Diddy wrote:
I just dont see how its right to take something from someone who worked for it and give it to someone else who screwed up. Maybe if we have some accountability people woudlnt be needing handouts from people who make over 250K.
no not at all, i just think that @35K you can afford to live within your means and still have a nice/decent lifestyle.docellis wrote:Diddy wrote:
I just dont see how its right to take something from someone who worked for it and give it to someone else who screwed up. Maybe if we have some accountability people woudlnt be needing handouts from people who make over 250K.
Making only $35k doesn't mean a person screwed up though. I don't think this is about "handouts"?
Diddy wrote:And i guess thats just what it comes down to to me. Not eveyone can have everything, were not a socialist country yet . We need to go back to being happy with what we have and working hard for more, not being unhappy with what we dont have. We have to teach accountability to people, people have to learn how to manage their own money. Their are people that need help, im not opposed to that, i just think we throw a blanket over anyone with debt and say look at all these people. How many of them would the proposed projects (either parties) have prevented from being in the position that they are in now? I feel strongly that its a small number. If you bail people out and give them money they are just going to spend more and get into a bigger hole next time because someone else will just bail them out again. Well bail them out and they will be right back in the sam position because there is no accountability.Diddy wrote: I just dont see how its right to take something from someone who worked for it and give it to someone else who screwed up. Maybe if we have some accountability people woudlnt be needing handouts from people who make over 250K.
Suprisingly, I COMPLETELY agree! That's why I'm so hesitant to support any kind of tax increase. Obama's platform works just fine in a healthy economy (and I'm not a dem, as you know). This economy is anything but. We need stimulus any way we can get it. And then, once the economy is back on the right track, then we can look into all these other social programs that either candidate wants.Arthur Dent wrote:I'm actually getting worried about all this talk about balanced budgets and cutting spending. The time to do that was when the economy was doing OK. Now that we're facing what is likely to be a nasty recession, we're going to need stimulus. That means we shouldn't be squeamish about more borrowing.
no bailing out is bailing out all of the people making 35K that decided that they have to buy a 500K house or are in debt way beyond their means because of their own choices.docellis wrote:Diddy wrote:And i guess thats just what it comes down to to me. Not eveyone can have everything, were not a socialist country yet . We need to go back to being happy with what we have and working hard for more, not being unhappy with what we dont have. We have to teach accountability to people, people have to learn how to manage their own money. Their are people that need help, im not opposed to that, i just think we throw a blanket over anyone with debt and say look at all these people. How many of them would the proposed projects (either parties) have prevented from being in the position that they are in now? I feel strongly that its a small number. If you bail people out and give them money they are just going to spend more and get into a bigger hole next time because someone else will just bail them out again. Well bail them out and they will be right back in the sam position because there is no accountability.Diddy wrote: I just dont see how its right to take something from someone who worked for it and give it to someone else who screwed up. Maybe if we have some accountability people woudlnt be needing handouts from people who make over 250K.
You keep mentioning "bailing people out"...I don't understand what you are talking about. Raising taxes (if I am correct) would be bailing out Bush and his failed economic policies. Not some welfare mother on the street.
Not fair. But what's the alternative? Any program that is designed to help those truly in need will be abused by people who choose to do so. All you can do is try to prevent as much abuse as possible. Aside from that, I try not to lose any sleep over it. Her gaming the system really doesn't impact me unless I choose to let it.Leroy wrote:They can raise taxes on the very wealthy...I have no problem with that.
What I do have a problem with is the way that the earned income credit has turned out. It is basically taking the money paid in taxes and given to the poorer people. At least that is how it was designed. But here is my problem...a girl who worked in our office had two kids by two different fathers and was unmarried. She made enough money to entitle her to over $3,000 in EIC. She stayed unmarried simply because of the EIC. That's gaming the system and I do have a problem with that. A good chunk of my tax bill went right into her pocket. Fair?
I find all of this very ironic considering that the huge bailout that just happened took money away from pretty much everybody- not just the $250k and over crowd- and was aimed at "bailing out" a bunch of Wall Street execs. It was the exact opposite scenario that you describe.Diddy wrote:And i guess thats just what it comes down to to me. Not eveyone can have everything, were not a socialist country yet . We need to go back to being happy with what we have and working hard for more, not being unhappy with what we dont have. We have to teach accountability to people, people have to learn how to manage their own money. Their are people that need help, im not opposed to that, i just think we throw a blanket over anyone with debt and say look at all these people. How many of them would the proposed projects (either parties) have prevented from being in the position that they are in now? I feel strongly that its a small number. If you bail people out and give them money they are just going to spend more and get into a bigger hole next time because someone else will just bail them out again. Well bail them out and they will be right back in the sam position because there is no accountability.Diddy wrote: I just dont see how its right to take something from someone who worked for it and give it to someone else who screwed up. Maybe if we have some accountability people woudlnt be needing handouts from people who make over 250K.
Taxes do not take money "out of the economy". Government purchases are spent in the economy. As to concern about taxes on the investing class, that is not the most important impediment to investment right now. Much more important problems include uncertainty about the future, lack of access to credit, and a likely drop in demand due to recession. Helping out ordinary citizens (rather than wealthy investors) will ultimately help business by giving them a market for their products. The trickle-down theory of focusing on helping the already rich in hopes that they will share something with the rest of us has not been effective in practice and will be especially unhelpful as a response to the current situation. As others have already pointed out, a higher top rate was in place in the 90's when we had unprecedented economic expansion. Investors will always demand more for themselves, but if put to good use, a 3% increase in the top rate is a not a significant problem. It doesn't put anyone in "survival mode". It just makes things slightly less profitable. If your business is doing badly, you are probably either losing money or not making nearly enough to be affected by the change anyway.Fat Strat wrote:Right now we need people willing to spend money, invest money, hire people, and create jobs. This sounds elementary, but the more money you take out of the economy in taxes the less money you have available to grow the economy.
Your numbers are way off. Obama proposes raising the tax rate for earnings over $250,000 by three points. That would be about an additional $1500 (not $30k) for your hypothetical employer. This reduces income by 0.5%.Fat Strat wrote:Spreading the wealth around... You really think the extra $150-$250 that the middle and lower classes will see under Obama's plan will really impact the economy? They'll have $10 more in every paycheck.
Meanwhile, the guy who hires those people will see thousands less every pay period. An employer who makes $300k will make roughly $30k less (I think it's a 15% increase over what McCain's will be, but I could be wrong), which is roughly equivalent to one of his salaried employees or two of his wage employees. What do you think that guy will do to make up the difference? (Hopefully, like Joe Biden, his patriotic duty. But, call me a skeptic).
Diddy wrote:no bailing out is bailing out all of the people making 35K that decided that they have to buy a 500K house or are in debt way beyond their means because of their own choices.docellis wrote:
You keep mentioning "bailing people out"...I don't understand what you are talking about. Raising taxes (if I am correct) would be bailing out Bush and his failed economic policies. Not some welfare mother on the street.