Definition of 'rich' changing... already

[Fosco33]

Who defines 'rich'?

Why is 'rich' defined by gross salary? Is there no reprieve if you live in a state that has higher income tax, sales tax, property tax, and generally a high cost of living? Why 'redistribute' my money if there's not much to take?

In SoCal, the average cost of living is about twice that of WI... meaning those of you in America's Dairyland making $125K and those making $250K in CA are in the same boat after all is said and done.

But Obama will not care that I'm in the range that will be targeted next - and live in a one bedroom apt with a 10yr old car, a disappearing 401(k) and 15% of my wages going to Medicare/Social Security which will also disappear and now a daughter to worry about.

If things continue to change (first it was $250+, now $200+, etc), and next I'll be considered 'rich' I'm gonna laugh my fucking ass off. My after tax, adjusted cost of living wage would be considered very average in WI.

Apparently average people are now 'rich'.

When I have enough to buy a home (and a 2nd home), multiple new cars, fantastic vacations, wardrobes, butlers and the rest - then call me rich. Until then, call it what it is and tell us what your plans are Obama.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/10/obamas_ever_changing_definitio.html

[retailguy]

Re: Definition of 'rich' changing... already

Who defines 'rich'?

The chosen one does.

Why is 'rich' defined by gross salary?

Because the chosen one said you are rich.

Is there no reprieve if you live in a state that has higher income tax, sales tax, property tax, and generally a high cost of living?

Why should there be? Just move to a lower cost area, then you'll be "richer".

Why 'redistribute' my money if there's not much to take?

Because the chosen one said it will be, and we DARE NOT question him.

Apparently average people are now 'rich'.

You aren't "average". Those government survey's are wrong. They'll be republished shortly. You are rich.

When I have enough to buy a home (and a 2nd home), multiple new cars, fantastic vacations, wardrobes, butlers and the rest - then call me rich.

You don't need those things to be rich. You just need a job. Do you know how many people out there can't get a good job. I know this because right now, there is no bus that picks me up at my couch, and no one is advertising for those $100K jobs on my TV.

Pretty soon, they'll know I can work from home, in front of my TV, and I'll be RICH. The chosen one has promised. All the jobs are coming back from India, my friend! We're going to make BIG MONEY telemarketing from home!!!

Until then, call it what it is and tell us what your plans are Obama.

You are not to speak to the chosen one. Joe Wurlizbacher made the mistake of speaking to the chosen one without being spoken to.... Don't be like Joe.... You must first see his "appointment scheduler". Mr. Rezko should be out of jail soon, and will then promptly book your appointment.

[ThunderDan]

Re: Definition of 'rich' changing... already

Who defines 'rich'?

Why is 'rich' defined by gross salary? Is there no reprieve if you live in a state that has higher income tax, sales tax, property tax, and generally a high cost of living? Why 'redistribute' my money if there's not much to take?

In SoCal, the average cost of living is about twice that of WI... meaning those of you in America's Dairyland making $125K and those making $250K in CA are in the same boat after all is said and done.

But Obama will not care that I'm in the range that will be targeted next - and live in a one bedroom apt with a 10yr old car, a disappearing 401(k) and 15% of my wages going to Medicare/Social Security which will also disappear and now a daughter to worry about.

If things continue to change (first it was $250+, now $200+, etc), and next I'll be considered 'rich' I'm gonna laugh my fucking ass off. My after tax, adjusted cost of living wage would be considered very average in WI.

Apparently average people are now 'rich'.

When I have enough to buy a home (and a 2nd home), multiple new cars, fantastic vacations, wardrobes, butlers and the rest - then call me rich. Until then, call it what it is and tell us what your plans are Obama.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...definitio.html

Fosco-

I think you have this entirely mixed up.

First off you only pay 7.65% on social security taxes not 15% even if you were self-employeed and had to pay both halfs you get a deduction on your tax return.

Right now rich is determined by the tax brackets which were set by the Republican legislature, Obama is saying is is going to promote legislation to change the brackets and increase the tax on anyone making over $250,000 or $200,000.

The USA is $10 trillion in debt. So we either have to cut sprending or increase revenues. Between social security and defense there isn't really a lot to cut out of the federal government that will make any dent in the debt. So we need to increase the revenue generated not decrease it.

