Originally Posted By DAR <<Except it's your money -- as a taxpayer you are subsidizing this. What do you want to subsidize, SUVs or fuel efficient vehicles?>> How about both. I'd rather see my taxes go towards that(after schools, roads and military programs of course) than some lazy @ss welfare hag who has ten different kids from ten different fathers.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy So, in DAR's world, people on welfare are: 1) Lazy 2) Women 3) Unattractive 4) Overly Promiscuous 5) Worth of unmentionable expletives Nice
Originally Posted By wahooskipper It is simple mawnck...our best aren't running for office anymore. And, people look to politics as a carrer instead of as a stint in public service.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy Corporations and wealthy interests don't want to have our best in office. They would rather have some dolt that can be influenced with money to do their will.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>It is simple mawnck...our best aren't running for office anymore.<< And who can blame them?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Except it's your money -- as a taxpayer you are subsidizing this. What do you want to subsidize, SUVs or fuel efficient vehicles?>> <How about both.> Why should we be subsidizing SUV's at all? A case could be made for subsidizing fuel efficient cars as an incentive to conservation and reducing greenhouse gasses, but what's the rationale for subsidizing SUV's? I really don't think the taxpayers should be subsidizing car purchases at all - wouldn't the classic free market choice be to not subsidize anything and just let people buy what they could afford? - but at least a case could be made for subsidizing the fuel efficient cars, especially as short-term stimulus. But SUV's? Why?
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I'd rather see my taxes go towards that(after schools, roads and military programs of course) than some lazy @ss welfare hag who has ten different kids from ten different fathers.<< Yeah, cause everybody on welfare's the Octomom. That makes sense.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan The Octomom is the one person who could actually but one of those giant SUV's to good use at this point.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I really don't think the taxpayers should be subsidizing car purchases at all - wouldn't the classic free market choice be to not subsidize anything and just let people buy what they could afford? - but at least a case could be made for subsidizing the fuel efficient cars, especially as short-term stimulus. But SUV's? Why?<< Because in the 21st century, SUV's and small-business owners are the new mom and apple pie. We're Americans, damnit! We don't have to drive no stinkin' fuel efficient cars. Forget, "When you ride alone, you ride with Hitler." There's nothing more American than cruising on down the highway alone in your giant Hummer, Toby Keith blaring from the radio. We're the good guys, so we're entitled to do what we want, when we want, however we want to do it. Just try and stop an American!
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones I just wish that some of this cash for clunkers could have been diverted to mass transit operations. Many agencies are hurting right now, cutting service like it's going out of style. It's putting a huge strain on working class people who rely on those services. They stimulate the economy too.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Starting out on the bottom and yet when they finally get some success, this President wants to say you're making too much money.*** You know, DAR, for someone who claims to pay no attention to the noise machine, you do tend to spout their rhetoric quite accurately most of the time. No, this President doesn't say (I have no idea what he "wants" to say, til he says it) anyone is "making too much money". We have, and always have had to the best of my knowledge, a progressive tax system. It's a kind of a scale, where people who make more money pay more percentage wise. The alternative would be a flat tax, where everyone pays the same percentage. Is that what you're advocating? In any case, it's not just *this* President, all presidents have pushed a particular tax agenda one way or another. The Republican meme has always been "tax cuts", but what happens when things get screwed and the government can no longer cope. Taxes must rise, that's what. And the question becomes, who and how much. Personally I think they should start at $250,000 with a mild increase but then additionally tax the crap out of people making $500,000 or more. Why? Because they can kick in a lot of cash, and there aren't very many of them to complain about it once voting time comes around again (of course, the Republicans will try to sucker poor and middle class folks who will *never ever ever* make that kind of money into defending the super rich, as they always do).
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Personally I think they should start at $250,000 with a mild increase but then additionally tax the crap out of people making $500,000 or more.<< It's the money *past* $250,000 that's at the higher tax rate. The person who makes $250,001 pays only a few cents more than the person who makes $249,999, because only the $1 was taxed at the higher rate. So you sort of get your wish, except that most people making $500,000 or more have really good accountants that can find all sorts of loopholes.
Originally Posted By Mr X By the way, speaking of those hard workin docs and lawyers who would be in so much trouble... <a href="http://www.payscale.com/research/US/People_with_Doctor_of_Medicine" target="_blank">http://www.payscale.com/resear...Medicine</a>_(MD)_Degrees/Salary The median salary for the highest paid medical specialty (anesthesiologist, for some reason), is *just* North of $250,000. So the richest docs will have to kick in perhaps an extra $1,000 - $1,500 per year, no more than that. No danger of THEM getting screwed with my "put the screws to the half-millionaire club" plan. <a href="http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Attorney_%2F_Lawyer/Salary" target="_blank">http://www.payscale.com/resear...r/Salary</a> The situation for lawyers is, actually, far more modest overall. Looks as those your median average attorney earns, after twenty years on the job, just around $160,000 or so. No danger there. Okay, how about small business owners? <a href="http://www.itfacts.biz/average-small-business-owner-salary-is-233600/7542" target="_blank">http://www.itfacts.biz/average...600/7542</a> Wow, pretty nice living! An average of around $233,600. Good for them! But once again we see that at least as many of them will benefit from the Obama plan than suffer, and those that suffer won't have to pay too much at all really. And again, under my "thumb screws to the $500" club, very, VERY few small business owners will be affected. Who WILL be affected? I'd say probably mostly CEO types for mega corporations, and of course Wall Street Traders with their mega-million dollar bonuses. Boo hoo. See, the problem with this is that, I think, people assume that there are *lots* of folks out there making this obscene amount of money. The reality is there are very, very few (and boy are they protective of it! wonder why the campaigns to misinform are so well funded?), and yes they CAN afford to pay a somewhat higher percentage of tax and still be ridiculously better off than the vast majority (the rest of us, practically all of us).
Originally Posted By Mr X ***It's the money *past* $250,000 that's at the higher tax rate. The person who makes $250,001 pays only a few cents more than the person who makes $249,999, because only the $1 was taxed at the higher rate.*** You are correct, sir. And that was mentioned before when this topic has been trotted out under the heading "Socialist America", but it's always glossed over by the right wing of course. ***So you sort of get your wish, except that most people making $500,000 or more have really good accountants that can find all sorts of loopholes.*** Also very true...and a whole other can of worms that needs to be addressed and fixed. The reason we all have the ridiculous tax codes and headaches to contend with every April is a "perk" for the superrich as well, and should be fixed asap.
Originally Posted By DAR So somebody making $250k a year should be treated the same as somebody making $250 mill?? If you say so.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Who WILL be affected? I'd say probably mostly CEO types for mega corporations, and of course Wall Street Traders with their mega-million dollar bonuses>> No problem with them being affected.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***So somebody making $250k a year should be treated the same as somebody making $250 mill?? If you say so.*** No, I didn't say so (and even if I did, why are YOU attacking the poor souls who make $250 million DAR?). ***No problem with them being affected.*** Affected how? By having to pay a slightly higher percentage of tax? So then, are you saying you're looking for a flat tax?
