RealTalk: Your President Wants To Raise My Taxes to Close to 60%

[blackfalcon23]

Originally Posted by JustScoreda100

If you want something you have to go out and get it.

It's really not that simple.

 

[txcaddyking]

I just took a 22% paycut last week to keep my job. It was either everyone take a pay cut or someone gets let go. I make decent money, not 6 figures, butenough to support me, my wife and two kids. Now I am considering getting a second job so I can keep putting money in savings (since Social Security will bedrained when I retire). My wife is very sick and this year alone I have spent over $3k in office visits, emergency room visits, medicine, tests with noresults, etc. If we ever find out what is wrong with her (we are getting closer!), it will probably require surgery and recovery time. With NO family within1200 miles, I will have to take time off work to watch the kids and help her or we will hope someone in our family can come down to help.

Hov, if you make enough money to live comfortably (if you choose to live in NYC, you are probably doing okay) and your family is healthy, complaining aboutpaying an extra 1% of your income seems pretty petty to me.

I think the tax increase should apply to everyone, not just the wealthy.

Per ABC News:
The proposal imposes a new surtax of 1 percent on married couples who earn between $350,000 and $500,000 (singles between $280,000 and $400,000). Couples withincomes between $500,000 and $1 million (singles earning between $400,000and $800,000) would have a 1.5 percent surtax imposes. Couples who make more than $1million, and singles who make more than $800,000, would face a 5.4% surtax.

 

[chozin87]

Originally Posted by BlackFalcon23

Originally Posted by JustScoreda100

If you want something you have to go out and get it.

It's really not that simple.

Who/what is stopping you?

 

[orenthaljames]

The man has only been in office for 7 months. All people do is run their mouths. Give his plan a chance. Do you all really think the country can be fixed in 7months? People act so fuddy duddy.

-The Juice

 

[i be john mayer]

Originally Posted by JustScoreda100

Originally Posted by I Be John Mayer

Originally Posted by Joseph Camel Jr

Originally Posted by I Be John Mayer

I'm all for the top 1% paying for everything.

Obviously if you're only making 350k a year you're not top 1%, so I do disagree with how steep the terms seem to be.

But if you're in that top 1%, I would not shed a single tear for you to pay 1.5 billion a year in tax if you make 3 billion, or even 150 million a year if you make 300 million.

Why dude? It's not enough to say "well they can afford it, etc." The government should never be entitled to half of someone's income, not even close.

Because the top 1% owns about half the country. If they don't at least lead the way for the rest of the top 20% who own about 90% of the country to be willing to pay more than their subjects (yes, sujects, 80% of the country basically works for and owes their living to them) then how else would these things such as helathcare, childcare, education, food and clothing for those who can't afford it, etc. get paid for?

The problem is that the top 20% simply doesn't care about how those things would be paid for because (here's what you don't wanna hear) they can afford it. The question of education of healthcare does not affect them because they can get a good doctor and send their child to a good school. Why do you think so many conservatives think that punishing public schools for poor performance is a good idea? It's actually the worst idea possible becaue you're only punishing kids who have no alternative. If a school is doing poorly in academics or graduation rates, wouldn't you think they need MORE funding? Wouldn't they need MORE resources and a change in faculty, as opposed LESS funding and a fear of teaching unions? This goes for both dems and reps as well.

Bottom line is this: Does the ruling class want to be a benevolent body or an apathetic one? Sooner or later republicans will not be able to convince regular people that they are part of the group that they are representing, and this will be the final blow. I'm no socialist, becaue that would entail alot more than a single payer healthcare system. But c'mon. I can't speak for Obama but for me it's bigger than healthcare, which should be a standard like law enforcement, mail delivery, and education.

You have to stop thinking that people owe you something. The rich people of this country don't owe anybody jack **@+. I swear that's a lot of peoples problem. If you want something you have to go out and get it. If you stick your hand out waiting for someone to give you a hand out 9/10 your just going to get a high five.

I DONT NEED THE GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE ME ANYTHING!!!!!

