Biden: Be Patriotic, Pay More Taxes!

[Maxie the Taxi]

from http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080918/ap_on_el_pr/biden_taxes



"We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people," Biden said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."

Noting that wealthier Americans would indeed pay more, Biden said: "It's time to be patriotic ... time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut."

The article also re-stated the canard that higher taxes "proposed by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama" would only affect "people earning more than $250,000 a year...while those earning less — the vast majority of American taxpayers — would receive a tax cut."

The best article I've seen on the true effect of Obama's tax proposals is here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,405562,00.html

The article is written by John Lott who is the author of Freedomnomics and a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland.

Lott writes:

John McCain’s proposals have top marginal income tax rates of 35 percent for individuals and 25 percent for corporations, while Barack Obama’s plan has rates of 39.6 and 35 percent respectively. But the official marginal tax rate isn’t the rate that people actually pay, because they also lose tax breaks as their income rises.

While Obama would directly increase the marginal income tax rate on families making more than $250,000 per year and raise the rates on capital gains and dividends, he has a whole set of new and expanded tax breaks for the poor, retirees, students, homeowners and new farmers. All these tax breaks phase out with higher incomes, producing high effective marginal tax rates for those with low incomes as well as for people making between $100,000 and $120,000.

The effects of these phase-outs are dramatic. Alex Brill and Alan Viard, at the American Enterprise Institute, show that a two-earner couple with two children (one of whom is in college) can face a 34 percent marginal tax rate when they earn $31,000, with the tax rate rising to 39 percent when their family income reaches $45,000. And families making $110,000 to $120,000 may have to think twice about making more money with the federal income tax alone taking almost half of each additional dollar they make.

Obama has also promised to close corporate tax "loopholes," to impose an "excess" profits tax on energy companies and to increase the amount of income subject to Social Security payroll (FICA) taxes. Many of us understand that these increased taxes on corporations and businesses inevitably trickle down to the rest of us in the form of increased prices for the consumables we purchase.

However, there are economically illiterate people who are willing to accept Obama's promises at face value. "Only the rich will pay Obama's increased taxes," they argue. For these naive souls I offer the following:

First, in 1913 the "income tax" was first imposed. It was sold as a minor tax on the "super rich." It was politically palitable to middle class taxpayers only because they couldn't imagine the tax would ever apply to them.

Second, words to ponder by Martin Niemöller:


First they came for the Communists,
- but I was not a communist so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists,
- but I was neither, so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Jews,
- but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out.
And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.

And finally there is this, from Ludwig von Mises: "The first objection to this proposal [equal redistribution of wealth] is that it will not help the situation much because those of moderate means far outnumber the rich, so that each individual could expect from such a distribution only a quite insignificant increment in his standard of living. This is certainly correct, but the argument is not complete. Those who advocate equality of income distribution overlook the most important point, namely, that the total available for distribution, the annual product of social labor, is not independent of the manner in which it is divided. The fact that that product today is as great as it is, is not a natural or technological phenomenon independent of all social conditions, but entirely the result of our social institutions. Only because inequality of wealth is possible in our social order, only because it stimulates everyone to produce as much as he can and at the lowest cost, does mankind today have at its disposal the total annual wealth now available for consumption. Were this incentive to be destroyed, productivity would be so greatly reduced that the portion that an equal distribution would allot to each individual would be far less than what even the poorest receives today."

What von Mises is saying, for those among us who are just plain illiterate, is that income redistribution will kill the goose that lays the golden egg the "poor" among us covet so. If that's not plain enough, I can't imagine what is.

[HowardRoark]

What von Mises is saying, for those among us who are just plain illiterate....

I bought The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science: An Essay on Method, my head hurts just looking at the book. I need to decide; beer or read. I have found this book does not mix well with beer.

My beer supply is dwindling.

[sheepshead]

Ol' Joe is certainly the gift that keeps on giving isn't he? Axelrod can't script everyone like he does BHO. He can hide Teresa I mean Michelle for a while which he's done. Great theater especially when you're this far over your head.

[Maxie the Taxi]

What von Mises is saying, for those among us who are just plain illiterate....

I bought The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science: An Essay on Method, my head hurts just looking at the book. I need to decide; beer or read. I have found this book does not mix well with beer.

My beer supply is dwindling.

Nonsense. It's only something like 150 pages, right? If you like philosophy, you'll like the book. Save the beer for Sunday night.

One of the points I find most interesting in the book is Mises' contention that economics is a logical, theoretical (a priori) science reasoned from a self-evident premise. This flies in the face of those who consider economics an empirical, experimental (a posteriori) science. Thus, economics is like theoretical mathematics, not physics. Properly reasoned, it's theorems are only as true as the premise upon which they are based. It's conclusions cannot be disproved by experiment or experience.