If you owed $10,000 in credit card debt you wouldn't argue that going from a $75,000 a year job to a $65,000 a year job helps you pay off your debt. You would try to find a job that paid $85,000.

[LL2]

Re: Definition of 'rich' changing... already

Who defines 'rich'?

Why is 'rich' defined by gross salary? Is there no reprieve if you live in a state that has higher income tax, sales tax, property tax, and generally a high cost of living? Why 'redistribute' my money if there's not much to take?

In SoCal, the average cost of living is about twice that of WI... meaning those of you in America's Dairyland making $125K and those making $250K in CA are in the same boat after all is said and done.

But Obama will not care that I'm in the range that will be targeted next - and live in a one bedroom apt with a 10yr old car, a disappearing 401(k) and 15% of my wages going to Medicare/Social Security which will also disappear and now a daughter to worry about.

If things continue to change (first it was $250+, now $200+, etc), and next I'll be considered 'rich' I'm gonna laugh my fucking ass off. My after tax, adjusted cost of living wage would be considered very average in WI.

Apparently average people are now 'rich'.

When I have enough to buy a home (and a 2nd home), multiple new cars, fantastic vacations, wardrobes, butlers and the rest - then call me rich. Until then, call it what it is and tell us what your plans are Obama.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...definitio.html

Fosco-

I think you have this entirely mixed up.

First off you only pay 7.65% on social security taxes not 15% even if you were self-employeed and had to pay both halfs you get a deduction on your tax return.

Right now rich is determined by the tax brackets which were set by the Republican legislature, Obama is saying is is going to promote legislation to change the brackets and increase the tax on anyone making over $250,000 or $200,000.

The USA is $10 trillion in debt. So we either have to cut sprending or increase revenues. Between social security and defense there isn't really a lot to cut out of the federal government that will make any dent in the debt. So we need to increase the revenue generated not decrease it.

If you owed $10,000 in credit card debt you wouldn't argue that going from a $75,000 a year job to a $65,000 a year job helps you pay off your debt. You would try to find a job that paid $85,000.

But even doing that wouldn't get you to an extra $10,000.

[SkinBasket]

Re: Definition of 'rich' changing... already

Fosco-

I think you have this entirely mixed up.

Yes, Fosco. You are confused. You're just imagining all your money being taken from you. But believe me, I'm just as confused and mixed up as you are.

[ThunderDan]

Re: Definition of 'rich' changing... already

Who defines 'rich'?

Why is 'rich' defined by gross salary? Is there no reprieve if you live in a state that has higher income tax, sales tax, property tax, and generally a high cost of living? Why 'redistribute' my money if there's not much to take?

In SoCal, the average cost of living is about twice that of WI... meaning those of you in America's Dairyland making $125K and those making $250K in CA are in the same boat after all is said and done.

But Obama will not care that I'm in the range that will be targeted next - and live in a one bedroom apt with a 10yr old car, a disappearing 401(k) and 15% of my wages going to Medicare/Social Security which will also disappear and now a daughter to worry about.

If things continue to change (first it was $250+, now $200+, etc), and next I'll be considered 'rich' I'm gonna laugh my fucking ass off. My after tax, adjusted cost of living wage would be considered very average in WI.

Apparently average people are now 'rich'.

When I have enough to buy a home (and a 2nd home), multiple new cars, fantastic vacations, wardrobes, butlers and the rest - then call me rich. Until then, call it what it is and tell us what your plans are Obama.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...definitio.html

Fosco-

I think you have this entirely mixed up.

First off you only pay 7.65% on social security taxes not 15% even if you were self-employeed and had to pay both halfs you get a deduction on your tax return.

Right now rich is determined by the tax brackets which were set by the Republican legislature, Obama is saying is is going to promote legislation to change the brackets and increase the tax on anyone making over $250,000 or $200,000.

The USA is $10 trillion in debt. So we either have to cut sprending or increase revenues. Between social security and defense there isn't really a lot to cut out of the federal government that will make any dent in the debt. So we need to increase the revenue generated not decrease it.