Yea sure I use services the government provides me with such as grants, student loans, and public amenties but even with out these services I would still survive and live the life I want. Public industry could easily fill the void. Government should stick to regulating public industry and ensuring freedom and liberty in this country.

I don't think anyone owes me anything. I'm going out and getting it on my own, but you're crazy if you don't think this country is set up tomake sure that there is only a small number of elites making all of their money off the actual labor of the majority. I plan to be part of the ruling elite,part of that 20%, but I also realize that that only accounts for 20% of the population!! That means that 80% of the population is working for 20% making themmoney, providing a lifestyle for them, putting food on THEIR table, putting THEIR kids in boarding schools and ivy league colleges. These same people turnaround and say "you didn't go to college, HA, it's because you're lazy." If public industry could fill the educational void, then whydo we have public schools? Mail used to be delivered by private companies, and if you couldn't afford it you didn't get mail delivered to your house. What is the difference between education and healthcare? Why should one be available to all but the other a private luxury?

 

[chokeonsmoke]

relax relax people its not obamas fault...hes just fixing bushes problems

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by I Be John Mayer

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by I Be John Mayer

Originally Posted by Joseph Camel Jr

Originally Posted by I Be John Mayer

I'm all for the top 1% paying for everything.

Obviously if you're only making 350k a year you're not top 1%, so I do disagree with how steep the terms seem to be.

But if you're in that top 1%, I would not shed a single tear for you to pay 1.5 billion a year in tax if you make 3 billion, or even 150 million a year if you make 300 million.

Why dude? It's not enough to say "well they can afford it, etc." The government should never be entitled to half of someone's income, not even close.

Because the top 1% owns about half the country. If they don't at least lead the way for the rest of the top 20% who own about 90% of the country to be willing to pay more than their subjects (yes, sujects, 80% of the country basically works for and owes their living to them) then how else would these things such as helathcare, childcare, education, food and clothing for those who can't afford it, etc. get paid for?

The problem is that the top 20% simply doesn't care about how those things would be paid for because (here's what you don't wanna hear) they can afford it. The question of education of healthcare does not affect them because they can get a good doctor and send their child to a good school. Why do you think so many conservatives think that punishing public schools for poor performance is a good idea? It's actually the worst idea possible becaue you're only punishing kids who have no alternative. If a school is doing poorly in academics or graduation rates, wouldn't you think they need MORE funding? Wouldn't they need MORE resources and a change in faculty, as opposed LESS funding and a fear of teaching unions? This goes for both dems and reps as well.

Bottom line is this: Does the ruling class want to be a benevolent body or an apathetic one? Sooner or later republicans will not be able to convince regular people that they are part of the group that they are representing, and this will be the final blow. I'm no socialist, becaue that would entail alot more than a single payer healthcare system. But c'mon. I can't speak for Obama but for me it's bigger than healthcare, which should be a standard like law enforcement, mail delivery, and education.

What are you talking about.

The greatest problem with health care in the US is the massive fraud within the system. That massive fraud occurs mainly because of Medicare/Medicaid; a government program.
If the Feds tackled the problem of fraud, the system would be more than fine as it is. Instead they're trying to pump more money into the system to facilitate the fraud.

It's truly funny and yet disgusting at the same time. There is such massive fraud in the current system but the Feds never talk about it.
I wonder why.

I hate to be a pessimist, but the fraud is going to happen no matter what, and it is tough to get coverage for alot of things because of the high possibility of fraud i.e. worker's comp. when you look at the amount of people rightfully recieving assistance through medicare or their insurance company compared to the amount of those commiting fraud, it's not even close. but when you make a worker's comp claim there is months worth legal and medical hoops to jump through so that you can get the minimum. my mom broke her kneecap in half at her job (she works for a beureau that runs things like Head Start, before and aftercare programs, etc.) and she had to sue for a settlement because of what her job's insurance company was going to put her through and the amount of time without sufficient pay it would have taken.

Criminals are always going to exist, right?
Should we not have a justice system then?

