree with him on taxes?
In my opinion I think McCain will do a better job as president then Obama. I will give some reasons why I think that, this list is not all inclusive and if you need more let me know.
1 - I do not like Obamas belief in lets lose in Iraq at all costs. While I think we were mislead on invading Iraq by Bush and his croonies and should never have invaded, the fact is we are there now and any future president must deal with the now. We made the mistake of going in and now we must finish the business at hand. For Obama to declare he just wants the US out of Iraq regardless fo the cost is in my opinion is very bad. It smacks of lets punish Bush for the war while in reality Obama will be punishing all of us in public opinion, world opinion, etc... McCain will at least finish the business at hand with the least loss of lives. Lives I mean by our own soldiers and the innocent Iraqis who are caught in a war they do not want either. Obama continues to deny the surge worked, continues to say we must get out of Iraq asap. This to me is very bad policy and will only lead to more damage for Americans later.
2 - In my opinion Obamas ties to known radicals like Ayers and Wright make him less desirable to be our president. I do not know what his real thinking is or how they influenced his thinking. It scares me to think he may in private think like Wright that all whites owe blacks or believes in Farragans view of lets kill all whites. I have heard him deny it and distance himself from those people but in the end he is a politician first and an American second. How many times have we seen a politician lie to get what he wants? Is Obama doing the same thing and only after we see him in office will we see how radical his thinking really is toward whites. I do not know for sure and that scares me to no end, I do know McCain is all American in every respect and I know he will protect this country first and foremost. Can we say the same about Obama? Other things about Obamas allegiance are questionable as well, for instance he wants to send a portion of our GNP to Africa and make it a law. Is this his attempt to hel;p his brothers at the expense of American white people? Again I do not know for sure but I know McCain will be loyal to the US without exception.
3 - Obama is all about big government while McCain is about letting the companies set trade and open market. I have never liked the government telling me to do things I fell should be my decision and noone elses. With Obama we will have big brother in every aspect of our lives from home ownership to meals to driving to vacations to sleeping etcc... I can not support that kind of government. My views of government are they are there to enforce fair and equitable practices of businesses and to make sure noone is getting hurt by business. One of those policies should be to allow people the ability to start any company they desire, this allows open market competition and continues the tradition of the best business with the least price does the best business.
4 - Healthcare issues for both candidates are less than desired. Under Obama I would lose my HMO and be forced to buy one of his friends plans (who will make billions off taxpayers) at reduced coverage than I get right now. I like HMO and pay extra every month so I do not have to deal with all the paperwork or constant bills for the deductable and the amount over the percentage of what is covered etc.... I like my doctor and the coverage I am getting. Obama would change all that and force me to go with less coverage and more expense. Now before all the people say Obama said if you have coverage now you can keep it, this is true but how many businesses will offer HMO if they start losing the benefits that Obama will give to companies who are on his plan? He wants to cut costs and one way he does that is to increase the deductable and lower the percentage covered. So in my case I will have to pay out to visit and then pay when I exceed a certain amount. I do not like that. Under McCains plan he will allow companies to be open competitive and then give people a 5k amount to apply towards the plans. In my instance my work would pay less for the plans they offer now whihc lowers whta I pay and that is a good thing.
5 - Obama is about raising taxes for the rich while offereing "tax breaks" to the regular folk in order to redistribute income. As someone who does taxes on the side for people I can say there are plenty of tax breaks out there now that people can not take advantage of nor will they ever be able to do so. I beleive Obama will give tax breaks that effect his friends and in reality will raise the taxes of regular folk like myself. I do not believe since Obama is friends with Warren Buffet who stands to make 150 billion off the bailout would allow him to raise the taxes on the very rich. I believe it is all lip service to get votes and in reality it will cost more for the 95 percent than it does now. I do not know but I can say with McCain at least I understand what he intends to do and while I do not agreee it is less worse than Obamas plan.
Well I have given 5 reasons I can not vote for Obama and will be voting for MCCain. I have other reasons to and if I feel froggy and find some time later I will post some.
|
Boo
Member
| Joined: | Sat Nov 19th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 481 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 16th, 2008 07:55 pm |
|
Good thing that there aint no taxin on moonshine so the family is safe down Tennessee. Don't know 'bout hog callin, tho. I guess we alls are be gettin a check from you Delaware yankees onct Obama gits at yea. What's in your wallet?
|
spreadinthewealth
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 12 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 16th, 2008 07:51 pm |
|
EarnestLi wrote: Skjuda wrote: I am voting for McCain for a myriad of reasons but there are some points of view I do not agree with, such as the taxes.