If you owed $10,000 in credit card debt you wouldn't argue that going from a $75,000 a year job to a $65,000 a year job helps you pay off your debt. You would try to find a job that paid $85,000.

But even doing that wouldn't get you to an extra $10,000.

You would pay them off a lot quicker than taking a "pay" cut.

[HowardRoark]

Re: Definition of 'rich' changing... already

Who defines 'rich'?

Why is 'rich' defined by gross salary? Is there no reprieve if you live in a state that has higher income tax, sales tax, property tax, and generally a high cost of living? Why 'redistribute' my money if there's not much to take?

In SoCal, the average cost of living is about twice that of WI... meaning those of you in America's Dairyland making $125K and those making $250K in CA are in the same boat after all is said and done.

But Obama will not care that I'm in the range that will be targeted next - and live in a one bedroom apt with a 10yr old car, a disappearing 401(k) and 15% of my wages going to Medicare/Social Security which will also disappear and now a daughter to worry about.

If things continue to change (first it was $250+, now $200+, etc), and next I'll be considered 'rich' I'm gonna laugh my fucking ass off. My after tax, adjusted cost of living wage would be considered very average in WI.

Apparently average people are now 'rich'.

When I have enough to buy a home (and a 2nd home), multiple new cars, fantastic vacations, wardrobes, butlers and the rest - then call me rich. Until then, call it what it is and tell us what your plans are Obama.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...definitio.html

Fosco-

I think you have this entirely mixed up.

First off you only pay 7.65% on social security taxes not 15% even if you were self-employeed and had to pay both halfs you get a deduction on your tax return.

Right now rich is determined by the tax brackets which were set by the Republican legislature, Obama is saying is is going to promote legislation to change the brackets and increase the tax on anyone making over $250,000 or $200,000.

The USA is $10 trillion in debt. So we either have to cut sprending or increase revenues. Between social security and defense there isn't really a lot to cut out of the federal government that will make any dent in the debt. So we need to increase the revenue generated not decrease it.

If you owed $10,000 in credit card debt you wouldn't argue that going from a $75,000 a year job to a $65,000 a year job helps you pay off your debt. You would try to find a job that paid $85,000.

What about the fact that when rates are lowered (Capital gains, income) revenues increase? Does that matter?

[mraynrand]

Re: Definition of 'rich' changing... already

Who defines 'rich'?

Why is 'rich' defined by gross salary? Is there no reprieve if you live in a state that has higher income tax, sales tax, property tax, and generally a high cost of living? Why 'redistribute' my money if there's not much to take?

In SoCal, the average cost of living is about twice that of WI... meaning those of you in America's Dairyland making $125K and those making $250K in CA are in the same boat after all is said and done.

But Obama will not care that I'm in the range that will be targeted next - and live in a one bedroom apt with a 10yr old car, a disappearing 401(k) and 15% of my wages going to Medicare/Social Security which will also disappear and now a daughter to worry about.

If things continue to change (first it was $250+, now $200+, etc), and next I'll be considered 'rich' I'm gonna laugh my fucking ass off. My after tax, adjusted cost of living wage would be considered very average in WI.

Apparently average people are now 'rich'.

When I have enough to buy a home (and a 2nd home), multiple new cars, fantastic vacations, wardrobes, butlers and the rest - then call me rich. Until then, call it what it is and tell us what your plans are Obama.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...definitio.html

Fosco-

I think you have this entirely mixed up.

First off you only pay 7.65% on social security taxes not 15% even if you were self-employeed and had to pay both halfs you get a deduction on your tax return.

Right now rich is determined by the tax brackets which were set by the Republican legislature, Obama is saying is is going to promote legislation to change the brackets and increase the tax on anyone making over $250,000 or $200,000.

The USA is $10 trillion in debt. So we either have to cut sprending or increase revenues. Between social security and defense there isn't really a lot to cut out of the federal government that will make any dent in the debt. So we need to increase the revenue generated not decrease it.

If you owed $10,000 in credit card debt you wouldn't argue that going from a $75,000 a year job to a $65,000 a year job helps you pay off your debt. You would try to find a job that paid $85,000.

What about the fact that when rates are lowered (Capital gains, income) revenues increase? Does that matter?