This seems a hard concept to swallow, especially today when empirical proof and the scientific method condition our thinking. However, I think you'll eventually agree that Mises' argument is correct (especially if considered sans beer :) ).

[Freak Out]

What von Mises is saying, for those among us who are just plain illiterate....

I bought The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science: An Essay on Method, my head hurts just looking at the book. I need to decide; beer or read. I have found this book does not mix well with beer.

My beer supply is dwindling.

Go for the beer unless Von Mises is running for office. :lol:

[HowardRoark]

I suppose beer could also be an example. If guys like Obama get their way, there is no incentive to produce this:

http://legalbeer.com/images/surly%20furious.jpg

But, at leat everyone could drink this:

http://www.simply70s.com/otherimages/exp/52002s.jpg

[Freak Out]

100 IBUs! Midnight sun brewed an IPA that was 200IBUs...it was like sucking a grapefruit. :lol:

http://www.midnightsunbrewing.com/beer_7DSgluttony.php

The Surly stuff looks good...I'll have to look for it when I'm down/over that way.

Your beer fear tactics are not working though... :lol:

[mraynrand]

The article is written by John Lott who is the author of Freedomnomics and a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland.

ad hominem coming in 5..4..3...2...

[packinpatland]

Obama's tax plan would increase taxes in 2009 on the wealthiest 20 percent of households, while offering tax cuts for the other 80 percent. The largest increases would be on the top 1 percent of earners, according to analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan research group whose staff of experts includes former economic advisers to the White House and Congress under both Republicans and Democrats.

By comparison, the Tax Policy Center analysis says McCain would offer tax cuts across the board. Those at the top end of the scale would get the biggest percentage cuts under McCain, while households with the lowest incomes would receive the largest percentage cuts under Obama's plan.

[HowardRoark]

Obama's tax plan would increase taxes in 2009 on the wealthiest 20 percent of households, while offering tax cuts for the other 80 percent. The largest increases would be on the top 1 percent of earners, according to analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan research group whose staff of experts includes former economic advisers to the White House and Congress under both Republicans and Democrats.

By comparison, the Tax Policy Center analysis says McCain would offer tax cuts across the board. Those at the top end of the scale would get the biggest percentage cuts under McCain, while households with the lowest incomes would receive the largest percentage cuts under Obama's plan.

That's just known as math.

The majority of people in this country don't even pay the kinds of taxes that Obama is talking about. He is advocating actually moving money out of one person's pocket and into the other person's pocket via Fed. Gov't

I contend that those with Capital do a better job of moving money into the poor person's pocket via private investment.

[packinpatland]

Obama's tax plan would increase taxes in 2009 on the wealthiest 20 percent of households, while offering tax cuts for the other 80 percent. The largest increases would be on the top 1 percent of earners, according to analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan research group whose staff of experts includes former economic advisers to the White House and Congress under both Republicans and Democrats.

By comparison, the Tax Policy Center analysis says McCain would offer tax cuts across the board. Those at the top end of the scale would get the biggest percentage cuts under McCain, while households with the lowest incomes would receive the largest percentage cuts under Obama's plan.

That's just known as math.

The majority of people in this country don't even pay the kinds of taxes that Obama is talking about. He is advocating actually moving money out of one person's pocket and into the other person's pocket via Fed. Gov't

I contend that those with Capital do a better job of moving money into the poor person's pocket via private investment.

That sounds interesting.....could you elaborate?

[mraynrand]

Obama's tax plan would increase taxes in 2009 on the wealthiest 20 percent of households, while offering tax cuts for the other 80 percent. The largest increases would be on the top 1 percent of earners, according to analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan research group whose staff of experts includes former economic advisers to the White House and Congress under both Republicans and Democrats.

By comparison, the Tax Policy Center analysis says McCain would offer tax cuts across the board. Those at the top end of the scale would get the biggest percentage cuts under McCain, while households with the lowest incomes would receive the largest percentage cuts under Obama's plan.

That's just known as math.

The majority of people in this country don't even pay the kinds of taxes that Obama is talking about. He is advocating actually moving money out of one person's pocket and into the other person's pocket via Fed. Gov't

I contend that those with Capital do a better job of moving money into the poor person's pocket via private investment.

Given that almost 40% pay no income taxes, the 'tax cut' for those not paying taxes then becomes 'welfare.' Since most low wage earners pay FICA (SS), the 'tax cut' is a cut in how much they in effect pay for their own retirement fund. even though it is a ponzi scheme, social security has to this point been a pension fund of sorts - you pay in and you get back. Obama's 'tax cut' would essentially turn social security into more of a welfare program. So Social Security would not only be flawed in that it is a pension program that doesn't grow investments, but it would be a hand out program, where the recipients pay less and less in their working years.

