He is the anti-Christ.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Because stealing my money to pay for necessities is different than stealing it to specifically give to someone else. I guess my point is that roads benefit the people paying for them at least, welfare doesn’t.[/quote]
If it’s not too personal a question, is this because you are in the top 5% that would see a tax increase under Obama? If you’re not, you would be paying the same taxes regardless.
Well, he certainly never gave any to his half-brother living in dollar-a-day poverty in Kenya, but he gave tens of thousands to Jeremiah “white folks’ greed runs a world in need” Wright.
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Because stealing my money to pay for necessities is different than stealing it to specifically give to someone else. I guess my point is that roads benefit the people paying for them at least, welfare doesn’t.
If it’s not too personal a question, is this because you are in the top 5% that would see a tax increase under Obama? If you’re not, you would be paying the same taxes regardless.[/quote]
Is $150K in the top 5%?
Because that is who Biden says will see a tax increase. Even new baby jesus has lowered the threshold from $250 to $200K.
Do you think it is fair to take money fro the top 5% and give it to people who don’t even pay taxes in the first place?
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Because stealing my money to pay for necessities is different than stealing it to specifically give to someone else. I guess my point is that roads benefit the people paying for them at least, welfare doesn’t.
If it’s not too personal a question, is this because you are in the top 5% that would see a tax increase under Obama? If you’re not, you would be paying the same taxes regardless.[/quote]
No, I’m talking about government in general.
However, if you consider re-distributive type programs unnecessary, and the government stopped paying for them, I should get a lot of money back.
Think about this,
If Obama didn’t want to increase government spending, how much more of my money would they allow me to keep?
I object to my money funding these sorts of programs, and he wants to spend more of it there. Even if I see a tax decrease, more of my money is going to things I don’t believe in.
isn’t kind of the only reason you 150k + people are making that much and sustaining that much because there are 10+ living on the other side of that teeter totter keeping you elevated?
the reason poor people are dumb and lazy as shit is because of this stuff, it takes a few generations before this is going to change.
why isn’t there any white trash in norway?
oh btw im Canadian and talking out of my ass mostly
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Is $150K in the top 5%?
Because that is who Biden says will see a tax increase. Even new baby jesus has lowered the threshold from $250 to $200K.
[/quote]
I don’t know what the dollar cutoff is, only that the top 5% are the only people that will see a tax increase. Others will stay the same or see a tax decrease under Obama. So I’m wondering why this is such a big issue, given that it is unlikely to affect most of the people on this board.
I guess it depends how you define fairness. If you are looking at straight dollars, it would only be fair to tax everyone the same amount. However, that’s not feasible since if you divided the amount of money required to run the country equally among all of its citizens, a large number of those people would be unable to pay the tax.
Another definition of fairness is by measuring financial impact. A billionaire is less likely to feel the impact of a 100k tax bill than most of us are. If you wanted to be “fair” by that definition, the billionaire and the pauper should pay according to some formula, like a fixed percentage of their annual expenses.
That is one reason I like the idea of funding taxes entirely through sales revenue. The more you buy, the more taxes you pay.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I object to my money funding these sorts of programs, and he wants to spend more of it there. Even if I see a tax decrease, more of my money is going to things I don’t believe in.[/quote]
Then why not donate the differential toward the programs you believe in?
[quote]schultzie wrote:
isn’t kind of the only reason you 150k + people are making that much and sustaining that much because there are 10+ living on the other side of that teeter totter keeping you elevated?
the reason poor people are dumb and lazy as shit is because of this stuff, it takes a few generations before this is going to change.
why isn’t there any white trash in norway?
oh btw im Canadian and talking out of my ass mostly[/quote]
I think you mean that those 150k people SUPPORT 10+ people with there businesses, spending and investing.
I have never been to Norway, so I can’t speak for them.
Do you have a flip top head like in southpark?
[quote]schultzie wrote:
It seems most of the arguments against him are “Spread MY wealth around? I don’t think so”
a literal translation of his figurative speech[/quote]
I don’t own another man’s limited life time, which he expends much of on labor/Entrepreneurship. I didn’t work his hours, much less his overtime.
I didn’t have to skip vacations and leisure time on his behalf. It wasn’t me that had to to miss out on more time with the family, to achieve his goals.
I didn’t pound the streets or the phones for him, wooing clients or employees. I don’t experience the loss of his next best alternative, when he makes a choice between which ends to meet. I don’t wrestle with the loss of his instant gratification, because he chooses to save and plan for the future.
I don’t hire his employees or pay their wages. I didn’t come up with his innovations and ideas. I didn’t study his academic/proffesional material for him. I didn’t expend the energy so he could try to be the best at what he does.