No, because even if revenues increase, it is not 'fair' - so said the Messiah to Charlie Gibson. And it's not patriotic.

[Fosco33]

Re: Definition of 'rich' changing... already

Who defines 'rich'?

Why is 'rich' defined by gross salary? Is there no reprieve if you live in a state that has higher income tax, sales tax, property tax, and generally a high cost of living? Why 'redistribute' my money if there's not much to take?

In SoCal, the average cost of living is about twice that of WI... meaning those of you in America's Dairyland making $125K and those making $250K in CA are in the same boat after all is said and done.

But Obama will not care that I'm in the range that will be targeted next - and live in a one bedroom apt with a 10yr old car, a disappearing 401(k) and 15% of my wages going to Medicare/Social Security which will also disappear and now a daughter to worry about.

If things continue to change (first it was $250+, now $200+, etc), and next I'll be considered 'rich' I'm gonna laugh my fucking ass off. My after tax, adjusted cost of living wage would be considered very average in WI.

Apparently average people are now 'rich'.

When I have enough to buy a home (and a 2nd home), multiple new cars, fantastic vacations, wardrobes, butlers and the rest - then call me rich. Until then, call it what it is and tell us what your plans are Obama.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...definitio.html

Fosco-

I think you have this entirely mixed up.

First off you only pay 7.65% on social security taxes not 15% even if you were self-employeed and had to pay both halfs you get a deduction on your tax return.

Right now rich is determined by the tax brackets which were set by the Republican legislature, Obama is saying is is going to promote legislation to change the brackets and increase the tax on anyone making over $250,000 or $200,000.

The USA is $10 trillion in debt. So we either have to cut sprending or increase revenues. Between social security and defense there isn't really a lot to cut out of the federal government that will make any dent in the debt. So we need to increase the revenue generated not decrease it.

If you owed $10,000 in credit card debt you wouldn't argue that going from a $75,000 a year job to a $65,000 a year job helps you pay off your debt. You would try to find a job that paid $85,000.

I consider that my company has to pay for 'benefits' that I'll never receive a tax on my income. In other words, they would pay me a higher salary if they didn't have to pay the other half (all things considered, market conditions, cost of goods remain unchanged).

I'll tell you another thing - when both those programs fail (Medicare likely in the next 15 years; social security by 2040) people are going to be irrate (everyone 20-64 who has been paying their whole lives). I'd like an alternative.

I made a joke - but afterwards thought 'why not'.
Should America just call 'bankruptcy' with other countries (mainly China)? Say, something to the effect of 'too bad, so sad'.

What would they do - not sell us more poorly tested, 3rd rate crap? Darn.

[HowardRoark]

Re: Definition of 'rich' changing... already

Who defines 'rich'?

Why is 'rich' defined by gross salary? Is there no reprieve if you live in a state that has higher income tax, sales tax, property tax, and generally a high cost of living? Why 'redistribute' my money if there's not much to take?

In SoCal, the average cost of living is about twice that of WI... meaning those of you in America's Dairyland making $125K and those making $250K in CA are in the same boat after all is said and done.

But Obama will not care that I'm in the range that will be targeted next - and live in a one bedroom apt with a 10yr old car, a disappearing 401(k) and 15% of my wages going to Medicare/Social Security which will also disappear and now a daughter to worry about.

If things continue to change (first it was $250+, now $200+, etc), and next I'll be considered 'rich' I'm gonna laugh my fucking ass off. My after tax, adjusted cost of living wage would be considered very average in WI.

Apparently average people are now 'rich'.

When I have enough to buy a home (and a 2nd home), multiple new cars, fantastic vacations, wardrobes, butlers and the rest - then call me rich. Until then, call it what it is and tell us what your plans are Obama.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...definitio.html

Fosco-

I think you have this entirely mixed up.

First off you only pay 7.65% on social security taxes not 15% even if you were self-employeed and had to pay both halfs you get a deduction on your tax return.

Right now rich is determined by the tax brackets which were set by the Republican legislature, Obama is saying is is going to promote legislation to change the brackets and increase the tax on anyone making over $250,000 or $200,000.