[texaspackerbacker]

I really hope Biden's favorite networks play and replay the smirking bastard's lame defense of Obama's economy-destroying tax program.

The bottom line of the whole deal is that the Obama plan will drag the economy down for everybody, while the McCain plan will STIMULATE growth, and IMPROVE the lot of everybody. I suppose I should say "would" instead of "will" for McCain's plan, because, as somebody in this forum pointed out, with the leftist ...... assholes ......(there's that word again, but what else are you gonna call them?) in control of Congress, McCain's tax cuts have little chance of passage.

Literally no economist with a brain in his head advocates RAISING taxes--as Obama intends in a time of economic downturn. Only the left-leaning ones with an extremely liberal NON-economic agenda advocate RAISING taxes even in good times.

THIS is the message that needs to be stated--worsening the economy for everybody by RAISING taxes. If we start talking about "fairness" and "redistribution of wealth" and "it's really a welfare program", then the leftists are going to counter with their "class warfare"/"class envy" message, and believe me, THAT will resonate with far more people--especially when they have the leftist mainstream media amplifying their positions.

[HowardRoark]

Obama's tax plan would increase taxes in 2009 on the wealthiest 20 percent of households, while offering tax cuts for the other 80 percent. The largest increases would be on the top 1 percent of earners, according to analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan research group whose staff of experts includes former economic advisers to the White House and Congress under both Republicans and Democrats.

By comparison, the Tax Policy Center analysis says McCain would offer tax cuts across the board. Those at the top end of the scale would get the biggest percentage cuts under McCain, while households with the lowest incomes would receive the largest percentage cuts under Obama's plan.

That's just known as math.

The majority of people in this country don't even pay the kinds of taxes that Obama is talking about. He is advocating actually moving money out of one person's pocket and into the other person's pocket via Fed. Gov't

I contend that those with Capital do a better job of moving money into the poor person's pocket via private investment.

That sounds interesting.....could you elaborate?

employment

[texaspackerbacker]

That sounds downright Keynesian, Howard. Maybe there's hope for you after all.

THIS, indeed, is what we need to emphasize--NOT the old "Oh, it's so unfair to have so many on the low end pay so little". Those in that situation vote too, and they like it like that--and there's a helluva lot of them.

[HowardRoark]

That sounds downright Keynesian, Howard. Maybe there's hope for you after all.

Private employment Tex. I am not a Socialist.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Obama's tax plan would increase taxes in 2009 on the wealthiest 20 percent of households, while offering tax cuts for the other 80 percent. The largest increases would be on the top 1 percent of earners, according to analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan research group whose staff of experts includes former economic advisers to the White House and Congress under both Republicans and Democrats.

By comparison, the Tax Policy Center analysis says McCain would offer tax cuts across the board. Those at the top end of the scale would get the biggest percentage cuts under McCain, while households with the lowest incomes would receive the largest percentage cuts under Obama's plan.

Questions:

1. How does your first sentence square with Obama's oft-repeated mantra that his tax plan will cut taxes for 95% of all Americans?

2. Unless I'm reading the Tax Policy Center charts wrong, the income level at the 80% mark is about $110,000. How does this square with Obama's claim that his tax increases will only affect those with incomes over $250,000?

3. From the Tax Policy Center's "An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans: Updated September 12, 2008:"


The impact of the tax code on economic activity under each candidate's policies would differ in several important ways. Under Senator McCain's proposed policies, the top marginal rates (35 percent on individual income and 25 percent on corporate income) would be significantly lower than under Senator Obama's plan (39.6 and 35 percent, respectively). McCain's reduced individual and corporate rates could improve economic efficiency and increase domestic investment, but the larger future deficits would reduce and might completely negate any positive effect. In contrast, Senator Obama's proposed new tax credits could encourage desirable behavior, particularly if the childless EITC and payroll tax rebate encourage additional labor supply among childless low-income individuals. However, he would also direct new subsidies at an already favored group-seniors -and an already favored activity-homeownership-which could probably be better directed elsewhere.

This paragraph confirms Mr. Lott's numbers but does not speak in any way to his argument. Moreover, the sentence in boldface is a completely unsubstantiated and barely believable assertion. To assert that the effects of a 10% difference in the top marginal tax rate on corporate income would be reduced and negated by "larger future deficits" is absurd from the point of view of economic theory and recent history of the United States and Europe, most especially Sweden.

Furthermore, with regard to the underlined sentence, do you seriously believe that a "childless EITC and payroll tax rebate" (resulting in "additional labor supply among childless low-income individuals") would have a greater beneficial effect on American economic productivity than a difference of 10% in the top marginal tax rate on corporate income? Do you believe that after such catastrophic tax increases on the top 20% of taxpayers (not to mention corporate and FICA increases) there will be negligle effect on the American economy, that this top 20% will continue earning and producing wealth at the same pace they are now?!!!