I'm not exaggerating when I say that fraud is rampant in Medicare and the healthcare system in general.Furthermore, it makes things miserable for those who do abide by the rules ( e.g. your mother).
The insurance company made your mother jump through hoops because people file fraudulent workers comp claims all thetime.

You can change the system 20 times over but if the Feds don't address the criminal aspects within it then the same problems are going to keep reoccurring.

I can list a bunch of fraudulent practices that I know off and there are probably hundreds more. I don't know of all the loopholes that exist in thesystem.
My favorite is medical offices paying senior citizens on Medicare to come in weekly. They pay them $40 but they bill Medicare $300. Not a bad gig , right?Considering the visits are literally 5 minutes.

The Feds acknowledge over $50b worth of fraud every year. As a result the reality must be at least 100b easy.

 

[lilafromftl]

Originally Posted by TXCaddyKing

I just took a 22% paycut last week to keep my job. It was either everyone take a pay cut or someone gets let go. I make decent money, not 6 figures, but enough to support me, my wife and two kids. Now I am considering getting a second job so I can keep putting money in savings (since Social Security will be drained when I retire). My wife is very sick and this year alone I have spent over $3k in office visits, emergency room visits, medicine, tests with no results, etc. If we ever find out what is wrong with her (we are getting closer!), it will probably require surgery and recovery time. With NO family within 1200 miles, I will have to take time off work to watch the kids and help her or we will hope someone in our family can come down to help.

Hov, if you make enough money to live comfortably (if you choose to live in NYC, you are probably doing okay) and your family is healthy, complaining about paying an extra 1% of your income seems pretty petty to me.

I think the tax increase should apply to everyone, not just the wealthy.

Per ABC News:
The proposal imposes a new surtax of 1 percent on married couples who earn between $350,000 and $500,000 (singles between $280,000 and $400,000). Couples with incomes between $500,000 and $1 million (singles earning between $400,000and $800,000) would have a 1.5 percent surtax imposes. Couples who make more than $1 million, and singles who make more than $800,000, would face a 5.4% surtax.

I hope your wife gets better. Stay strong.

 

[vagixxer]

Originally Posted by SunDOOBIE

Originally Posted by VaGixxer

HovKid I understand where your coming from I really do. I make nowhere near what you make, but for a 22 real estate investor I do quite alright. My private investor who funds our property deals is a multi millionaire who had some of the same feelings as you did when Obama came into office. He simply sat down with his CPA and figured out ways in which he could protect his income using various tax shelters and business methods. I don't understand why you wouldn't do the same? I can only assume you have a trusted accountant who handles your finances etc. Why not work with them on how you can eliminate yourself from being completely affected by this? Let's be real though... Your not giving up those checks for a lesser paying job no matter what.

I remember the first time I got a check over 10k I was amazed at how much of it was taxable.

Tax shelters is what the Govt is eliminating meaning phasing out itemize deductions for high income earners. Everything from as I mention the mortgage interest you pay for your principal residence, to your personal exemptions, and to an increase in the Capital Gains/Dividend tax.

Nothing has been changed so all there is now is here say. You can't prepare a tax projection for clients based on what the govt may or may not do.

However I don't see how anyone making more than a couple hundred thousand not be affected by this massive tax increase bill they are putting forth.

I understand what your saying here, but if history has shown us anything across all policies their is a LOOPHOLE in every system that allows therich to stay rich. It's all about being able to figure it out and put your money in the right places. It's no way you can tell me that if this goesinto affect people won't find ways to shelter their income so they aren't taxed in the upper bracket. Then again I could be wrong..

 

[bilingue23]

Originally Posted by chokeonsmoke

relax relax people its not obamas fault...hes just fixing bushes problems

Im getting tired of hearing this. For real.

 

[sundoobie]

Originally Posted by LazyJ10



Back to the topic at hand....Hov needs to seriously pay for consultation if he can't figure it out himself.
Certain deductions are still out there and so is other planning.

Plan for your kids future, set up the tax deductible funds.

There are certainly ways to lower your tax basis, even in NYC. He obviously cares enough to point out what he feels the effective rate will be, so he should spend more time trying to decrease it.

