I'm a hard line Republican, and I think I will be voting for Obama. McCain talks a good talk but when it comes time to vote he flops every time.

On the Hillary thing, I would never vote for a woman for president.....sorry.

__________________
PA Forums
Philly Sports
Delaware Online
boomshockalacka

I usually sway conservative but can't say I'm a "republican".

I don't really see a choice that stands out to me this election to be honest. Who knows, maybe I'll write in someone.

__________________
Camaro Forums || Firebird Forums
Check out vBulletin Setup for all your vBulletin SEO Questions & Tips
There is always someone faster, and in your case, that someone is Me

I'm glad Hillary is going down, she is definitely my last choice out of those three. I haven't decided who I'll be voting for but I think I like Obama. I always score moderate/independent on those political score tests but in general I agree with more republicans, but I just think Obama has what it takes. The main thing I don't agree with Obama or any democrat about is abortion, but its not like it matters who wins for that issue, its going to stay the same.

__________________
World of Warcraft Forums - Your #1 place to discuss all things World of Warcraft.

You are joking right?
Being taxed isn't about being punished. It's about paying back into the pot. Putting it your fair share to the system that pays for schools, hospitals, roads, street lighting, government and countless other things.

Also you say 'hard earned money' - I think that most people will see that the poorest and even the middle class work a damn lot harder than the richest.

Why?

If you look at tax systems across the world this is how it always is. Systems set up by tax brackets where people who fall into higher ones pay a higher rate on the amount that they are over the previous tax bracket. These people will still be banking more money -0 just paying a higher rate on some of their money earned.

For example (rough figures for England):

First £5200 earned (no tax due)
Next £2200 earned (10% tax on this)
Next £32000 earned (22% tax on this)
Any earnings over this (40% on each £1 over)

So the higher rate is only on each extra pound into the tax bracket. Isn't it the same in The States?

If so why is that unfair?


Not everyone got rich from working hard. Corruption. Crime. Exploiting the poor. Exploiting immigrants. Exploiting the 3rd world. Should all of this be allowed to fly under the radar of 'hard earned money'?


Dude, I'm an accountant with a degree in Economics - if you look at the facts here, or look at it morally - people who make more money should pay a bit more tax on their higher chunk of earnings) - mainly because society and government has been kind enough to afford them the opportunity - and they have benefitted from it. Why should they continue to benefit when people are loosing their homes and kids don't have healthcare?

__________________
London Student Forums promotion agencies London Universities

See, this all sounds well and good, but what about that guy who worked his ass off to make 250,000 from his own business?

Also, if you're near the top of one bracket, you're not going to want to make more money, because then you're actually going to be losing more money than if you just stayed where you are. Doesn't seem to support economic equality to me.

It should be a set % of your earnings, not biased based on what you've made.

The argument always comes down to "not all rich people worked hard". Maybe we'll work on this in school too, since one person has a higher GPA, we'll take some of his grades and give them to the underachieving people, sounds good right?

Not all poor people want to change, why would you if you have no responsibility and get everything given to you?

Also, thanks for the bio about your degree. I've got a Masters in Environmental Design and Urban planning if we're going to be getting to know one another.


Also, Poorest work harder than the richest???
This may be true in some cases if you're looking at manual labor. However thinking that all people who are rich were just around giving orders to others is not really what someone with an economics degree should be looking at.

There are plenty of people who stuck their necks out and lost money, and plenty who went for it and got rich with a great idea and hard work. Seems to me like you're jealous that people make money?



Explain to me how it's unfair that you get taxed a solid percentage of your earnings?
A person who's making 250,000 will be paying much more than a person making 20,000. Both will be giving back the same amount/ratio of what they've made and all will be well and fair.

__________________
Camaro Forums || Firebird Forums
Check out vBulletin Setup for all your vBulletin SEO Questions & Tips
There is always someone faster, and in your case, that someone is Me

Firstly I gave you an intro to the UK tax system can you do the same with the US.

What are the rates? Are they stepped? If they are stepped then the majority of your argument is flawed.

He still takes home more money than someone making less before tax? So what is your problem?

Give me an example. With stepped taxation systems (which most in the world are) what you are suggesting would NEVER happen.

So all poor people want to be poor? Really?

If they have everything given to them then by definition they WOULDN'T be poor. What don't you understand about that?

What is the role of your government? What should the role be?
To provide a just and fair society? To offer opportunity to those who may not otherwise be given it? To protect the vulnerable?

No probs. But from reading what you have written here it looks as though you didn't learn much from your course about economics. This is an economics issue not one about urban development

Not just about working harder - but it's about standard of living.

When did I say that? All people? You need to read what I said again. This statement shows your ignorance.

