Warrior General Games

Originally posted by tjking82
Originally posted by suckstobesara

Where do you think taxes should be increased and where should they be reduced?

Those who make over 250k a year

or those who make less 250k

The best tax breaks in the McCain plan come at the very top and large companies of the tax bracket with little or nothing towards the bottom.

The best tax breaks in the Obama plan come at the bottom then slowly disappear and raise slightly once you make more then 250k.

How the fuck much is Joe going to make anyway, I mean honestly you won't go through with your plan to buy a bussiness because of a difference in percentage between the two plans. For it to be a reason you'd eitheir need to make several million or you'd need the small extra money to help with loan payments since you'd take on substainial leverage.

You're starting from the current taxing system as a baseline, and acting like we're all treated equally under it, which is stupid. What if the current baseline was under 250,000 pay no taxes, and over 250,000 pay 95% taxes. What you just said would still have the same appeal, but it'd lead to idiotic results.

The wealthy ALREADY pay a way higher percentage than everyone else. The poor already get some of the wealthy's money every year. Taxes are ALREADY increased for the wealthy, ALREADY decreased for the poor and middle class. What justifies taking even more? Just because the wealthy still have more than the poor? Should we tax everything over 250k at 100%? After all, they don't need it, right?

It's a slippery slope dude, and if you slide far enough, our economy will be completely fucked.


Do you not understand our current tax system brackets? Someone needs to pay the tax burden, ideally we'd all pay a set dollar amount. Realistically that isn't possible so several countries that I can think of use a bracketed system. A poor person who makes 50,000 pays around the same taxes as a "rich" person who makes more on the first 50,000 so in that way you are treated "equal".

Originally posted by suckstobesara
How the fuck much is Joe going to make anyway, I mean honestly you won't go through with your plan to buy a bussiness because of a difference in percentage between the two plans. For it to be a reason you'd eitheir need to make several million or you'd need the small extra money to help with loan payments since you'd take on substainial leverage.

What makes you think that Joe is making $250,000? If he can buy the business then his business will be making that much a year. now take away all of the money he has to spend on insurance, wages for employees, cost for supplies... etc

In my opinion jobs are created do to company expansion from an increase in DEMAND for goods/services they provide or could provide not from the company simply making alot of money. They expanded to supply the increase in demand via debt or cash on hand ect. In my opinion the best ways to increase demands for good is by putting more money in the hands of those who are primarly consumers.

Originally posted by suckstobesara
Originally posted by tjking82

Originally posted by suckstobesara


Where do you think taxes should be increased and where should they be reduced?

Those who make over 250k a year

or those who make less 250k

The best tax breaks in the McCain plan come at the very top and large companies of the tax bracket with little or nothing towards the bottom.

The best tax breaks in the Obama plan come at the bottom then slowly disappear and raise slightly once you make more then 250k.

How the fuck much is Joe going to make anyway, I mean honestly you won't go through with your plan to buy a bussiness because of a difference in percentage between the two plans. For it to be a reason you'd eitheir need to make several million or you'd need the small extra money to help with loan payments since you'd take on substainial leverage.

You're starting from the current taxing system as a baseline, and acting like we're all treated equally under it, which is stupid. What if the current baseline was under 250,000 pay no taxes, and over 250,000 pay 95% taxes. What you just said would still have the same appeal, but it'd lead to idiotic results.

The wealthy ALREADY pay a way higher percentage than everyone else. The poor already get some of the wealthy's money every year. Taxes are ALREADY increased for the wealthy, ALREADY decreased for the poor and middle class. What justifies taking even more? Just because the wealthy still have more than the poor? Should we tax everything over 250k at 100%? After all, they don't need it, right?

It's a slippery slope dude, and if you slide far enough, our economy will be completely fucked.


Do you not understand our current tax system brackets? Someone needs to pay the tax burden, ideally we'd all pay a set dollar amount. Realistically that isn't possible so several countries that I can think of use a bracketed system. A poor person who makes 50,000 pays around the same taxes as a "rich" person who makes more on the first 50,000 so in that way you are treated "equal".



So my suggestion about under 250,000 pays 0 taxes, and over 250,000 pays 100% taxes...that's also a bracketed system, and under your theory treats everyone equally. But in reality, that's just an illusion. Under the above example, being "treated equally" means Bill Gates gets taxed at 99.99% and Joe Blow gets taxed at 0%.

