|
Korea (South)11567 Posts
On July 27 2008 08:55 Caller wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2008 07:47 Mindcrime wrote:On July 27 2008 07:42 Caller wrote:On July 27 2008 07:36 Mindcrime wrote:On July 27 2008 06:55 Caller wrote:
Persons making at least $250,000 or more would pay payroll tax on their entire income, as opposed to the first $102,000. It amuses me that you bolded this... because it's incorrect. payroll tax is not income tax payroll tax is social security and medicare and all those other weird taxes and for proof www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21739271/abcnews.go.com/politics/Story?id=3638710&page=1 politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/11/11/obama-i-deserve-a-tax-increase/ Why do I even fucking bother? Under Obama's plan, income between $102,000 and $250,000 would not have the payroll tax applied. Thus, there would be no paying "payroll tax on their entire income." Oh, and the medicare tax currently doesn't have a cap on the wages that it applies to. it's not that income that is affected its people that make in that bracket would not have the payroll tax affected i.e. if you make 250k+ you get slammed for 148k + whatever else you make at a 6.2% tax rate, which is what, 9/10k in taxes? people who make $250,001 would get shafted compared to people who make $249,999.
exactly my point with what I was stating before. The tax increase is so stupid. Why work harder to be more stable economically when you are just going to be handing it over to the government anyway and be worse off than someone who makes less than you? Fuck obama.
McCain is a stupid tool who wants to continue Bush's war policy.
Both of them suck ass. We need a REAL democracy. We don't get to choose who becomes president. We get to decide out of the handful that the parties choose for us. If John 3 doors down the road from me wanted to run for president, he would have no chance, instead we get rich party officials.
|
On July 27 2008 08:55 Caller wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2008 07:47 Mindcrime wrote:On July 27 2008 07:42 Caller wrote:On July 27 2008 07:36 Mindcrime wrote:On July 27 2008 06:55 Caller wrote:
Persons making at least $250,000 or more would pay payroll tax on their entire income, as opposed to the first $102,000. It amuses me that you bolded this... because it's incorrect. payroll tax is not income tax payroll tax is social security and medicare and all those other weird taxes and for proof www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21739271/abcnews.go.com/politics/Story?id=3638710&page=1 politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/11/11/obama-i-deserve-a-tax-increase/ Why do I even fucking bother? Under Obama's plan, income between $102,000 and $250,000 would not have the payroll tax applied. Thus, there would be no paying "payroll tax on their entire income." Oh, and the medicare tax currently doesn't have a cap on the wages that it applies to. it's not that income that is affected its people that make in that bracket would not have the payroll tax affected i.e. if you make 250k+ you get slammed for 148k + whatever else you make at a 6.2% tax rate, which is what, 9/10k in taxes? people who make $250,001 would get shafted compared to people who make $249,999.
Your complete inability to understand is simply stunning.
|
On July 27 2008 10:00 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2008 08:55 Caller wrote:On July 27 2008 07:47 Mindcrime wrote:On July 27 2008 07:42 Caller wrote:On July 27 2008 07:36 Mindcrime wrote:On July 27 2008 06:55 Caller wrote:
Persons making at least $250,000 or more would pay payroll tax on their entire income, as opposed to the first $102,000. It amuses me that you bolded this... because it's incorrect. payroll tax is not income tax payroll tax is social security and medicare and all those other weird taxes and for proof www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21739271/abcnews.go.com/politics/Story?id=3638710&page=1 politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/11/11/obama-i-deserve-a-tax-increase/ Why do I even fucking bother? Under Obama's plan, income between $102,000 and $250,000 would not have the payroll tax applied. Thus, there would be no paying "payroll tax on their entire income." Oh, and the medicare tax currently doesn't have a cap on the wages that it applies to. it's not that income that is affected its people that make in that bracket would not have the payroll tax affected i.e. if you make 250k+ you get slammed for 148k + whatever else you make at a 6.2% tax rate, which is what, 9/10k in taxes? people who make $250,001 would get shafted compared to people who make $249,999. Your complete inability to understand is simply stunning.
NOU
on a serious note you may be right, b/c the source i'm reading from is very poorly worded. If that's the case ok, but still there's lots of things that i have problems with with obama. The fact that we're taxing at all confuses me to begin with.
|
Korea (South)11567 Posts
the fact that we tax the richer percentage wise more than the poor confuses me. Why should those who work harder or who have worked longer be punished more?
If you make a little amount of money, its either:
A) you have worked less
B) you chose the career and knew they make less
Why punish others who have:
A) worked in the profession longer
B) chose a career that makes more money
|
United States22883 Posts
Because society needs lower level jobs and those people often cannot survive without help.
