Hoyt Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Makes me want to start a bar fight... LMAO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homz Posted March 6, 2009 Author Share Posted March 6, 2009 I think we should all go back to the Regan years. Let's pay the tax rate in say 1983. That would be fair wouldn't it KSG? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homz Posted March 6, 2009 Author Share Posted March 6, 2009 Don't ever bring up Reagan to a republican that knows and or remembers the tax rates. It causes their hard wired brains to short circuit. Regan tax rates were bad, but Reagan was good. Reagan was god, but tax rates do not compute, do not comput, do not compute...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSG_Standard Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Well' date=' after paying the same bush rate on your first $250K of net income, if you can't afford the $3000 extra on the next $100K, you need to see a financial counselor. Quit whining. [/quote'] Here are some simple questions for all of you socialists/progressives.... How much should the top tax rate be? Under obama's proposal, folks in Cali, N.Y, N.J. Mass and some other states, the "wealthy" will be paying almost 60% of their income in taxes to state, local and federal government. What's fair to you? What should the tax brackets be? Who's rich? What's middle class? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homz Posted March 6, 2009 Author Share Posted March 6, 2009 Here are some simple questions for all of you socialists/progressives.... How much should the top tax rate be? Under obama's proposal' date=' folks in Cali, N.Y, N.J. Mass and some other states, the "wealthy" will be paying almost 60% of their income in taxes to state, local and federal government. What's fair to you? What should the tax brackets be? Who's rich? What's middle class? [/quote'] Point of order: How do you start out by calling someone a name and expect them to answer your question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSG_Standard Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 When someone calls you what you are, is that really name calling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homz Posted March 6, 2009 Author Share Posted March 6, 2009 When someone calls you what you are' date=' is that really name calling?[/quote'] Are you now going to call me a socialist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSG_Standard Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Progressive Function: noun Date: 1846 1 a: one that is progressive b: one believing in moderate political change and especially social improvement by governmental action 2capitalized : a member of any of various U.S. political parties: as a: a member of a predominantly agrarian minor party that around 1912 split off from the Republicans ; specifically : bull moose b: a follower of Robert M. La Follette in the presidential campaign of 1924 c: a follower of Henry A. Wallace in the presidential campaign of 1948 Socialist Function: noun Date: 1827 One who advocates or practices socialism Socialism Function: noun Date: 1837 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homz Posted March 6, 2009 Author Share Posted March 6, 2009 I can be an advocate for social programs and not be a Socialist, which by the way is your nicer way of saying Communist. I am neither. Now if you want to go over this again we can. Or I could start calling you names, but that would break a promise. I'm not planning on doing that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Allen Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 You know, just to make an observation here. There are so many folks who whine about our heated debates on politics in this forum. However, they typically get the most hits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homz Posted March 6, 2009 Author Share Posted March 6, 2009 You know' date=' just to make an observation here. There are so many folks who whine about our heated debates on politics in this forum. However, they typically get the most hits. [/quote'] I like to pick the good stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gitfidl Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 If federal taxes are 60% of your income and state taxes are 15% of your income and local sales taxes are 10% of your income (85%) how much would you have to make in order to have $15,000 to spend ($100,000??) Is there anyone with a wife and kids (mortgage, health insurance, cars (& gasoline), food, clothes, car & home insurance) who could pay JUST THE MORTGAGE with $15,000? No. So you'd probably need make about $250,000/year to have $30,000 to spend on bare essentials. How many employers WILL PAY $250,000 for a grocery clerk? An airline ticket agent? A car mechanic? A dog groomer? A hotel cleaning lady? An airport limo driver? They won't (obviously) because they cannot make the $250,000 per employee (to break even). So why would any business be IN BUSINESS that cannot "break even?" Why should anyone work for less than he/she needs to pay living expenses? Conclusion -- there is a point at which socialist schemes (and taxes needed to support) don't work. Like GM and FORD and "the big three" and airlines and are at or beyond that point (many have already closed). There is a point where 1 worker per 100 people cannot "carry" the burden any longer. There is a point where is all stops. GM is at that point and apparently so is Chrysler. (auditors have done the math) Housing is at that point too. Since cars and housing are at that point, lending is at that point too. Unemployed ex-auto workers and ex-auto repair people do not buy guitars and boats and electronics and creature comforts. So THOSE workers become unemployed too. That is about where things are right now. That is WHY the government has to stop burdening business and workers with irresponsible spending. At them moment the government (Nancy Pelosi and Obama) have not figured that out. (Did anybody say they were smart?) (If anybody up there was smart they'd have figured it out in the time of Lee Iaccoca and Eastern Airlines. So the only question is HOW BAD does it get BEFORE they understand? How long does it take for them to DO the opposite? (To reverse course?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeoConMan Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Obama campaigned on, and keeps talking about change. How many different ways can you use such a vague term? How many meanings can it have? Here's what they REALLY meant, we'll all be digging for change in the sofa cushions to feed our families. To be fair, I'll give Obama credit on this one point. He's the ONLT politician who kept his campaign promise. He said he would bring change to America, and by golly I think he's doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeoConMan Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Obama lied, the economy died! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Allen Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Okay, Neo. I have to disagree with you about Obama and change. He is fulfilling his promise of CHANGE. He has changed the way we spend from crazy to completely out of your mind, lock him up in a padded cell kind of spending. He's also working hard to bring about universal healthcare, cripple our military, take demands from terrorists (and our other enemies), he's hired tax evaders to be in his cabinet, he's hired American haters to hold non cabinet jobs, he's got the new AG calling Americans a bunch of coward racists (the first time this has ever happened by an AG), he's started the first real nationalization of banks since the 1930s, he's moving to make it harder to NOT vote union, he's reveresed stem cell research guidelines, and on and on ad nauseum. There is a LOT of change so far. Unfortunately it's designed to cripple this once wonderful country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.