But then the saying goes, 'if you can't convince people, confuse them!'

To be credible, you need to stay on topic and argue the facts - not twist and misrepresent words.


As I said - there are people who have worked hard and make more money and this is fair (and the top portion of their income should be charged at a higher tax rate - which is fair)...

but just because someone 'stuck their neck on the line' doesn't mean that they are great american heros who deserve to be taxed less - otherwise let's all become gamblers and move to vegas.

People who stick their necks out by investing in new technologies, research etc., already have incentives to do so. There are existing tax breaks for companies who spend money in this area. Patents can be applied for by companies which gives them the exclusive right to use and license their invention/technology. This benefits them. There are so many other benefits that these companies have.

You need to make a distinction here between those companies investing in research and technologies and using this to build great companies which will later employ thousands of Americans, against those companies who are using loop holes to pay people through methods avoiding tax. There's a big difference here.


About me being jealous. You can think that but I'm not. I'm more than comfortable financially and have a business where I employ around 50 staff. You should see from my comments here that I'm far from jealous - I'm looking out for those who are vulnerable and often feel like it's hopeless and that they can't change things

That SHOULD BE the role of government.

Again this is where you are showing that you don't have a clue.
What you have explained here is completely untrue. The ratios aren't the same at all.

__________________
London Student Forums promotion agencies London Universities

Tax cuts "for the rich" is the lamest thing I've ever heard. That's not why the economy is bad right now. The economy is bad for a variety of reasons. One reason being that banks were able to freely and carelessly hand out loans to people they knew they couldn't afford them. That has nothing to do with a Democrat or Republican being in office.

Or the people in this country could grow a pair and not run to a different party every time an idiot takes control of the other party just because things are going bad and abandon their principles.

Another thing is all you people that believe Obama is going to be any different than your standard politician need to put the pipe down. Obama is a politician. A career politician at that. Just because he hasn't been doing it 30 years does not mean he is any less of a politician than George Bush or Hillary Clinton.

There will be no transparency because his strings will continue to be pulled by the leading Democrats in this country, Nanci Pelosi and Howard Dean on top of the John Kerry's and Ted Kennedy liberals.


Transparency isn't going to happen. What in the world makes you think Obama is going to change washington? Because he says he will? Gee how about that. Taking a politician at his word. Just because he says Hope 100 times a day or Change a 100 times a day doesn't mean anything. Bill Clinton ran in 1992 on transparency in Washington. Look how that turned out

No they won't. Our economic problems are so much more complex than subprime mortgages and tax cuts for the rich. Do you honestly think tax cuts for rich people will bring the economy to its knees? Regardless if they should get tax cuts or not it has very little impact on the overall economy.

I don't care. I make less than 200k a year and I don't care. I'm not going to elect one of the most liberal politicians in the country because Bush is an idiot.

Every single person in this country needs a tax break. There should be no discrimination against a person for how much money they make. I am 100% for abolishing the IRS and returning this country back to fiscal conservative spending.

I don't care enough to vote for Obama. Like I said, people are so quick to jump on the other sides bandwagon every time something goes wrong and the current party sucks. I never understood why people do this.

Instead of wasting your vote on electing one of the most liberal people in the country to power and abandon real conservative principles why not vote for another party? Libertarians are the next best thing conservative. They don't hold all of my values but when it comes to the economy they are spot on.

I voted for Ron Paul. I will not abandon my views and beliefs to vote for the complete opposite of Ron Paul, Barrack Obama, just because George Bush sucks. He doesn't offer me anything I want. I don't want this country to find what Bush has done acceptable and I don't want this country to accept Barrack Obama and the Democrats tax and spend policies acceptable.

I do care. I don't like Bush. I don't know why people equate not liking Democrats to liking Republicans. I don't support Bush anymore than I support Barrack Obama.

I know no one that makes 250k tax free. You point me to someone that pays no taxes on 250k dollars.

Oh that's right. The candidate is calling for it to happen so surely he means it.

I see it's too late for you. You have drank the Obama kool-aide.

__________________
Ford Mustang Forums - F-Series Trucks

Why abandon your beliefs to vote for someone on false pretense? The guy is a stone cold liberal. Why not throw your vote behind someone that more fits your views? Just because they probably won't win doesn't mean that you can't vote for someone you actually want to be in office because their views match yours.

I'll be voting for the libertarian candidate this time around. I'm tired of voting for Democrats and Republicans that do nothing but follow the same path of the previous candidate.

Do you think people like Nanci Pelosi and Howard Dean are going to let Obama "change" the party like he "says" he wants too? No they won't. Their the same spinless Democrats that said they were going to end the Iraq war.

Guess I missed when that happened.

__________________
Ford Mustang Forums - F-Series Trucks