Sure there are tons of ways to reduce your tax liability but if you're in a certain tax bracket, all the deductions in the world is not going to matter. The more deductions you have the greater your Alt Minimum Tax will be anyways.

Hov wants more kids for tax deductions? Whats the point when personal exemptions will be phased out.

Hov wants to buy a million dollar home and have a ridiculous mortgage? Whats the point when the Govt won't allow you to deduct your mortgage interestanymore?

Hov went to Law School raking up thousands in student loans? Well whats the point when the govt wont allow him to deduct his student loan interest?

So and so on.

Govt is already making a fortune by taxing the rich, it's just now they want more $$ to pay for everyone's healthcare.

relax relax people its not obamas fault...hes just fixing bushes problems
So for the next 4 years no matter what Obama's policy maybe, it's still Bush's fault right? How long are we going to use this excuse?

 

[r31j23]

ehh your a lawyer im sure their are loop holes. rich people always find a way to get around keeping their money.

 

[justscoreda100]

Originally Posted by I Be John Mayer

I don't think anyone owes me anything. I'm going out and getting it on my own, but you're crazy if you don't think this country is set up to make sure that there is only a small number of elites making all of their money off the actual labor of the majority. I plan to be part of the ruling elite, part of that 20%, but I also realize that that only accounts for 20% of the population!! That means that 80% of the population is working for 20% making them money, providing a lifestyle for them, putting food on THEIR table, putting THEIR kids in boarding schools and ivy league colleges. These same people turn around and say "you didn't go to college, HA, it's because you're lazy." If public industry could fill the educational void, then why do we have public schools? Mail used to be delivered by private companies, and if you couldn't afford it you didn't get mail delivered to your house. What is the difference between education and healthcare? Why should one be available to all but the other a private luxury?

I don't think anyone owes me anything. I'm going out and getting it on my own
Ok. So whats stopping you from going out and getting your own health care? I don't mean to be cynical, but if this is the cost to insure allof America then its not worth it.

I plan to be part of the ruling elite, part of that 20%, but I also realize that that only accounts for 20% of the population!! That means that 80% of the population is working for 20% making them money, providing a lifestyle for them, putting food on THEIR table, putting THEIR kids in boarding schools and ivy league colleges.
You see this is where you got the game twisted. People making 200 - 400k are not the ruling elite. Raising taxes on these entrepreneurs actuallyhelps the actual "ruling elite" because it takes out their competition. If you take away a large portion of your competitions income they can notinvest it and enter markets that the elite already have on lock. It just increases the division between the rich and the wealthy.

These same people turn around and say "you didn't go to college, HA, it's because you're lazy." If public industry could fill the educational void, then why do we have public schools? Mail used to be delivered by private companies, and if you couldn't afford it you didn't get mail delivered to your house. What is the difference between education and healthcare? Why should one be available to all but the other a private luxury?
Ever since the federal government got into the education business the standard of education in this country has drop drastically. The federalgovernment needs to stay in its role as a regulator and preserver of freedom and let state and local governments take a stronger role in solving our countriesproblems.

You pay for your mail service right now so how is that any different then if it were privately run?

 

[sundoobie]

I understand what your saying here, but if history has shown us anything across all policies their is a LOOPHOLE in every system that allows the rich to stay rich. It's all about being able to figure it out and put your money in the right places. It's no way you can tell me that if this goes into affect people won't find ways to shelter their income so they aren't taxed in the upper bracket. Then again I could be wrong..
Oh I agree there are ton of loopholes that you can use against the tax code but a majority of them are ILLEGAL!

There are tons of Americans cheating the tax code however due to the downturn of the economy the govt is not getting paid as much as they had because whenAmericans don't work they don't pay tax.

So guess what...

http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/tg140.htm

Secretary Timothy F. Geithner
Opening Statement
House Committee on Appropriations
Subcommittee on General Government and Financial Services
May 21, 2009

The vast majority of the new funds that we request in this Budget are for improving the enforcement efforts and the information technology of the IRS.