I disagree that ideally we'd all pay a set dollar amount. One of the proper functions of government is to protect property, so I have no problem with the wealthy paying more, they should pay full fare for the benefits government bestows upon them. That's why I think tax rates are better than set tax amounts. But anything beyond that is redistributive, and as I pointed out above, doesn't in effect treat everyone equally.

Originally posted by hutchins929
Originally posted by suckstobesara

How the fuck much is Joe going to make anyway, I mean honestly you won't go through with your plan to buy a bussiness because of a difference in percentage between the two plans. For it to be a reason you'd eitheir need to make several million or you'd need the small extra money to help with loan payments since you'd take on substainial leverage.

What makes you think that Joe is making $250,000? If he can buy the business then his business will be making that much a year. now take away all of the money he has to spend on insurance, wages for employees, cost for supplies... etc



I'm 90% sure they're talking about 250k of profit after taxes, insurance, wages, ect...

The goverment isn't responsible for the inequality of there wages. Only trying to distribute the burden of taxes in the most effective way. A flat income tax would represent a tax increase for most Americans would you rather those who make less pay more then they currently do? What's your solution to bracketed taxes that a large number countries in the world currently use?

Originally posted by suckstobesara
The goverment isn't responsible for the inequality of there wages. Only trying to distribute the burden of taxes in the most effective way. A flat income tax would represent a tax increase for most Americans would you rather those who make less pay more then they currently do? What's your solution to bracketed taxes that a large number countries in the world currently use?



Again, you term in phrases of increase and decrease because you're using the current system as the baseline and implicitly assuming it to be equitable. You have not, however, established it to be equitable. It's an old political trick. If someone handed every poor person a hundred bucks this year, and then handed every poor person 90 bucks next year, politicians would talk about how it's a DECREASE and why should the poor have DECREASED benefits, which completely misses the point that the system is still favorable to them, perhaps even still unfairly favorable. So you see, my same objection holds. If it were 0-95%, you could still say "Why should we increase taxes on the poor! Increase them on the wealthy, they can afford it!"

Talk in real terms. The wealthy already pay a way higher rate on overall income than the poor. Why is that equitable in the first place, and why should we INCREASE that rate disparity under Obama?

You guys are taking the realities and trying to spin them into false arguments. What if the top 5% were taxed 95%? Give me a fucking break; how can you even rationally use that as your defense? Shut the fuck up. Bring something real to the table, PLEASE.

Hutchins, America has a bright economic future and Obama is going to slow it down and McCain will speed it up? What the fuck kind of bullshit vague generalizations are those? You are fucking awful.

I'm not talking politics to any idiots who deal out such inane bullshit. I'm done.

Originally posted by Admerylous
You guys are taking the realities and trying to spin them into false arguments. What if the top 5% were taxed 95%? Give me a fucking break; how can you even rationally use that as your defense? Shut the fuck up. Bring something real to the table, PLEASE.

I'm not talking politics to any idiots who deal out such inane bullshit. I'm done.

I was not saying it will happen, I was using it to illustrate how you can't just accept the current system as the null and only look at issues in terms of increase and decrease, because it's deceptive and can lead to results that are wholly unjustified on the whole. If you couldn't see that, pal, I'm not the idiot.

Originally posted by Admerylous
You guys are taking the realities and trying to spin them into false arguments. What if the top 5% were taxed 95%? Give me a fucking break; how can you even rationally use that as your defense? Shut the fuck up. Bring something real to the table, PLEASE.

Hutchins, America has a bright economic future and Obama is going to slow it down and McCain will speed it up? What the fuck kind of bullshit vague generalizations are those? You are fucking awful.

I'm not talking politics to any idiots who deal out such inane bullshit. I'm done.

I don't believe that is talking. You just curse me out but you're the one who failed to bring anything to the table. I specificaly said that I believe that taxing small business (Obamas plan) will cost American jobs. thats not a vague generalization. That's my opinion.

Originally posted by tjking82
Originally posted by Admerylous

You guys are taking the realities and trying to spin them into false arguments. What if the top 5% were taxed 95%? Give me a fucking break; how can you even rationally use that as your defense? Shut the fuck up. Bring something real to the table, PLEASE.

I'm not talking politics to any idiots who deal out such inane bullshit. I'm done.

I was not saying it will happen, I was using it to illustrate how you can't just accept the current system as the null and only look at issues in terms of increase and decrease, because it's deceptive and can lead to results that are wholly unjustified on the whole. If you couldn't see that, pal, I'm not the idiot.