Rich people don't automatically work harder either.
|
Korea (South)11567 Posts
ugh why dont u people read what i write? I said that why if someone chooses to be a trashman, why should he owe less of his paycheck than someone who decided to take out a loan for college, and got a job as an investment banker.
Obviously the investment banker is going to make more money, plus he works 100+ hours a week, as opposed to 40 hours. Why should he owe more of his paycheck than someone who moves trash to a truck? Or a cashier? Or burger flipper?
The people choose their jobs, they know they dont make much money. If the government wants to help them out, lower the tax percentage, dont make it unfair. With a 65% tax to people who make more than 250k a year, that's like 140k going to taxes, then they have to pay mortgages, insurance, house bills, gas for their cars. They have to pay nearly their entire salary on necessities, they pretty much are running in the red, worse off than someone who makes less money but gets more money to spend on their needs. It's preposterous.
|
On July 27 2008 13:50 Jibba wrote:
Because society needs lower level jobs and those people often cannot survive without help.
Rich people don't automatically work harder either.
Truly "Rich" people get taxed at 15%, the capital gains tax.
People with high wages get taxed at much higher rates.
If the supply is higher than the demand, price (wages) go down. So either swap to a less demanded position or move to a place where they have fewer demand/more supply. Ex. waiting tables. If you work in the big cities, obviously you won't be paid as well (assuming you don't work in an uber fancy $1000 tip restaurant) as if you worked in an area that has less waiters/waitresses, such as white suburbia.
Those "lower level jobs" can be far more profitable than you think. In my town we have plumbers and landscapers and roofers that own bigger houses and better/larger land than the people they work for. If the job field is too crowded, obviously it's going to be hard to be paid decently. If you can't find a job, move. That's what people did in older times when there was no free lunch and there were no cars/public transportation (i.e. the Jungle, written by Upton Sinclair (the socialist).
As for being unable to survive without help, there's local charities, soup kitchens, food stamps, all those things. Why do they need a welfare check that comes from me involuntarily? Why should I donate $50 of my own good well when the government will essentially extort another $50 to go to the exact same purpose? There's no incentive for people to rise up in the ranks if you get (basically) free money.
One more thing: my parents were/are 1st wave Chinese immigrants who arrived in America practically penniless (as the communists had confiscated everything that their parents/grandparents had owned). They were still able to get a college education and find decent, stable jobs (although they could be more secure/more profitable, but everybody could use more money, espeically to pay for college), and they didn't have any help from the government-they actually had to and have to put up with shit from INS, sign forms, pay fees, etc, green cards, etc. etc. etc. Yet now, without any government help, we're doing ok. Not fantastic, but well enough that I know the power will still be on and there will be heat/air conditioning. Why should we pay up to help other people whom for some reason can't get up even with financial aid and the lot?
|
On July 27 2008 14:03 CaucasianAsian wrote:
ugh why dont u people read what i write? I said that why if someone chooses to be a trashman, why should he owe less of his paycheck than someone who decided to take out a loan for college, and got a job as an investment banker.
Obviously the investment banker is going to make more money, plus he works 100+ hours a week, as opposed to 40 hours. Why should he owe more of his paycheck than someone who moves trash to a truck? Or a cashier? Or burger flipper?
The people choose their jobs, they know they dont make much money. If the government wants to help them out, lower the tax percentage, dont make it unfair. With a 65% tax to people who make more than 250k a year, that's like 140k going to taxes, then they have to pay mortgages, insurance, house bills, gas for their cars. They have to pay nearly their entire salary on necessities, they pretty much are running in the red, worse off than someone who makes less money but gets more money to spend on their needs. It's preposterous.
that's not entirely true, the part about being an investment banker. In order to be an investment banker, you often have to have strong connections and the like in order to succeed. In that sense, being part of the old-school benefits you. As such, its unfair to other people whom may not have these connections (filial or friendships) and as such there needs to be a lowering of the so-called glass ceiling, for those unable to become that high in position. Same with politics. Every single politician is part of the same circle, as its the only way they can get into power.
Waitttttttt a minute....
|
Korea (South)11567 Posts
Or you can go to a good business school such as MIT, Princeton, Carnegie, etc... and the doors open up to become an investment banker. My sister has no connections, but she has a job offer to be an investment banker upon graduation.
She worked hard, and it paid off. Why pay off who don't work hard?
|
Why I'm willing to pay more progressive tax percentage in Taiwan than in the United States:
a) I can buy more with less
b)
Paying taxes is a must
We’re not going to tell you what we’re doing with it
All you need to know is you have to pay taxes and it will be a textual pain in the eyes/ass
Also gender and racial equality
Also hooking up fellow bureaucrats in need of more money through “official” association
Paying taxes is a good thing!
