No ****, what gave you that idea? Oh, I believe there are many former presidents from the 1800's, I'd revise your statement.
Now who said nobody cares about the middle class? If you're going to increase the amount an employer has to pay ("rich folk ya' know"), they have to increase their prices, and as a last resort, layoff workers. This will be major issue with small businesses. Also, businesses are taxed on their assets, not just what the employer's salary is, so they're already being taxed. Why do think so many of them donate to charity? To cut their taxes of course. So in the end, who's getting hurt by this the most? The employers ("rich folk") or the workers (middle class) when wages can't be payed, or when they find the company is downsizing? Ever heard of the Panic of 1819? Look it up and it will sound extremely familiar that it is almost scary.
lolzorz... I suspect this thread is coming very close to getting locked. Let's all try to calm down here, kay?
Because it has relevance. I agreed with your statement, because it was very true. How you support this election, eh..
The sarcasm wasn't directed at his belief that the "rich" shouldn't be taxed, but that they should be, or that's what I've interpreted from that post and from other posts he has made. I'm being very serious. Let me sum it up for you; presidential election, economy is already in the hole, economy breaks down, banks foreclose, depression, inflation.... Though you deny it, the future is made brighter by using the past as a reference.
OK all the whiners about the Robbin Hood effect... Here's some things to keep in mind. The changes proposed by President Elect Obama are in an effort to undo the damage done by Bush. He's not trying to rob the rich, he's trying to get back from the rich what was robbed from the middle class and given to them. source... remember those? Also... not really related but I just because I like throwing out this figure whenever I can... acording to this the ratio of CEO pay to lowest underling pay was reported at approximately 821 to 1 in 2005. In other words, please quit bitching about trying to help the poor because it makes you sound like a ****ing asshole (you know who you are)
Sure, and why not. Everyone is taxed. Tax rates are a percentage, so it's only natural that the rich will have to pay more because they can afford it. All I'm saying, is that from what I heard this is only going to be a 3% tax raise for people who can afford it. It's not going to make them broke, and it's not going to ruin the economy. Many experienced financial advisors are even in support of Obama's tax plans, and most of Hollywood supports Obama as well - Why would rich people support Obama if he was going to tax them more than they could afford? They wouldn't, and that's why it's ridiculous to suggest that Obama is some sort of corrupt socialist or evil Robin Hood. Have a little more faith people, the country isn't going to get worse with Obama as President. Once again Predicide, you rock. But I'm wondering, is that bolded part a typo? You meant rich right?
No I meant quit bitching about the idea of helping the poor. I mean... how is helping the poor seriously something anyone would be against? Or the middle class, for that matter?
Your first source goes on to state that it wasn't necessarily Bush's fault this occurred, it's just that he didn't make the best choice of the options available. It also blames technology for the loss of jobs as it's cheaper since machines don't take days off nor vary in output, and then foreign countries where labor is cheaper. For your second source, that's strictly Wyoming, and in no way reflects the national minimum wage though the CEO might in-fact make more, the percentage paid in taxes is more since 60,000 x .2 < 450,000 x .2. (Pure numerical example) Texas's minimum wage is a little over $7 an hour for full time jobs. Source. When the people who are paying the other people begin spend more on taxes, what are they going to dispose of to compensate for it? That's my question, and getting rid of a spare car is not a relevant answer. For your Hollywood question, most already donate so they get out of taxes already, and they don't generally have a bunch of employees to pay besides major studios. Although I'm not at full to agree with Obama and his tax plans, I've never said they were corrupt, but that they might create ripples.
Regardless of who's fault, it happened. It's now appropriate to do something about it. It says Wyoming only? I don't see that. Anyway, it goes up and down but is always some atrocious number. In my opinion 4 to 1 would be unjust.
Both candidates were going to do something about it. McCain's decreased taxes for all classes, while Obama's didn't. The only varying factor was by how much for each class. Though this statement is more or less irrelevant as Obama is the next president. Wyoming was the only state besides Georgia with minimum wage being at $5.15.
Yeah, flatter tax or more progressive. Trickle down or bottom up. That's not really what I was aiming for, though. The source I gave was from 2005... the federal minimum wage was $5.15 then.
I work with a black guy. Actually, he and I agree on about a million things. However, we differ in political choice. That in mind, he and I discussed some of the possible effects of yesterday's decision. One thing I brought up that he agreed with was the percentage of people being helped that didn't deserve it. Now, I was raised upper middle-class. I've never gone hungry. I've never had to worry about having enough money to pay the next bill. However, I don't exceed Obama's 250K mark. He, on the other hand, has lived on the far, far lower side of that mark. He often has no money to pay his light bill or to feed his kids. I know this man personally, and I've never had a problem taking out of my own pocket to make sure his kids at least have food to eat. That's just respect. Now, what I do have a problem with are the people in his situation who handle their lives irresponsibly. In all actuality, there's no way to gauge responsibility when applying any tax theory, but it does suck for the X% of people who are poor due to laziness to get the same break as those who are poor because of disadvantage. Rant summary? I find the "underpriviledged" and "lazy" people being classed into the same category. That sucks. EDIT:::: LOL BANNED!
Well if they're too lazy to make any income for their self, then all that non-income is being non-taxed. So they will be getting a brand new non-tax cut. Anyway there's lazy people making millions.
And what about the 23 year-old male who holds a regular job, but instead of investing his earned money into his children or family, he wastes it on cigarettes, strip clubs, or the like? He's getting a break, isn't he? The fact is that this break is hurting him. Sure, he sees free money=good, right? In reality, this money is crippling him. It's keeping him from putting down his irresponsible habits. It's preventing him from learning the necessary responsibility (sorry for overuse of the word) to actually better himself. The break is allowing him to live with no regard to managing his money and no consequence because of that. He can blow his money and rely on the government to back him up for the rest of it. I'm not criticizing Obama's tax plan (at least not in this post), so there's no need for anyone to get defensive. I'm merely stating the fact that I feel a higher percentage of people profiting from the break don't deserve it. Again, to clarify, there are definitely people who deserve it. Those are called "underprivileged." I feel the number of lazy exceeds the number of the aforementioned.