If you're willing to offer a solution or alternative idea it's a bit better then simply complaining the current system isn't fair. You need X tax dollars what's your plan make people making almost nothing 20% instead of nothing so you can drop a few pecent for those making millions?

Is the wage disparity between say the bottom 5% and the top 5% fair? Does the salary paid for a pro athelete fair in comparison with a construction worker?

Has our current system really prevented people from waiting to earn more money or innovate or companies from expanding to fill needs/demands? I rarely hear higher tax brackets used as a reason to not invest or work overtime.

Originally posted by suckstobesara
Originally posted by tjking82

Originally posted by Admerylous


You guys are taking the realities and trying to spin them into false arguments. What if the top 5% were taxed 95%? Give me a fucking break; how can you even rationally use that as your defense? Shut the fuck up. Bring something real to the table, PLEASE.

I'm not talking politics to any idiots who deal out such inane bullshit. I'm done.

I was not saying it will happen, I was using it to illustrate how you can't just accept the current system as the null and only look at issues in terms of increase and decrease, because it's deceptive and can lead to results that are wholly unjustified on the whole. If you couldn't see that, pal, I'm not the idiot.

If you're willing to offer a solution or alternative idea it's a bit better then simply complaining the current system isn't fair. You need X tax dollars what's your plan make people making almost nothing 20% instead of nothing so you can drop a few pecent for those making millions?

Is the wage disparity between say the bottom 5% and the top 5% fair? Does the salary paid for a pro athelete fair in comparison with a construction worker?

Has our current system really prevented people from waiting to earn more money or innovate or companies from expanding to fill needs/demands? I rarely hear higher tax brackets used as a reason to not invest or work overtime.

My solution is cut spending. I don't think we can decrease anybody's tax rates until then.

Has our current tax system encouraged companies to outsource jobs overseas? Well, outsourcing is a commonly recognized problem, and raising corporate taxes couldn't help make it MORE affordable to keep jobs here. Has it discouraged innovation? Hard to say. Lots of corporate and individual projects get nixed because they're "not profitable enough" and would be under lower tax rates. Could we have missed the next advancement that makes computers cheap enough for everybody...or makes cars cheaper...or even cures cancer? Entirely possible. We may never know, cause we chose the tax everyone at the top heavy to redistribute to the poor philosophy.

Originally posted by tjking82

My solution is cut spending. I don't think we can decrease anybody's tax rates until then.

Has our current tax system encouraged companies to outsource jobs overseas? Well, outsourcing is a commonly recognized problem, and raising corporate taxes couldn't help make it MORE affordable to keep jobs here. Has it discouraged innovation? Hard to say. Lots of corporate and individual projects get nixed because they're "not profitable enough" and would be under lower tax rates. Could we have missed the next advancement that makes computers cheap enough for everybody...or makes cars cheaper...or even cures cancer? Entirely possible. We may never know, cause we chose the tax everyone at the top heavy to redistribute to the poor philosophy.
That is a great point. Obama wants to raise taxes on everyone making more than 250k a year, including small and big businesses. Put yourself in their shoes. Would you stay here in America and pay 36% in taxes? Or would you move your company to another country, like Ireland, and pay only 11% in taxes? Raising taxes on anyone would be disastrous in these economic times! How many more jobs will be lost? If Obama goes through with his tax plan. I'll be afraid to hear the answer.

Originally posted by hutchins929



That is a great point. Obama wants to raise taxes on everyone making more than 250k a year, including small and big businesses. Put yourself in their shoes. Would you stay here in America and pay 36% in taxes? Or would you move your company to another country, like Ireland, and pay only 11% in taxes? Raising taxes on anyone would be disastrous in these economic times! How many more jobs will be lost? If Obama goes through with his tax plan. I'll be afraid to hear the answer.


Hey, John McCain, I heard you mention that last night. I chuckled a bit when I imagined Joe, the plumber, packing his things up to take his profession to Ireland for their 11% rates. I hear there is a big demand for plumbers out there.

Chuckle all you want but it's a reality. Companies are packing up and moving were it's cheaper. Maybe not Joe the plumber but how many companies have moved to Mexico or India or China. It's a real problem and all you can do is make some joke as a comeback? Your a funny guy. I bet the couple thousand people in Wyoming Michigan who just found out, a couple days ago, that their shop is closing after the end of the year. They wouldn't be laughing if they heard your joke.