4. Finally, regardless of the economic arguments, do you have no concern whatsoever that the definition of "rich" and "wealthy" will continue to be rounded down over the years until it includes you and me? (Of course, if you trust Lott's analysis, that threshhold has probably already been reached.)

[texaspackerbacker]

That sounds downright Keynesian, Howard. Maybe there's hope for you after all.

Private employment Tex. I am not a Socialist.

Government contractors ARE private employers--as are the second and third and fourth and fifth and so on levels of recipients of income generated by tax cuts AND government spending.

It's the RAISING of taxes that kills the golden goose.

[HowardRoark]

It's the RAISING of taxes that kills the golden goose.

RAISING off of what levels?

[LL2]

I just we could go to the good ole days of my great grandparents and pay no income taxes!

[HowardRoark]

That sounds downright Keynesian, Howard. Maybe there's hope for you after all.

Private employment Tex. I am not a Socialist.

Government contractors ARE private employers--as are the second and third and fourth and fifth and so on levels of recipients of income generated by tax cuts AND government spending.

It's the RAISING of taxes that kills the golden goose.

This is one debate I can do after a few beers. Perhaps Later. Tex, I just don't get it how a guy who rants and raves about Conservative values is such an advocate of the Federal Government moving the money around the economy.

We all know about the "multiplier effect".....why do believe the starting point has to come from the Government.

Two quick points:

a) free enterprise will sift through good ideas and bad ideas and expand economies.

b) the other day you mentioned that an individual might just stick his money in the bank and that is not good for the economy. That is wrong.....the bank can lend out that money many times over, it doesn't just sit there. And anyway, most of that capital is invested in equiteis and bonds. Again, WHEREVER THE INDIVIDUAL WANTS TO INVEST IT!!!

[bobblehead]

Obama's tax plan would increase taxes in 2009 on the wealthiest 20 percent of households, while offering tax cuts for the other 80 percent. The largest increases would be on the top 1 percent of earners, according to analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan research group whose staff of experts includes former economic advisers to the White House and Congress under both Republicans and Democrats.

By comparison, the Tax Policy Center analysis says McCain would offer tax cuts across the board. Those at the top end of the scale would get the biggest percentage cuts under McCain, while households with the lowest incomes would receive the largest percentage cuts under Obama's plan.

That's just known as math.

The majority of people in this country don't even pay the kinds of taxes that Obama is talking about. He is advocating actually moving money out of one person's pocket and into the other person's pocket via Fed. Gov't

I contend that those with Capital do a better job of moving money into the poor person's pocket via private investment.

That sounds interesting.....could you elaborate?

Let me elaborate.....look up capitalism in the dictionary.

[bobblehead]

It's the RAISING of taxes that kills the golden goose.

RAISING off of what levels?

19% according to several studies. The top marginal rate should be 19%

[packinpatland]

Obama's tax plan would increase taxes in 2009 on the wealthiest 20 percent of households, while offering tax cuts for the other 80 percent. The largest increases would be on the top 1 percent of earners, according to analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan research group whose staff of experts includes former economic advisers to the White House and Congress under both Republicans and Democrats.

By comparison, the Tax Policy Center analysis says McCain would offer tax cuts across the board. Those at the top end of the scale would get the biggest percentage cuts under McCain, while households with the lowest incomes would receive the largest percentage cuts under Obama's plan.

That's just known as math.

The majority of people in this country don't even pay the kinds of taxes that Obama is talking about. He is advocating actually moving money out of one person's pocket and into the other person's pocket via Fed. Gov't

I contend that those with Capital do a better job of moving money into the poor person's pocket via private investment.

That sounds interesting.....could you elaborate?

Let me elaborate.....look up capitalism in the dictionary.

Thank you, 'O Smart One' :bow:........................................ :roll:

[Kiwon]

Biden is such a complete moron.

The patriotic thing to do in a troubled economy is to pay more taxes?

This from the guy that gave a total of $3,690 to charity over the last ten years!

I make a fraction of what Biden does and I give three times this much every year.

Barack and Michelle as well gave next to nothing for years and years and then when they did gave it to Rev. J-Wright's church.

The Obamas and the Bidens are prime examples of Dems that talk up socialist policies but then do the opposite in their own personal lives.

[retailguy]

Biden is such a complete moron.

The patriotic thing to do in a troubled economy is to pay more taxes?

This from the guy that gave a total of $3,690 to charity over the last ten years!

I make a fraction of what Biden does and I give three times this much every year.

Barack and Michelle as well gave next to nothing for years and years and then when they did gave it to Rev. J-Wright's church.

The Obamas and the Bidens are prime examples of Dems that talk up socialist policies but then do the opposite in their own personal lives.