As I have said, $332 million would go to new IRS enforcement efforts, including $128.1 million to improve international tax compliance. The balance of these funds would be used to support three critical programs: 755 employees to increase examinations of tax returns for businesses and high-income individuals; 300 employees to expand the IRS document matching program, which compares tax returns to other forms such as W-2s and 1099s; and an additional 491 employees to improve collection operations and build two new IRS automated collection center sites.

Anyone looking for a job? Treasury Dept is hiring!

 

[i be john mayer]

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by I Be John Mayer

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by I Be John Mayer

Originally Posted by Joseph Camel Jr

Originally Posted by I Be John Mayer

I'm all for the top 1% paying for everything.

Obviously if you're only making 350k a year you're not top 1%, so I do disagree with how steep the terms seem to be.

But if you're in that top 1%, I would not shed a single tear for you to pay 1.5 billion a year in tax if you make 3 billion, or even 150 million a year if you make 300 million.

Why dude? It's not enough to say "well they can afford it, etc." The government should never be entitled to half of someone's income, not even close.

Because the top 1% owns about half the country. If they don't at least lead the way for the rest of the top 20% who own about 90% of the country to be willing to pay more than their subjects (yes, sujects, 80% of the country basically works for and owes their living to them) then how else would these things such as helathcare, childcare, education, food and clothing for those who can't afford it, etc. get paid for?

The problem is that the top 20% simply doesn't care about how those things would be paid for because (here's what you don't wanna hear) they can afford it. The question of education of healthcare does not affect them because they can get a good doctor and send their child to a good school. Why do you think so many conservatives think that punishing public schools for poor performance is a good idea? It's actually the worst idea possible becaue you're only punishing kids who have no alternative. If a school is doing poorly in academics or graduation rates, wouldn't you think they need MORE funding? Wouldn't they need MORE resources and a change in faculty, as opposed LESS funding and a fear of teaching unions? This goes for both dems and reps as well.

Bottom line is this: Does the ruling class want to be a benevolent body or an apathetic one? Sooner or later republicans will not be able to convince regular people that they are part of the group that they are representing, and this will be the final blow. I'm no socialist, becaue that would entail alot more than a single payer healthcare system. But c'mon. I can't speak for Obama but for me it's bigger than healthcare, which should be a standard like law enforcement, mail delivery, and education.

What are you talking about.

The greatest problem with health care in the US is the massive fraud within the system. That massive fraud occurs mainly because of Medicare/Medicaid; a government program.
If the Feds tackled the problem of fraud, the system would be more than fine as it is. Instead they're trying to pump more money into the system to facilitate the fraud.

It's truly funny and yet disgusting at the same time. There is such massive fraud in the current system but the Feds never talk about it.
I wonder why.

I hate to be a pessimist, but the fraud is going to happen no matter what, and it is tough to get coverage for alot of things because of the high possibility of fraud i.e. worker's comp. when you look at the amount of people rightfully recieving assistance through medicare or their insurance company compared to the amount of those commiting fraud, it's not even close. but when you make a worker's comp claim there is months worth legal and medical hoops to jump through so that you can get the minimum. my mom broke her kneecap in half at her job (she works for a beureau that runs things like Head Start, before and aftercare programs, etc.) and she had to sue for a settlement because of what her job's insurance company was going to put her through and the amount of time without sufficient pay it would have taken.

Criminals are always going to exist, right?
Should we not have a justice system then?

I'm not exaggerating when I say that fraud is rampant in Medicare and the healthcare system in general. Furthermore, it makes things miserable for those who do abide by the rules ( e.g. your mother).
The insurance company made your mother jump through hoops because people file fraudulent workers comp claims all the time.

You can change the system 20 times over but if the Feds don't address the criminal aspects within it then the same problems are going to keep reoccurring.

I can list the fraudulent practices that I know off.

My favorite is medical offices paying senior citizens on Medicare to come in weekly. They pay them $40 but they bill Medicare $300. Not a bad gig , right?