Would you mind sharing why you are voting for McCain if you do not agree with him on taxes?
i think that skudja agrees with obama on taxes cuz he wants to spread da wealth.
|
EarnestLi
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 605 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 16th, 2008 07:32 pm |
|
Skjuda wrote: I am voting for McCain for a myriad of reasons but there are some points of view I do not agree with, such as the taxes.
Would you mind sharing why you are voting for McCain if you do not agree with him on taxes?
|
Kirk
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 331 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 16th, 2008 06:05 pm |
|
Any tax code has problems of fairness criteria. The fundamental problem is this: we have a current budget for the Federal Government of approximately $4 Trillion (much bigger of late due to bailout spending spree). Any attempt to collect any amount of money approaching $4 Trillion is going to be extremely difficult to do and have everyone (anyone) walk away with a smile.
As posted previously - scroll down a ways.... a long ways.... there is a difference between taxable income and income. The bottom 50% of households make very little taxable income. For the median household in DE (about $45,000 or so), there is the standard deduction of more than $10,000. The personal exemption of about $3500 also applies. This means that only about $30k is taxable income. If they have two adults and/or children, each is worth another $3500 exemption. Over 65? Another $3500. Any doctor defined disabilities that might interfere with either independence or working? Another $3500. So a couple with two kids (median household) would have more than $24,000 of exempt income - making their taxable income only $21,000. Given that millions of households in the U.S. make less than $25,000 a year - these millions of households pay no income taxes. This is because they have no taxable income. They do pay payroll taxes - social security/medicare, there is no exemption from those. So when someone says the bottom half of all households pay a very small proportion of income taxes - they are mixing up income and taxable income. The bottom half of all households have very little taxable income because so many of them are at/below the poverty line. On the other hand, the top 10% of all households pay less than 5% of payroll taxes. The average McDs employee paid more in social security taxes last year than Bill Gates - his earnings were in the form of dividends and capital gains, which are not subject to payroll taxes, her earnings were in the form of wages which are taxed at the +14% payroll rate. Bill's income taxes were imposed at the much lower capital gains rate - which would be cut further to 5% under McCain's proposal. Once the McD's employee breaks the $14000 mark, they are taxed at the 10% marginal rate. I think you would be hard-pressed to find many people that think it fair that the low wage fast-food worker is charged pay-roll taxes which billionaires typically do not pay, and they pay a higher income tax rate because they earn a wage instead of profits. While it is accurate to claim that Bill pays more in taxes - 10% of $10 Billion is a heck of a lot more than 14% of $14,000 and 24% of any overtime hours that go over $14,000. It is misleading. Average people pay payroll and income taxes. CEOs often pay little/no payroll tax, and their income taxes are mostly done at a special reduced capital gains rate of 10 or 15% - to be reduced to 5% if McCain has his way.
|
Skjuda
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 16th, 2008 04:29 pm |
|
Idaho Observer: So you believe in one rate for all? I like that plan also and would love to see it implemented but I do not hold my breath.
The breakdowen would be something like this -
20000 20% 4000
50mil 20% 10mil
Wow I like it a lot hehe
Compared to what is happening right now -
20000 35% 1200 after deductions
50mil 15% 3mil after deductions
Which do you prefer? hehe
Second note is why should your success come off the back of low wage earners who you are abusing? If you had paid proper wages them we would not be in this mess now.
|
Idaho Observer
Member
| Joined: | Thu Dec 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 333 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 16th, 2008 04:07 pm |
|
Skjuda: Alright, change the tax code to make it more equitable (now that's an oxymoron) but don't take my accomplishment and give it to others. If I wanted that then I'll give to charity.
Redistribution of your income: “It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” —Barack Obama to a small business owner (Joe the plumber) at a recent rally
|
Skjuda
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 16th, 2008 03:59 pm |
|
The Insyder, while I agree it is not a good ideal to give free money to people who do not deserve it like welfare etc... I have to say something has to be done for low wage earners.