I learned that these "statistics" are accurate in my own anecdotal way. I found that politics correlate closely to charitable giving. The more liberal, the less giving. The less religious, the less giving. It holds true with some exceptions, of course. However, those that attended and faithfully tithed to their church, also gave significant donations to other sources.

I saw something recently that the 'average' charitable contribution was 3%. when you have a significant part of "middle america" giving 10% to their church, there needs to be a lot of guys like Biden giving nothing to balance the trend out. 3% is less than half, so there are more not giving than giving.

I learned years ago that "well meaning liberals" want to spend YOUR money, not THEIRS.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Biden is such a complete moron.

The patriotic thing to do in a troubled economy is to pay more taxes?

This from the guy that gave a total of $3,690 to charity over the last ten years!

I make a fraction of what Biden does and I give three times this much every year.

Barack and Michelle as well gave next to nothing for years and years and then when they did gave it to Rev. J-Wright's church.

The Obamas and the Bidens are prime examples of Dems that talk up socialist policies but then do the opposite in their own personal lives.

yeah, cause a tax form is the best way to determine things. :oops:

Claiming a tax deduction for charitable giving is either selfish or immodest (as in politicians who want their publicly released tax forms to look "good").

Some people give to their church without claimng it. Some people give their time like Mrs. Biden..or pitched in driving supplies to the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina. Those don't count do they.

The bidens are far from wealthy and have to put three kids thru college and have an aging relative move in with them.

Yep, that sounds like a terrible human being.

I'd wait on criticizing till we see Mrs. Palin's tax records.

[retailguy]

Some people give to their church without claimng it.

Not ONE of my 2,000 + clients EVER did this. Liberal or Conservative, hell even the few Green party nuts brought in canceled checks, email receipts, and lists of donations they had made. They even brought their Goodwill receipts.



Some people give their time like Mrs. Biden..or pitched in driving supplies to the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina. Those don't count do they.



Actually, charitable mileage is deductible. If they "drove" supplies to the gulf in their personal automobile, mileage is deductible at .14 per mile. If they rented a truck, the cost of the truck rental is deductible. If they volunteered their time at the local YMCA, or the homeless center, the mileage from their house to the facility and back is also deductible.

Don't think if the Biden's had that deduction, they'd have ignored it. If they did their CPA should be FIRED.

[HowardRoark]

Some people give to their church without claimng it.

Not ONE of my 2,000 + clients EVER did this. Liberal or Conservative, hell even the few Green party nuts brought in canceled checks, email receipts, and lists of donations they had made. They even brought their Goodwill receipts.



Some people give their time like Mrs. Biden..or pitched in driving supplies to the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina. Those don't count do they.



Actually, charitable mileage is deductible. If they "drove" supplies to the gulf in their personal automobile, mileage is deductible at .14 per mile. If they rented a truck, the cost of the truck rental is deductible. If they volunteered their time at the local YMCA, or the homeless center, the mileage from their house to the facility and back is also deductible.

Don't think if the Biden's had that deduction, they'd have ignored it. If they did their CPA should be FIRED.

I write off my time I spend here.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Some people give to their church without claimng it.

Not ONE of my 2,000 + clients EVER did this. Liberal or Conservative, hell even the few Green party nuts brought in canceled checks, email receipts, and lists of donations they had made. They even brought their Goodwill receipts.



Some people give their time like Mrs. Biden..or pitched in driving supplies to the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina. Those don't count do they.



Actually, charitable mileage is deductible. If they "drove" supplies to the gulf in their personal automobile, mileage is deductible at .14 per mile. If they rented a truck, the cost of the truck rental is deductible. If they volunteered their time at the local YMCA, or the homeless center, the mileage from their house to the facility and back is also deductible.

Don't think if the Biden's had that deduction, they'd have ignored it. If they did their CPA should be FIRED.

Did you ever think that your clients were attracted to you because of your values? Those that don't go to you don't perhaps share your values.

You continue to bring up anecdotal evidence..that doesn't make it a truth.

Mileage: Some people don't care about writing things off.

Time: Nothing for you to say about that is there. Giving money is the easier way of contributing. Giving time is much more costly..especially for those with money.

[retailguy]

Did you ever think that your clients were attracted to you because of your values? Those that don't go to you don't perhaps share your values.

Funny, then, I guess a bunch of conservatives were putting Kerry/Edwards bumper stickers on their cars to confuse me. :roll:



You continue to bring up anecdotal evidence..that doesn't make it a truth.

You continue to quote polling samples that contain as few as 600 participants. If you understood statistics you'd learn that sample sizes as few as 600 are considered "reliable". In spite of this, I continue to label it as anecdotal evidence in support of full disclosure.

Truth to you? who cares. It is truth to me. I experienced it. I have the black and white records in my office 20 feet from me right now.



Mileage: Some people don't care about writing things off.