The USA is $10 trillion in debt. So we either have to cut sprending or increase revenues. Between social security and defense there isn't really a lot to cut out of the federal government that will make any dent in the debt. So we need to increase the revenue generated not decrease it.

If you owed $10,000 in credit card debt you wouldn't argue that going from a $75,000 a year job to a $65,000 a year job helps you pay off your debt. You would try to find a job that paid $85,000.

What about the fact that when rates are lowered (Capital gains, income) revenues increase? Does that matter?

No, because even if revenues increase, it is not 'fair' - so said the Messiah to Charlie Gibson. And it's not patriotic.

His intellectual dishonesty has been noted.

[HowardRoark]

Re: Definition of 'rich' changing... already

I made a joke - but afterwards thought 'why not'.
Should America just call 'bankruptcy' with other countries (mainly China)? Say, something to the effect of 'too bad, so sad'.

What would they do - not sell us more poorly tested, 3rd rate crap? Darn.

As soon as we balance our budget, this might be a viable option. As long as we deficit spend though, the symbiotic relationship has to continue. Although now people might re-think buying all that shit (because they don't have any money).

[retailguy]

Re: Definition of 'rich' changing... already

I think you have this entirely mixed up.

Dan, with all due respect, I think you're the one that has things "mixed up".

First off you only pay 7.65% on social security taxes not 15% even if you were self-employeed and had to pay both halfs you get a deduction on your tax return.

Ok, Fosco has already explained why he thinks what he thinks, and I agree with that line of thinking. Though employees never see the money, it IS part of their compensation. It is reasonable to assume that if there were no employer SSI taxes that money could, and would be used to attract better employees, or used for raises or other benefits.

That aside, Dan, I must say that you are a PERFECT chosen one voter if you think that a business owner filing a schedule "C" gets a tax deduction. They don't.

Let me explain this - You do have a front page deduction from your adjusted gross income for half the amount of the 15.3% self employment tax that a sole proprietor is responsible for. The 15% quoted figure is ACCURATE. The "psuedo deduction" that you're talking about Dan, reduces your AGI (adjusted gross income). The reason for this, is if they didn't do it that way, then the business owner would pay federal income taxes on the amount of social security taxes. THAT'S IT. That's the only function.

If you call that a "deduction", well then Dan, I don't know how to help you. All this line does is "equalize" the sole proprietor books with every other incorporated, partnership and LLC business out there. Business can deduct payroll taxes. Sole Proprietors can't and this is the tax "workaround" for that.

Oh, and the vast employees don't get this deduction. You, Dan, pay federal income taxes on the taxes you pay to both your state government and the federal government....

Right now rich is determined by the tax brackets which were set by the Republican legislature, Obama is saying is is going to promote legislation to change the brackets and increase the tax on anyone making over $250,000 or $200,000.

Or, $150k if you believe Biden, or $120k if you believe Bill Richardson. The number keeps creeping downward. It'll be at about $30k before we are finished just like it was with our good buddy Bill Clinton. Just wait, Dan. I shall remind you of this conversation in 2010 after the Bush tax cuts expire and your taxes GO UP. Yes, Dan, they will go UP. The chosen one won't have to do anything except let the law expire.

The USA is $10 trillion in debt. So we either have to cut sprending or increase revenues. Between social security and defense there isn't really a lot to cut out of the federal government that will make any dent in the debt. So we need to increase the revenue generated not decrease it.

So, in that massive federal budget there just isn't room for any reduced spending? No where? Really? Dan, you really are the perfect Obama voter. George Bush spent money like a drunken fool. Obama will be worse.

If you owed $10,000 in credit card debt you wouldn't argue that going from a $75,000 a year job to a $65,000 a year job helps you pay off your debt. You would try to find a job that paid $85,000.

Dan, you really need an economics class at your local community college. If you tell me where you live, I will find a class for you to enroll in. Macro Economics 101 or Micro Economics 101 would be a great place to start.

Your analogy is not likely to ever happen. People are largely paid what they are worth. Someone who is "worth" $75k can't find a job at $85K. They HAVE TO CUT EXPENSES. So does the government.

Every single time that taxes have been increased government tax revenues have DECLINED. Every time. It will happen that way this time too. Just watch. While you're watching, you've got time for those classes. Then when it happens, you'll understand WHY.