Elves collect taxes from you at night, just like the tooth fairy?
We’ll use it to build infrastructure and protect the environment/our country!
Pictures make it easy on the eyes and to the point!
We actually care what you have to say!
|
seriously, the irs picture is a fucking handjob.
|
United States22883 Posts
On July 27 2008 14:17 CaucasianAsian wrote:
She worked hard, and it paid off. Why pay off who don't work hard?
See, that's the type of bullshit statement that shows how ignorant you really are. Sorry, but it's true. Try telling your school teachers that they're not working hard and that's why they make 1/10th of what your father makes. I'm sure they really put in 1/10th of the effort he does...
You grew up well-to-do and quite likely you've never worked as hard in your life as many of the people you're criticizing.
Caller, the entire point of the Jungle was to point out just how awful living conditions were and why laisse faire was a failure. I'm sure you know this, but it sounds like you're wishing we return to the "good old days" where children worked 80 hours a week for 1/4th pay and had a 1/20 chance of getting their hand chopped off. All of that shit was stopped by bigger government. Laisse faire is a bad policy and the free market simply doesn't exist. The countries at the top of the UN Development Report tax the hell out of their citizens, and provide good services.
BTW, don't you think your parents would've appreciated it if they had access to what's available today?
|
Korea (South)11567 Posts
On July 27 2008 15:06 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2008 14:17 CaucasianAsian wrote:
She worked hard, and it paid off. Why pay off who don't work hard? See, that's the type of bullshit statement that shows how ignorant you really are. Sorry, but it's true. Try telling your school teachers that they're not working hard and that's why they make 1/10th of what your father makes. I'm sure they really put in 1/10th of the effort he does... You grew up well-to-do and quite likely you've never worked as hard in your life as many of the people you're criticizing. Caller, the entire point of the Jungle was to point out just how awful living conditions were and why laisse faire was a failure. I'm sure you know this, but it sounds like you're wishing we return to the "good old days" where children worked 80 hours a week for 1/4th pay and had a 1/20 chance of getting their hand chopped off. All of that shit was stopped by bigger government. Laisse faire is a bad policy and the free market simply doesn't exist. The countries at the top of the UN Development Report tax the hell out of their citizens, and provide good services. BTW, don't you think your parents would've appreciated it if they had access to what's available today?
You really have to read what the hell I'm saying. PEOPLE LIKE TEACHERS KNOW THEY DONT MAKE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. THEY ARE AWARE OF IT. THEY CHOSE THAT PROFESSION FOR OTHER MEANS.
You seem to believe that people who work for minimum wage work hard? There's a reason why they make minimum wage...
|
United States22883 Posts
Reread these posts in 5-6 years (if they still exist) when you enter the real world. I'm not going to bother pointing out everything because you're obviously too young and inexperienced to understand.
|
On July 27 2008 14:03 CaucasianAsian wrote:
With a 65% tax to people who make more than 250k a year, that's like 140k going to taxes, then they have to pay mortgages, insurance, house bills, gas for their cars.
As I explained before, there is no fucking way that you're going to reach a 65% tax on anything.
And, apparently, you have no idea how a progressive tax works.
|
On July 27 2008 15:58 CaucasianAsian wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2008 15:06 Jibba wrote:On July 27 2008 14:17 CaucasianAsian wrote:
She worked hard, and it paid off. Why pay off who don't work hard? See, that's the type of bullshit statement that shows how ignorant you really are. Sorry, but it's true. Try telling your school teachers that they're not working hard and that's why they make 1/10th of what your father makes. I'm sure they really put in 1/10th of the effort he does... You grew up well-to-do and quite likely you've never worked as hard in your life as many of the people you're criticizing. Caller, the entire point of the Jungle was to point out just how awful living conditions were and why laisse faire was a failure. I'm sure you know this, but it sounds like you're wishing we return to the "good old days" where children worked 80 hours a week for 1/4th pay and had a 1/20 chance of getting their hand chopped off. All of that shit was stopped by bigger government. Laisse faire is a bad policy and the free market simply doesn't exist. The countries at the top of the UN Development Report tax the hell out of their citizens, and provide good services. BTW, don't you think your parents would've appreciated it if they had access to what's available today? You really have to read what the hell I'm saying. PEOPLE LIKE TEACHERS KNOW THEY DONT MAKE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. THEY ARE AWARE OF IT. THEY CHOSE THAT PROFESSION FOR OTHER MEANS. You seem to believe that people who work for minimum wage work hard? There's a reason why they make minimum wage...