Again, this was not my experience. If the Biden's had this deduction and did NOT write it off, their CPA should be FIRED. This is a very basic circumstance.



Time: Nothing for you to say about that is there. Giving money is the easier way of contributing. Giving time is much more costly..especially for those with money.

Maybe they gave time, maybe they didn't. The fact that they didn't write off the mileage suggests that they didn't actually give the time, or, that they LOVE to walk. See, Tyrone, even a bus pass is deductible if you can show you used it exclusively for getting to/from a charitable event.

It's not that tough. You spin it however you want. It won't change my experiences, nor the statistics that the IRS collects. Those statistics are published and agree with what I experienced.

[retailguy]

I write off my time I spend here.

I LIKE it! We should think about producing an official email receipt. You should then write off the cost of your DSL line, we can depreciate your computer, and a portion of the electricity used to run it.

It's expensive to get "liberals" converted. You'll be at this for a LONG LONG time, but I admire the effort. :wink:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Did you ever think that your clients were attracted to you because of your values? Those that don't go to you don't perhaps share your values.

Funny, then, I guess a bunch of conservatives were putting Kerry/Edwards bumper stickers on their cars to confuse me. :roll:



You continue to bring up anecdotal evidence..that doesn't make it a truth.

You continue to quote polling samples that contain as few as 600 participants. If you understood statistics you'd learn that sample sizes as few as 600 are considered "reliable". In spite of this, I continue to label it as anecdotal evidence in support of full disclosure.

Truth to you? who cares. It is truth to me. I experienced it. I have the black and white records in my office 20 feet from me right now.



Mileage: Some people don't care about writing things off.

Again, this was not my experience. If the Biden's had this deduction and did NOT write it off, their CPA should be FIRED. This is a very basic circumstance.



Time: Nothing for you to say about that is there. Giving money is the easier way of contributing. Giving time is much more costly..especially for those with money.

Maybe they gave time, maybe they didn't. The fact that they didn't write off the mileage suggests that they didn't actually give the time, or, that they LOVE to walk. See, Tyrone, even a bus pass is deductible if you can show you used it exclusively for getting to/from a charitable event.

It's not that tough. You spin it however you want. It won't change my experiences, nor the statistics that the IRS collects. Those statistics are published and agree with what I experienced.

Bumper stickers doesnt' mean they don't share your economic values..or personal finance. It isn't a hard concept.

Polling: Say what? When was that?

Truth: Yes, for you, but it doesn't make it universal.

Time: YOu can't read..they gave time...and they also drove. the two are separate incidents.

But, what a surprise for you to question that they do give time to their church. Methinks you wouldn't afford me the same view on your candidates.

Should we not take the word of those in their church who say they give freely of their time and money? Or, are those people liars as well?

Biden's financial disclosure returns also show donations of speaking fees to charity that aren't reported on the tax returns. :oops:

Or is the Biden Breast Health Initiative, educating high school girls in Delaware about proper breast health started by Jill..also just another piece of fiction. Yep, more time spent doing that is just..well, a lie. :oops:

Jill Biden is also involved with Book Buddies, which gives books to low-income children, and Delaware Boots on the Ground, which supports military families.

Down goes frazier, down goes frazier. Stay down Retail...you are getting pummeled.

And, you can't deny putting 3 kids thru college is draining..as is having a family member live with you. And, let's not forget that Biden is the least wealthy senator.

Again, easy for you and others to criticize..yet, we still are waiting for Mrs. Palin's records. As we also wait for Cindy's.

[retailguy]

If I'd have been Joe Biden, I'd have NEVER released those returns.

You'll die before you see Cindy McCains tax returns. That is why the McCains filed separately. Palin? who knows. We'll see.

Anyone with half a brain can see you spin and spin and spin.

Spend 10 minutes at IRS.gov. You'll see the numbers I talked about are accurate.

You really need to know when to quit. Again, let me "dumb it down" for you. See, a "time" donation of a speech is not deductible, however, the costs to get there, including mileage ARE deductible. Since they didn't DEDUCT THEM, that means the "expenses" were PAID, by the sponsor of the speech.

I do a lot of "free" tax returns. The time I spend is NOT deductible. Any expenses that I incur in support of those free returns IS deductible.

I make less than Biden does on a regular basis. I donate time, mileage, AND my money. A significant percentage of my money. If Biden is a cheap ass, and I believe him to be, I'll call it that way too. If Palin releases her returns, and gave $3k at a similar income level over the last 10 years, I'll be embarassed for her also. IT IS PATHETIC, no matter who it is.

Your defense - PRICELESS.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

If I'd have been Joe Biden, I'd have NEVER released those returns.

You'll die before you see Cindy McCains tax returns. That is why the McCains filed separately. Palin? who knows. We'll see.

Anyone with half a brain can see you spin and spin and spin.