[wist43]

Re: Definition of 'rich' changing... already

Who defines 'rich'?

Why is 'rich' defined by gross salary? Is there no reprieve if you live in a state that has higher income tax, sales tax, property tax, and generally a high cost of living? Why 'redistribute' my money if there's not much to take?

In SoCal, the average cost of living is about twice that of WI... meaning those of you in America's Dairyland making $125K and those making $250K in CA are in the same boat after all is said and done.

But Obama will not care that I'm in the range that will be targeted next - and live in a one bedroom apt with a 10yr old car, a disappearing 401(k) and 15% of my wages going to Medicare/Social Security which will also disappear and now a daughter to worry about.

If things continue to change (first it was $250+, now $200+, etc), and next I'll be considered 'rich' I'm gonna laugh my fucking ass off. My after tax, adjusted cost of living wage would be considered very average in WI.

Apparently average people are now 'rich'.

When I have enough to buy a home (and a 2nd home), multiple new cars, fantastic vacations, wardrobes, butlers and the rest - then call me rich. Until then, call it what it is and tell us what your plans are Obama.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...definitio.html

Fosco-

I think you have this entirely mixed up.

First off you only pay 7.65% on social security taxes not 15% even if you were self-employeed and had to pay both halfs you get a deduction on your tax return.

Right now rich is determined by the tax brackets which were set by the Republican legislature, Obama is saying is is going to promote legislation to change the brackets and increase the tax on anyone making over $250,000 or $200,000.

The USA is $10 trillion in debt. So we either have to cut sprending or increase revenues. Between social security and defense there isn't really a lot to cut out of the federal government that will make any dent in the debt. So we need to increase the revenue generated not decrease it.

If you owed $10,000 in credit card debt you wouldn't argue that going from a $75,000 a year job to a $65,000 a year job helps you pay off your debt. You would try to find a job that paid $85,000.

Raising taxes is never a zero sum game... raising taxes kills job creation, causes people to pull back on their spending, etc...

Reagan lowered taxes and revenues went up...

You're in Madison though... never met anyone from Madison who could do math. 800 square miles surrounded by reality. Go ahead, vote for Obama... the economy will tank ala Jimmy Carter. It's just math, economic math, but still math nonetheless.

Sounds like you live a little too close to campus there

[ThunderDan]

Re: Definition of 'rich' changing... already

I think you have this entirely mixed up.

Dan, with all due respect, I think you're the one that has things "mixed up".

First off you only pay 7.65% on social security taxes not 15% even if you were self-employeed and had to pay both halfs you get a deduction on your tax return.

Ok, Fosco has already explained why he thinks what he thinks, and I agree with that line of thinking. Though employees never see the money, it IS part of their compensation. It is reasonable to assume that if there were no employer SSI taxes that money could, and would be used to attract better employees, or used for raises or other benefits.

That aside, Dan, I must say that you are a PERFECT chosen one voter if you think that a business owner filing a schedule "C" gets a tax deduction. They don't.

Let me explain this - You do have a front page deduction from your adjusted gross income for half the amount of the 15.3% self employment tax that a sole proprietor is responsible for. The 15% quoted figure is ACCURATE. The "psuedo deduction" that you're talking about Dan, reduces your AGI (adjusted gross income). The reason for this, is if they didn't do it that way, then the business owner would pay federal income taxes on the amount of social security taxes. THAT'S IT. That's the only function.

If you call that a "deduction", well then Dan, I don't know how to help you. All this line does is "equalize" the sole proprietor books with every other incorporated, partnership and LLC business out there. Business can deduct payroll taxes. Sole Proprietors can't and this is the tax "workaround" for that.

Oh, and the vast employees don't get this deduction. You, Dan, pay federal income taxes on the taxes you pay to both your state government and the federal government....

Right now rich is determined by the tax brackets which were set by the Republican legislature, Obama is saying is is going to promote legislation to change the brackets and increase the tax on anyone making over $250,000 or $200,000.