I do not disagree with what you're saying about the corruption of Medicare. I agree that more criminally investigating fraud on anorganizational level is needed, but there is a difference between the government sending investigators to an office or even after a suspect of fraud and aprivate insurance company telling you to go to a specific doctor that will try to convince you or your employer that you are not in as bad health as you claim. Don't you think getting bonuses to deny coverage to people is going to cut down on fraud AS WELL as deny coverage to those who need it? So i completelyagree with you on concentrating more on criminal investigations, but then it becomes a problem of local offices as opposed to a standard that corporateheadquarters can set, and that means that the only way to keep such a policy of investigation cost-effective would be to barely do any at all, inviting morefraud. There is no way that private insurance companies can do anything BUT cheat its customers, because insurance is not about providing anything, butcollecting money and keeping it. Medicare could very well put more effort into criminal investigation, and I agree with you that it should because thegovernment has more resources to put towards it. I feel that if a public option did this from the beginning it would be much more efficient than any privateinsurance company simply because of how much money would be dumped into it for things such as investigative resourcese.

 

[i be john mayer]

JustScoreda100 wrote:

---

I Be John Mayer wrote:

---

I don't think anyone owes me anything. I'm going out and getting it on my own, but you're crazy if you don't think this country is set up to make sure that there is only a small number of elites making all of their money off the actual labor of the majority. I plan to be part of the ruling elite, part of that 20%, but I also realize that that only accounts for 20% of the population!! That means that 80% of the population is working for 20% making them money, providing a lifestyle for them, putting food on THEIR table, putting THEIR kids in boarding schools and ivy league colleges. These same people turn around and say "you didn't go to college, HA, it's because you're lazy." If public industry could fill the educational void, then why do we have public schools? Mail used to be delivered by private companies, and if you couldn't afford it you didn't get mail delivered to your house. What is the difference between education and healthcare? Why should one be available to all but the other a private luxury?

I don't think anyone owes me anything. I'm going out and getting it on my own
Ok. So whats stopping you from going out and getting your own health care? I don't mean to be cynical, but if this is the cost to insure all of America then its not worth it.

I plan to be part of the ruling elite, part of that 20%, but I also realize that that only accounts for 20% of the population!! That means that 80% of the population is working for 20% making them money, providing a lifestyle for them, putting food on THEIR table, putting THEIR kids in boarding schools and ivy league colleges.
You see this is where you got the game twisted. People making 200 - 400k are not the ruling elite. Raising taxes on these entrepreneurs actually helps the actual "ruling elite" because it takes out their competition. If you take away a large portion of your competitions income they can not invest it and enter markets that the elite already have on lock. It just increases the division between the rich and the wealthy.

These same people turn around and say "you didn't go to college, HA, it's because you're lazy." If public industry could fill the educational void, then why do we have public schools? Mail used to be delivered by private companies, and if you couldn't afford it you didn't get mail delivered to your house. What is the difference between education and healthcare? Why should one be available to all but the other a private luxury?
Ever since the federal government got into the education business the standard of education in this country has drop drastically. The federal government needs to stay in its role as a regulator and preserver of freedom and let state and local governments take a stronger role in solving our countries problems.

You pay for your mail service right now so how is that any different then if it were privately run?


1. What's stopping me from going out and getting my own healthcare? I'm a student, 20years old working part time. I can't afford any kind of real healthcare. I can't even afford liability car insurance. Even when I'm out ofschool and am working in a clerkship, i cannot neccesarily affort my own healthcare. What if I were a highschool graduate working full time and only making30k at my age? I can't afford the same healthcare that I could if I were the former.

2. By "ruling elite" i simply meant top 20%. That starts at about 92,000 according to the 2005 Census.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States#Income_at_a_glance

In my first post I stated that I do not agree with placing such heavy tax policies on those making200-400k, as you may be suggesting.

I Be John Mayer wrote:

---

I'm all for the top 1% paying for everything.

Obviously if you're only making 350k a year you're not top 1%, so I do disagree with how steep the terms seem to be.

But if you're in that top 1%, I would not shed a single tear for you to pay 1.5 billion a year in tax if you make 3 billion, or even 150 million a year if you make 300 million.