Spend 10 minutes at IRS.gov. You'll see the numbers I talked about are accurate.

You really need to know when to quit. Again, let me "dumb it down" for you. See, a "time" donation of a speech is not deductible, however, the costs to get there, including mileage ARE deductible. Since they didn't DEDUCT THEM, that means the "expenses" were PAID, by the sponsor of the speech.

I do a lot of "free" tax returns. The time I spend is NOT deductible. Any expenses that I incur in support of those free returns IS deductible.

I make less than Biden does on a regular basis. I donate time, mileage, AND my money. A significant percentage of my money. If Biden is a cheap ass, and I believe him to be, I'll call it that way too. If Palin releases her returns, and gave $3k at a similar income level over the last 10 years, I'll be embarassed for her also. IT IS PATHETIC, no matter who it is.

Your defense - PRICELESS.

Your refusal to accept reality..priceless.

The bidens started the breast health, and she is president of it. Doing charity work for 15 years. :oops:

Book buddies and Chairwoman of Boots on the ground (supporting military families)..so, that is 3 orgs she gives her time to...hmm, i guess she should do more.

The fact remains that they do charity work...because they dont' write it off you chastise them.

The simple fact remains. They give of their time and money. . :oops:

You should be embarrassed that you continue to exhibit his level of partisanship.

[HowardRoark]

100 IBUs! Midnight sun brewed an IPA that was 200IBUs...it was like sucking a grapefruit. :lol:

http://www.midnightsunbrewing.com/beer_7DSgluttony.php

The Surly stuff looks good...I'll have to look for it when I'm down/over that way.

Your beer fear tactics are not working though... :lol:

Alright, I can click on the link at home now. That stuff looks pretty good.

http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/385/35400

We should get everyone to drink a couple (nice ABV) and see how the RomperRoom looks/reads.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

"In February, she joined Delaware Boots on the Ground, a small nonprofit of fewer than 30 people that raises money to help military members and their families with problems the military does not cover, such as paying electric bills or helping with back-to-school supplies for children, cofounder Shirley Brooks said.

The Biden name was an asset in itself: Jill Biden knew business owners and politicians who could donate larger sums and raise the organization's profile.

But she didn't stop there. When she suggested they have a fund-raiser during the week of the Fourth of July, she helped decorate big water jugs to collect dollars and change and sat at tables in local grocery stores to ask for donations, Brooks said.

She never introduced herself by name, telling shoppers she was simply a Boots on the Ground volunteer.

Before Jill Biden, the organization had only $1,500. After one week of fund-raising, the group had more than $30,000, Brooks said.

"When she came to us initially, we thought she was just going to lend us her name," Brooks said. "But it turns out that she was a volunteer who got down into the trenches with us to fund-raise."

What a loser!!! :roll:

[texaspackerbacker]

That sounds downright Keynesian, Howard. Maybe there's hope for you after all.

Private employment Tex. I am not a Socialist.

Government contractors ARE private employers--as are the second and third and fourth and fifth and so on levels of recipients of income generated by tax cuts AND government spending.

It's the RAISING of taxes that kills the golden goose.

This is one debate I can do after a few beers. Perhaps Later. Tex, I just don't get it how a guy who rants and raves about Conservative values is such an advocate of the Federal Government moving the money around the economy.

We all know about the "multiplier effect".....why do believe the starting point has to come from the Government.

Two quick points:

a) free enterprise will sift through good ideas and bad ideas and expand economies.

b) the other day you mentioned that an individual might just stick his money in the bank and that is not good for the economy. That is wrong.....the bank can lend out that money many times over, it doesn't just sit there. And anyway, most of that capital is invested in equiteis and bonds. Again, WHEREVER THE INDIVIDUAL WANTS TO INVEST IT!!!

First of all, before I get into the meat and potatoes, the salad: I don't remember. Did Teresa Heinz Kerry release her tax returns? That would seem to be the precedent for Cindy McCain one way or the other.

OK, Howard. When you talk about "everything starting with government" are you saying tax cuts do or don't "start with government". Obviously, the preferable way to stimulate economic growth is tax cuts. My point, though, is simply that it--the Multiplier--works both ways--money NOT confiscated by the government OR money re-injected by the government into the economy. The ONLY difference is the FAIRNESS ANGLE. I'm with you on that--spending/redistribution/whatever is NOT fair. THAT, however, is NOT an economic consideration. It is a social or moral consideration. Could you possibly disagree with any of that? If so, I'm sure you'll let me know. Be specific, though.

If you start the cycle in the middle--with no increase of money in the hands of consumers/investors, then no, you DON'T end up with macro-economic growth. Do you really think otherwise?

Yes, you're right that free enterprise WILL sift through good ideas and bad--and maximize the good and minimize the bad--expanding MICRO-economic situations--participants that win and participants that lose, but the net effect on the macro-economy is neutral.