Wow, that's the most ignorant thing I've read in a long long time. Without trying to insult you here CA, at least make an effort to educate yourself a bit before making ridiculous and for many people highly offensive statements.
|
Korea (South)11567 Posts
Alright, let's use the New York Post as a source.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07022008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/a_tiger_of_a_tax_118143.htm
Its an article about Obamas tax plan and Tiger Wood's. Just imagine it wasn't Tiger Woods and some nice wealthy business partner for a huge firm. Let's say he didn't win a golf tournament and instead made $1,350,000 a year. In the end, he gets to pocket only 43% of what he made, just under the tax increase. Then there is the uncapped, Medicare and State Taxes, which tallied up add up to another 2-3%. So going from pocketing 43% instead the person only gets to keep 40% of his earnings.
Obama's tax increase does not make sense. In a stage where the United States Ecnomony is drastically falling, taxing the wealthier even more right now, is going to send each class 1 step down. So the high class with become the middle high class, etc... The Economy is in poor shape, and making people even poorer is not going to fix it.
|
On July 27 2008 15:06 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2008 14:17 CaucasianAsian wrote:
She worked hard, and it paid off. Why pay off who don't work hard? See, that's the type of bullshit statement that shows how ignorant you really are. Sorry, but it's true. Try telling your school teachers that they're not working hard and that's why they make 1/10th of what your father makes. I'm sure they really put in 1/10th of the effort he does... You grew up well-to-do and quite likely you've never worked as hard in your life as many of the people you're criticizing. Caller, the entire point of the Jungle was to point out just how awful living conditions were and why laisse faire was a failure. I'm sure you know this, but it sounds like you're wishing we return to the "good old days" where children worked 80 hours a week for 1/4th pay and had a 1/20 chance of getting their hand chopped off. All of that shit was stopped by bigger government. Laisse faire is a bad policy and the free market simply doesn't exist. The countries at the top of the UN Development Report tax the hell out of their citizens, and provide good services. BTW, don't you think your parents would've appreciated it if they had access to what's available today?
I'm agreeing with you that the conditions really sucked back then. And 30, 20, even 10 years ago, I would have agreed with you that government regulations are preserving the workplace and keeping people from getting screwed.
However, we now have internet, mass communication. I can even go to some ghettos and 'hoods in the United States and still see many people with cell phones that are better than mine. The fact is, if so-and-so company is treating employees poorly, we have lawsuits, we have the internet, we have digg, we have all these methods to tell people that so-and-so company is screwing the employees. That's a great way to lose skilled workers and drive yourself out of business. Therefore now, having poor working conditions simply won't work.
My parents came to the United States in the 70s, right after the Great Society, which was arguably the biggest amount of government increase before George W. Bush. Yet they ended up getting screwed by the government from that day onward, even more so than they would have in (then) semi-fascist Taiwan (which is ironically higher than the United States in civil liberties and progressive tax).
And I know perfectly well what the jungle was meant to do. But my point was also how if you actually did read the jungle, the government officials, if any, were being bought out through rigged voting and supported the industrialists factory owners. If anything, that's definitely not laissez-faire, which was more of the 1920s, rather than 1905(?), when the Jungle was written. Those policies are corporatism, which I am even more against than socialism.
|
United States22883 Posts
On July 28 2008 00:55 CaucasianAsian wrote:Alright, let's use the New York Post as a source. http://www.nypost.com/seven/07022008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/a_tiger_of_a_tax_118143.htmIts an article about Obamas tax plan and Tiger Wood's. Just imagine it wasn't Tiger Woods and some nice wealthy business partner for a huge firm. Let's say he didn't win a golf tournament and instead made $1,350,000 a year. In the end, he gets to pocket only 43% of what he made, just under the tax increase. Then there is the uncapped, Medicare and State Taxes, which tallied up add up to another 2-3%. So going from pocketing 43% instead the person only gets to keep 40% of his earnings. Obama's tax increase does not make sense. In a stage where the United States Ecnomony is drastically falling, taxing the wealthier even more right now, is going to send each class 1 step down. So the high class with become the middle high class, etc... The Economy is in poor shape, and making people even poorer is not going to fix it.
First, he was referring to every other horribly incorrect statement you said. Second, you should never use the New York Post as a source.
|
On July 28 2008 12:39 Jibba wrote:
Second, you should never use the New York Post as a source.
except when it comes to sports
other than sports, agreed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/6259/irsyj2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/800/taiwantaxrd0.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.earlyentrancefoundation.org/peep/images/irs.jpg)