In all honesty, i'd like to take back the "top 1%" comment, and replace that with mebeing all for the top .5% paying for everything. As you can see, I do agree with you on the adverse affects of such a tax policy that lumps together thosemaking 350k and those making 1 billion.


3. If the federal government left education policies to states then we would still be teaching black kids in shacks with old books with white kids in wellkept buildings. The governer of Arkansas sent national guardsmen to STOP the Little Rock Nine from entering that highschool, so what would happen if thefederal government didn't intervene? What about the Brown v. Board of Education?

4. I pay for my mail service through taxes, correct? So your question is how is that different than if it were privately run? If I do not have any incomebut still have a place of residence I still get mail. The exact logic in your question is the logic that could be applied to a universal healthcare plan. Youpay for your healthcare anyway so how would it be any different?

 

[nawth21]

Man private health care is a @++$+. Due to a preexisting condition, I was either flat out denied coverage or they were looking to charge me more than I made ina month for a crap %#* policy

I just went without for years

I did qualify for some state insurance for women, it only covered reproductive issuesbut hey, you take what you can get when you make too much to qualify for other forms of government assistance.

 

[justscoreda100]

I understand what your saying here, but if history has shown us anything across all policies their is a LOOPHOLE in every system that allows the rich to stay rich.
Loopholes do not allow the rich to stay rich. The rich stay rich usually because they produce or provide something of value while others areusually stuck working for producers or providers instead of becoming them. If I had tons of money I would make sure to preserve as much of my money aspossible. I don't see anything wrong with that.

 

[boilermaker x]

eaalto wrote:

---

Who is John Galt?

Originally Posted by I Be John Mayer

Capitalism = Fuedalism without repsonsibility toward the serfs.

QFDT...And I'm no serf.

And speaking of more dollars than sense, where's TyDub these days? I thought someone threw up the Thundercat signal every time there was a new threadbitching about being wealthy and that's how he knew to drop off his poor-little-rich-kid two cents. Dude's missed some prime opportunities this weekto sound off on the oppression of the rich.

 

[DownByLaw]

I am in a higher tax bracket than you Hov and though it's going to have an effect, I am willing to deal with it. Obama and his administration are trying tofix a catastrophic health care system and everyone isn't going to like the measures that need to be taken. I remember when I was in college, our professorswould say how people were liberal until they started making a lot of money. I guess I am an exception to that rule. The higher my income goes, I realize theworld and the problems that are in it are a lot bigger than my bank statement. I am not faulting you for your view on the matter, just sharing mine.

 

[swizzc]

Originally Posted by FIRST B0RN

I am in a higher tax bracket than you Hov and though it's going to have an effect, I am willing to deal with it. Obama and his administration are trying to fix a catastrophic health care system and everyone isn't going to like the measures that need to be taken. I remember when I was in college, our professors would say how people were liberal until they started making a lot of money. I guess I am an exception to that rule. The higher my income goes, I realize the world and the problems that are in it are a lot bigger than my bank statement. I am not faulting you for your view on the matter, just sharing mine.

I believe the saying goes "If you're conservative when you're 20 you don't have a heart, if you're liberal when you're 40you don't have a brain."

 

[i be john mayer]

Originally Posted by swizzc

I believe the saying goes "If you're conservative when you're 20 you don't have a heart, if you're liberal when you're 40 you don't have a brain."

I like that. Might have to steal that one.

 

[j burner]

He's not my president, I voted against him because unlike his supporters, I actually took the time to understand what he wants to do to our country.Instead of just voting for the charismatic young black guy...But, his approval ratings are PLUMMETING, it seems people are realizing the effed up. Too little,too late. Everyone that voted for Obama, YOU DID THIS!

 

[j burner]

Originally Posted by bilingue23

Originally Posted by chokeonsmoke

relax relax people its not obamas fault...hes just fixing bushes problems

Im getting tired of hearing this. For real.

Me too. He hasn't fixed a single thing. All he has done is create more problems, while finding ways to make existing problems bigger.

 

[eaalto]

Originally Posted by Boilermaker X

eaalto wrote:

---

Who is John Galt?

How so?