Or, $150k if you believe Biden, or $120k if you believe Bill Richardson. The number keeps creeping downward. It'll be at about $30k before we are finished just like it was with our good buddy Bill Clinton. Just wait, Dan. I shall remind you of this conversation in 2010 after the Bush tax cuts expire and your taxes GO UP. Yes, Dan, they will go UP. The chosen one won't have to do anything except let the law expire.

The USA is $10 trillion in debt. So we either have to cut sprending or increase revenues. Between social security and defense there isn't really a lot to cut out of the federal government that will make any dent in the debt. So we need to increase the revenue generated not decrease it.

So, in that massive federal budget there just isn't room for any reduced spending? No where? Really? Dan, you really are the perfect Obama voter. George Bush spent money like a drunken fool. Obama will be worse.

If you owed $10,000 in credit card debt you wouldn't argue that going from a $75,000 a year job to a $65,000 a year job helps you pay off your debt. You would try to find a job that paid $85,000.

Dan, you really need an economics class at your local community college. If you tell me where you live, I will find a class for you to enroll in. Macro Economics 101 or Micro Economics 101 would be a great place to start.

Your analogy is not likely to ever happen. People are largely paid what they are worth. Someone who is "worth" $75k can't find a job at $85K. They HAVE TO CUT EXPENSES. So does the government.

Every single time that taxes have been increased government tax revenues have DECLINED. Every time. It will happen that way this time too. Just watch. While you're watching, you've got time for those classes. Then when it happens, you'll understand WHY.

Retailguy-

Let me explain this to you. I am a CPA. I think I know a little bit more than you about tax law.

The self-employment tax is calculated on page 2 of the tax return and is added after regular taxes have been calulated. Half of this number is than moved to the front page of the tax return.

If I made $100,000 from my business and had to pay $15,000 in self-employment tax I only have to pay income tax on $100,000 minus $7,500 or $92,500. So I am not paying 15.3% as self eployment tax. You are probably going to get a $1,800 income tax break. So you are really only paying 13.2% which is lower than the 15.3% you would pay between employee and employer as a business owner paying W-2 wages. So saying the self-employeed employee is paying twice what a normal person pays isn't a fair or correct statement.

The issue isn't how much is collected but what's done with it. The employee and employer funds are supposed to be used to calculate your retirement beneift paid out over your life expectance. Unfortunately we are in a pay it ahead world with social security and with the baby boomers the system may go broke. This is a huge concern and worries me that neither canidate has really addressed this issue.

I am not sure what you mean by "You, Dan, pay federal income taxes on the taxes you pay to both your state government and the federal government" I deduct any and all taxes I pay to the state of Wisconsin on my tax return, income and real estate,

I guess we will find out where the Obama tax rate brackets will be if he becomes President. I haven't heard one specific from McCain on his tax policy. I suupose I could be more active and go to John McCain's website to see what he says but I haven't. Yes I know the Bush tax law expires in 2010 and taxes would go back to the pre-enacted rates. Can you tell what the capital gains rate will go back to? Will there be more than one capital gains rate? How about the treatment of qualified dividends from corporations?

I believe about 95% of the federal budget goes to the military and social security. Obviously there is waste in government and money can be found. But it will be tiny compared to the overall picture of our deficit. If you can find a way to not spend us out of the deficit I am willing to listen to your plan.

To your last point, people are rarely paid what they are worth. Equal positions in corporations usually pay equal or close to equal amounts. Yet there is always an employee or two that outshines the rest. A majority of workers salaries are determined prior to the current year. Rarely does the great producers get paid for their actual work. It's usually the employee who is willing to turn the spotlight on themselves that gets promoted or bigger raises.

Tax revenues increased with Bill Clinton's tax increase. As measured by constant dollar revenue growth tax collection has increase every year since 1992 except for the contraction in 2001, 2002 and 2003 due in part to 9/11.

As for your horrible comments regarding that I am stupid and uninformed this is exactly what the problem is in the USA today. Without ever meeting me or asking me what I do or believe in you were willing to make disparaging remarks based on my support of the Democtratic canidate. No matter who wins in November, they are going to have to lead the whole country and this dividiing and labeling as unworthy makes me sick.

[Fosco33]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png

Defense - 20%
SS - 21%
Care/Caid - 21%
Other/interest/mandatory - 38%