Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - (Perception) Who will you pay more taxes with?

- Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)

- - (Perception) Who will you pay more taxes with? (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/138824-perception-who-will-you-pay-more-taxes.html)

(Perception) Who will you pay more taxes with?

This is a poll to see who people think will cause them to pay more taxes Obama or Mc'Cain. Please do not go look up their tax policies or post them here. Instead I want to get a poll on what people currently believe. Later I will post another poll along with both plans and we will see if peoples perceptions line up with reality.

I see it as "Tax and Spend" Democrats vs "Borrow and Spend" Republicans.

I doubt the difference in spending will be very different, just the manner of funding it.

I would like to know whose reality it will be. Seeing that close to 35% of people pay zero federal income tax as is, these are the same people who make up Obama's base.

Edit to say Obama will cause ME to pay more tax.

I stated neither, because I believe both will be forced to raise taxes, therefore I'll pay more either way.
-----Added 11/8/2008 at 11 : 22 : 24-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by reconmike (Post 2504305)

There's a reason why 35% don't pay taxes. They barely make enough to live on.

This is a very sad argument by the rich. I love these rich cats who cry about how high their taxes are but refuse to raise wages and cut theirs a bit.

Raise wages, you raise investments, raise investments from the "average" guy, you raise tax base, raise tax base, it becomes proportionate and not one group pays "more than their share".

Keep wages down, people barely make ends meet, can't tax people who don't have anything.... so you raise taxes on those that do.

It's that fucking simple.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467 (Post 2505002)

I stated neither, because I believe both will be forced to raise taxes, therefore I'll pay more either way.
-----Added 11/8/2008 at 11 : 22 : 24-----

There's a reason why 35% don't pay taxes. They barely make enough to live on.

This is a very sad argument by the rich. I love these rich cats who cry about how high their taxes are but refuse to raise wages and cut theirs a bit.

Raise wages, you raise investments, raise investments from the "average" guy, you raise tax base, raise tax base, it becomes proportionate and not one group pays "more than their share".

Keep wages down, people barely make ends meet, can't tax people who don't have anything.... so you raise taxes on those that do.

It's that fucking simple.

It's also simple that "the rich" are defined as "those who make more than I do."
It's always THOSE GUYS (not me) who should part with more of their money.

Voted Obama. It is the way of the democrat to tax the hell out of anybody that actually made a little bit of something out of themselves and then turn around and give it to people to have no jobs due to the 10 kids they have with 10 different guys or whatever completely preventable situation the "lower class" in this country gets themselves in.

I am back in college now, so if Obama does get elected hopefully he will throw some of that extra tax money toward higher education so my tuition cost can be lowered.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467 (Post 2505002)

I assume you're talking about raising the minimum wage, and if so then you need to go take an Econ class. Artificially inflating wages actually damages the economy, and makes it so that some small businesses go under and even large businesses can't grow as much. Also don't forget that most union wages are tied to the minimum wage, so every time it is raised the union wages go up whether they deserve it or not. This also has a huge impact on big union shops and forces them to lay people off so that they can pay the artificially inflated union wages to those who are left.

No one who is making the minimum wage is investing in anything. Also, very few able-bodied people make the minimum wage for very long because they work hard and get raises and promotions. Those who don't I don't have much sympathy for. Cutting taxes returns more money to the pockets of the people who work hard, start their own businesses, create jobs and invest. Again, this is Econ 101 stuff.

We're at 35% now; what do you think happens once the percentage of people who don't pay taxes reaches 51%?

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467 (Post 2505002)

I stated neither, because I believe both will be forced to raise taxes, therefore I'll pay more either way.

Ditto.

I think the time is soon coming to pay the piper, for nearly a decade of runaway federal spending and borrowing. Furthermore, on a state level, the budgets have been cut again and again, throughout the past years, and are now down to the bone; and our schools, law enforcement, infrastructure, etc., have been greatly hurting for it.
-----Added 4/9/2008 at 11 : 29 : 02-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by reconmike (Post 2504305)

...Obama will cause ME to pay more tax.

So, your household income is over $250,000 a year? ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynosure (Post 2518379)

So, your household income is over $250,000 a year? ;)

There was another thread on this site that linked to a breakdown of proposed tax rates for both candidates based on income, and the tradeoff of where McCain's breaks became favorable was well below $250k a year.

As Necrosis put it, "rich" is a loosely thrown around term. I know people who pull in $200k a year who have a decent life, but are far from rich in their respective locations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Cub (Post 2519060)

The trade off was around $110,000 a year

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Cub (Post 2519060)

I was referring (with a wink and a grin) to this sort of thing...

Quote:

Sorry, Pal, but You're Rich

The deluded business pundits and Obama critics who think $250,000 is a middle-class salary.

By Daniel Gross
Posted Wednesday, Aug. 27, 2008, at 5:51 PM ET

Barack Obama's tax plan, laid out by advisers Austan Goolsbee and Jason Furman in the Wall Street Journal in mid-August, promises to improve the nation's fiscal standing by scaling back tax cuts for people making more than $250,000. Since then, the business pundit class has been griping that people who make $250,000 a year aren't really wealthy, especially if they live in and around New York; San Francisco; or Washington, D.C. (Check out this CNBC debate, for example.) On Wednesday afternoon, CNBC's unscientific online poll found that (surprise!) only 35 percent of respondents believed an income of $250,000 qualified a household for elite rich status.

I have two pieces of bad news for the over-$250,000 crowd. First, the reversal of some of the temporary Bush tax cuts is probably inevitable, given the Republican fiscal clown show of the past eight years. Second, I regret to inform you that you are indeed rich.

To a large degree, feeling rich or poor is a state of mind, as John McCain recently noted. "Some people are wealthy and rich in their lives and their children and their ability to educate them. Others are poor if they're billionaires." But income data can surely tell us something. And they tell us that $250,000 puts you in pretty fancy company. The Census Bureau earlier this week reported that the median household income was $50,223 in 2007—up slightly from the last year but still below the 1999 peak. So a household that earned $250,000 made five times the median. In fact, as this chart shows, only 2.245 million U.S. households, the top 1.9 percent, had income greater than $250,000 in 2007. (About 20 percent of households make more than $100,000.)

In dealing with aggregate nationwide numbers, we should of course take account of the significant differences in the cost of living from state to state. It's obvious that $250,000 doesn't go as far in Santa Barbara, Calif., or Manhattan—or in most places where CNBC viewers, employees, and guests live—as it does in Paducah, Ky. As census data show, state median incomes vary from $65,933 in New Jersey to $35,971 in Mississippi. But even in wealthy states, $250,000 ain't bad—it's nearly four times the median income in wealthy states like Maryland and Connecticut. And even if you look at the wealthiest metropolitan areas—Washington, D.C. ($83,200); San Francisco ($73,851); Boston ($68,142); and New York ($61,554)—$250,000 a year dwarfs the median income.

EDIT: The rest of this article can be found here... http://www.slate.com/id/2198806/

Wow that article on Slate really says a lot. I am not a big fan of taxes but I know we will have to shovel out more for the ridiculous spending of the last 8 years. The other choice is cut backs.

That means less

1. Military
2. Social Programs
3. Pork Bellies
4. Education
5. Infrastructure
and other things.

Of course everyone says cut this or cut that but the truth is we have to cut them all, and cut them till they start to hurt if you want to get the country out of debt in the next decade or three. And don't tell me that government debt is good that is just pure bullshit.