The current tax plans and rates established by Bush and most Republicans do not harbor an environment for corporation to increase wages for middle and low income people. Obamas plan calls them out and forces them to spend the money or they will tax it and spend it for them.
A CEO making 50 million a year while he employs people making 6.25 an hour is so third world and something needs to be done to address this area. If companies are unwilling to raise rates while allowing themselves to get extremely high raises then someone has to stop it and make sure people are getting their due salary.
One of those ways is to pay people who make low salaries extra money taken form the top percentage of people making the money. If the CEO thinks he can not live off 49 million and must have that extra 1 million then so also must the low wage earners make extra money.
So Obamas tax plan calls for setting a minimum level of poverty and setting in place extra money to be paid through the filing of taxes. They actually make more and can afford to pay rent and eat.
Remember also that as thier pay goes up so also does thier taxes. Pay more in salaries and the extra payments will go down. While you abhor paying them now it is only short term and hopefully as wages go up the paymments will go down.
|
The Insyder
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 548 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 16th, 2008 03:37 pm |
|
Obama says he will give 95 percent of all American workers a tax cut but does not mention that his plan would send checks to tens of millions of tax filers who pay no personal income taxes - payments that critics say look "suspiciously like welfare." Obama's campaign promise, which he has repeated in his speeches and in the debates, stems from his "Making Work Pay" tax cut that will give a $500 refundable tax credit to every worker or $1,000 to each working couple. But because this provision in his economic-recovery plan is "refundable," a large number of middle- to lower-income workers who have no income-tax liability after taking tax credits and deductions the that Internal Revenue Service allows, will be given the equivalent of the tax cut in the form of direct payments from the U.S. Treasury - funded by higher-income taxpayers. Who said that this is not socialism? That’s a socialist redistribution of income, right out of Karl Marx. It’s just another Democrat welfare program. How would that “encourage work” when one discovers that as his income rises, his check decreases? Just like welfare, he stays on it. The IRS says that close to 46 million tax filers – (one-third of all filers) - had no tax liability in 2006, so there is the question of how millions of Americans can receive an income "tax cut" when they pay no taxes. "It's got to raise alarm bells when you claim you are going to cut taxes for 95 percent of working families when more than 40 percent of them pay no income taxes.”
(Phil Kerpen, policy director at Americans for Prosperity, a grass-roots free-market advocacy group)
|
EarnestLi
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 605 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 16th, 2008 03:21 pm |
|
| I agree with your assessment of McCain's tax plan.
|
Skjuda
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 16th, 2008 03:11 pm |
|
I am voting for McCain for a myriad of reasons but there are some points of view I do not agree with, such as the taxes.
McCain's plan has a lot to do with trickle down economics. Where if the top people make more money they will spend it and it trickles down to the lowest paid people.
The problem is that when the top people make money they always find other uses that do not trickle down. Take for instance salaries, while thier salries and CEO salaries are going up extremely high the middle and low salaries are staying low and rising at a slower rate. Between 2000 and 2007 top executive salaries increases 200% while middle mamagers and hourly workers pay only increase 5%.
Obamas tax plan addresses this concern and forces the top people to spend the money or risk having it taxed and the federal government will distribute it to the people who need it the most.
No matter how much the tax base is if you spend it on acceptable expenses and reduce the net income (the portion that is taxed) you will pay less taxes. If Obama raises the tax on high earning corporations they will be be motivated to spend it on expenses like salaries. Everyone wins.
Like I said I am voting for MCCain but in this instance I do not like McCains tax plan.
|
EarnestLi
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 605 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 16th, 2008 03:04 pm |
|
| Honest successful business people will do what they have to and that includes paying taxes. There are a lot of wealthy business people who are not against an increase in taxes during these times.
|
Ben Franklin
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 20th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1851 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 16th, 2008 02:21 pm |
|
Duncan Idaho wrote: Ben Franklin wrote: I hope someone making 5 times the amount of money I do has to pay more. I watched the rich pay less for 40 years now its there turn to pony up for whatever BS the gov wants to spend the taxes on. There you go again, sounding like the last disgruntled, angry man. The guy making 5x you does pay more. Misery loves company.
Why do you reprimand me for acting like every other american and only caring about myself. If it doesnt affect me I dont care.
|
Ben Franklin
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 20th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1851 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 16th, 2008 02:19 pm |