I don't recall making the comment about sticking money in banks not being good. If you change it to "not AS good", then it's true--because of requirements that banks retain a portion of demand deposits. The bottom line, though, is that the money that individual may choose to either spend, save/invest, or whatever is INCOME. It came from someplace--and the more money in the money supply, the more INCOME there is to go around--and around and around and around--the Multiplier.

You praise free enterprise; Well, this IS free enterprise. There's a reason they call it Capitalism--because Capital is required to get things rolling.

[HowardRoark]

First of all, before I get into the meat and potatoes, the salad: I don't remember. Did Teresa Heinz Kerry release her tax returns? That would seem to be the precedent for Cindy McCain one way or the other.

OK, Howard. When you talk about "everything starting with government" are you saying tax cuts do or don't "start with government". Obviously, the preferable way to stimulate economic growth is tax cuts. My point, though, is simply that it--the Multiplier--works both ways--money NOT confiscated by the government OR money re-injected by the government into the economy. The ONLY difference is the FAIRNESS ANGLE. I'm with you on that--spending/redistribution/whatever is NOT fair. THAT, however, is NOT an economic consideration. It is a social or moral consideration. Could you possibly disagree with any of that? If so, I'm sure you'll let me know. Be specific, though.

If you start the cycle in the middle--with no increase of money in the hands of consumers/investors, then no, you DON'T end up with macro-economic growth. Do you really think otherwise?

Yes, you're right that free enterprise WILL sift through good ideas and bad--and maximize the good and minimize the bad--expanding MICRO-economic situations--participants that win and participants that lose, but the net effect on the macro-economy is neutral.

I don't recall making the comment about sticking money in banks not being good. If you change it to "not AS good", then it's true--because of requirements that banks retain a portion of demand deposits. The bottom line, though, is that the money that individual may choose to either spend, save/invest, or whatever is INCOME. It came from someplace--and the more money in the money supply, the more INCOME there is to go around--and around and around and around--the Multiplier.

You praise free enterprise; Well, this IS free enterprise. There's a reason they call it Capitalism--because Capital is required to get things rolling.

This is either a Rashomon issue or a Rain Man issue…I haven’t decided yet.

I guess we agree. All along though, you made it sound as though it is a wonderful thing that Federal Government takes our money and is so kind as to spend it in the economy. As though it’s their money to begin with and ain’t we lucky to get a few crumbs via the multiplier.

I consider it our money. And I think the individual can make a much better decision as to how to multiply that money. And more successful too.

[texaspackerbacker]

First of all, before I get into the meat and potatoes, the salad: I don't remember. Did Teresa Heinz Kerry release her tax returns? That would seem to be the precedent for Cindy McCain one way or the other.

OK, Howard. When you talk about "everything starting with government" are you saying tax cuts do or don't "start with government". Obviously, the preferable way to stimulate economic growth is tax cuts. My point, though, is simply that it--the Multiplier--works both ways--money NOT confiscated by the government OR money re-injected by the government into the economy. The ONLY difference is the FAIRNESS ANGLE. I'm with you on that--spending/redistribution/whatever is NOT fair. THAT, however, is NOT an economic consideration. It is a social or moral consideration. Could you possibly disagree with any of that? If so, I'm sure you'll let me know. Be specific, though.

If you start the cycle in the middle--with no increase of money in the hands of consumers/investors, then no, you DON'T end up with macro-economic growth. Do you really think otherwise?

Yes, you're right that free enterprise WILL sift through good ideas and bad--and maximize the good and minimize the bad--expanding MICRO-economic situations--participants that win and participants that lose, but the net effect on the macro-economy is neutral.

I don't recall making the comment about sticking money in banks not being good. If you change it to "not AS good", then it's true--because of requirements that banks retain a portion of demand deposits. The bottom line, though, is that the money that individual may choose to either spend, save/invest, or whatever is INCOME. It came from someplace--and the more money in the money supply, the more INCOME there is to go around--and around and around and around--the Multiplier.

You praise free enterprise; Well, this IS free enterprise. There's a reason they call it Capitalism--because Capital is required to get things rolling.

This is either a Rashomon issue or a Rain Man issue…I haven’t decided yet.

I guess we agree. All along though, you made it sound as though it is a wonderful thing that Federal Government takes our money and is so kind as to spend it in the economy. As though it’s their money to begin with and ain’t we lucky to get a few crumbs via the multiplier.

I consider it our money. And I think the individual can make a much better decision as to how to multiply that money. And more successful too.

It IS a wonderful thing--not quite as wonderful as if they never confiscated it in the first place, but beneficial just the same.

I know this is REALLY gonna set you off, but the best case scenario of all is if you cut taxes AND inject funds into the economy--deficit spending if needed. It all comes back over time anyway as income and therefore the tax base is increased.