Then again, I don’t have to experience his loss, when he fails. But yeah, I still want a piece of his success. And, I’m willing to turn the government against a free man, and American, to get it.
[quote]snipeout wrote:
It could be his far left radical redistribution of wealth theory. It could also be his refusal to admit his association with Bill Ayers.
Nah, I think its how far to the left he leans regarding all of his policies. The government has its hands in way to much stuff as it is. I can’t imagine the government further extending it’s already ridiculous reach.
It is not my(i.e. hard working americans) job to ensure that lazy pieces of shit who won’t work can make a living off government entitlements. I don’t think there is anything wrong with helping people who need it and were or are contributing members of society.
I work in a jail so I see the bottom of the barrell. Nothing makes me shake my head harder in disbelief than what these people are entitled to. The same people that drive Cadillac Escalades when they are “out on the street”, also collect welfare, food stamps and section 8 housing.
Do we really need a President that is going to give these people more?[/quote]
FINALY A VOICE OF REASON!!! I cant accept the “share the wealth” philosophy!!! If i consciously bust my ass, starting in school through college & onto a career in order to make a good living, why the f^#k would anyone even imagine that i should unwillingly give a penny to some scumbag who took the lazy, irresponsible way out.
Someone who “prolly” dropped out of school, knocked up 4 baby mommas, & lives their life by scamming the government & taking handouts with no sense of dignity & believe that they deserve everything because of the economic situation that they put themselves in!! I should do with my “excess” money what ever the F^#k I want!!! JUST MY OPINION!!
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I object to my money funding these sorts of programs, and he wants to spend more of it there. Even if I see a tax decrease, more of my money is going to things I don’t believe in.
Then why not donate the differential toward the programs you believe in? [/quote]
If the government didn’t take so much, I’d probably give a lot more to my church. They would do much better with it than the government.
I wonder what the efficiency rating of the government charity programs is. I’m betting less than 50 cents on the dollar goes to good causes.
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Because stealing my money to pay for necessities is different than stealing it to specifically give to someone else. I guess my point is that roads benefit the people paying for them at least, welfare doesn’t.
If it’s not too personal a question, is this because you are in the top 5% that would see a tax increase under Obama? If you’re not, you would be paying the same taxes regardless.[/quote]
This is precisely the problem with this county. People voting based on what they percieve to be their own short term gain, not what’s morally right or wrong.
Obama will attempt to raise my taxes. I can tell you this for certain. I will do whatever I can to protect my money and keep it out of his hands. I’ve heard enough and will not be paying in as much as I have the last few years.
I am alread taking the appropriate steps. There goes his intended goal. Increased rate for me but much less revenue in real dollars. Even before being elected, he has motivated me to exempt what I can.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If the government didn’t take so much, I’d probably give a lot more to my church. They would do much better with it than the government.[/quote]
If Obama is elected, you will have the chance to put your money where your mouth is. Since you will be paying lower taxes, you will have more to put in the church plate.
I don’t have a lot of faith in the efficiency of government programs either.
The wealthy who own the companies most of us work at control their pay as well as mine.
With higher taxes on them, who do you think they are going to let take the drop in lifestyle?
[quote]dhickey wrote:
This is precisely the problem with this county. People voting based on what they percieve to be their own short term gain, not what’s morally right or wrong.[/quote]
Doesn’t the above contradict the below?
In any case, I agree that most people vote based on self-interest rather than on causes bigger than themselves. I can’t blame them, and I completely understand why the top 5% of the wealthy wouldn’t want Obama leading the country.
What’s with the assumption that taxing the ‘wealthy’ to give to the ‘poor,’ is actually good for the ‘poor.’
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
The wealthy who on the companies most of us work at control their pay as well as mine.
With higher taxes on them, who do you think they are going to let take the drop in lifestyle? [/quote]
I doubt rich CEOs are going to lower the salaries of their employees to keep their own salary high. Most board of directors would have something to say about that.
what difference does it make weather your in the top 5% or not? The simple fact is this, those who are in the 5% have the same rights to do whatever they want with their money.
They worked damn hard (most of them) to get to the top, so why on earth should they “share” their money with the millions of leaches in this country that dont do shit for our country but expect everything!!!
NOBAMA!!!
[quote]Sloth wrote:
What’s with the assumption that taxing the ‘wealthy’ to give to the ‘poor,’ is actually good for the ‘poor.’[/quote]
I think Clinton was on the right track when he moved toward enabling, rather than unconditionally funding, the poor. My philosophy is that people should be helped, but only to the extent they are willing to help themselves.