Home Non Cigar Related

Puro's Rants

2456751

Comments

  • sanesane Posts: 151
    kuzi16:
    sane:
    Also for the BS about Joe the plumber, if you look at most small business's 90% or more make a NET profit of less then $250k so they will not see an increase in taxes in most cases they will see a drop.
    im fairly sure that statement is not true.
    According to the IRS the top 5% of people that pay taxes pay an average of $142,975 as of 2004. Now that is all people not just small business and as you can see it is mush less then the $250,000 mark. I could not find statistics on only small businesses but according to the IRS as of 2003 there where 27,486,691 business filing taxes, out of that there ware 2,316,395 businesses that filed taxes that had a NET income over $250,000. Now this is not only small businesses this is S corps, C corp, partnerships, etc... so I may have been off a bit on the 90% but it is close.

    Sources:
    http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/bustaxstats/article/0,,id=168008,00.html
    http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/03intbus.pdf
    Some other info can be found here:
    http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Owner,_Small_Business/Salary
  • dutyjedutyje Posts: 2,263
    sane:
    kuzi16:
    a police state? how so?
    I feel that McCain will continue down the same path that Bush has lead us down for the past 8 years. Bush has moved us closer to being a police state then any other president over the last 50 or more years.

    What makes me think we are moving towards a police state? well lets take the patriot act that was a big jump, and then we can look at Guantanamo, or the blatant push to allow spying and detaining of US citizens. You can also look at what the police are getting away with, look at the WTO protests in Seattle. There is also the problem with private military gaining power and influence in the US.

    Those are just some reasons why I think we are moving towards being a police state.
    While I completely disagree with your premise, Sane (moving toward a police state), it is interesting to see you structure an argument that is as valid as the classic "Socialism!!" that is being brought against Democrats.

    I just think people like to throw out powerful, scary words rather than dissect actual issues. The words "Socialism" and "Police State" carry negative connotations, and represent an extremist view of more centrist policies, meant to scare people into believing in one side versus another.
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,633 ✭✭✭✭
    sane:
    kuzi16:
    sane:
    Also for the BS about Joe the plumber, if you look at most small business's 90% or more make a NET profit of less then $250k so they will not see an increase in taxes in most cases they will see a drop.
    im fairly sure that statement is not true.
    According to the IRS the top 5% of people that pay taxes pay an average of $142,975 as of 2004. Now that is all people not just small business and as you can see it is mush less then the $250,000 mark. I could not find statistics on only small businesses but according to the IRS as of 2003 there where 27,486,691 business filing taxes, out of that there ware 2,316,395 businesses that filed taxes that had a NET income over $250,000. Now this is not only small businesses this is S corps, C corp, partnerships, etc... so I may have been off a bit on the 90% but it is close.

    Sources:
    http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/bustaxstats/article/0,,id=168008,00.html
    http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/03intbus.pdf
    Some other info can be found here:
    http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Owner,_Small_Business/Salary
    ill see if i can find more on this. its bound to make me think. ... and thats good.
  • sanesane Posts: 151
    dutyje:
    While I completely disagree with your premise, Sane (moving toward a police state), it is interesting to see you structure an argument that is as valid as the classic "Socialism!!" that is being brought against Democrats.

    I just think people like to throw out powerful, scary words rather than dissect actual issues. The words "Socialism" and "Police State" carry negative connotations, and represent an extremist view of more centrist policies, meant to scare people into believing in one side versus another.
    I agree that "Socialism" and "Police state" are used too frequently as a way to scare someone into believing one point of view. I am not trying to make anyone believe my point of view, I am just sharing my toughs on the madder at hand. I am pointing out what I believe and I have no intention to swaying anyone's views. I long ago gave up on trying to change peoples point of views and have switched to sharing my point of view with people that will lesson so they may see a side that they have not thought of or contemplated yet.

    Dutyje and kuzi16 someday I hope to meet you two so we can have a good conversation on some of these topics or others. I enjoy talking with people that don't see eye to eye with me and are confident enough to express there points of view.
  • sanesane Posts: 151
    kuzi16:
    ill see if i can find more on this. its bound to make me think. ... and thats good.
    I'm guess you probably will but please let me know what you find, if I'm wrong I would like to know.
  • dutyjedutyje Posts: 2,263
    sane:
    I enjoy talking with people that don't see eye to eye with me and are confident enough to express there points of view.
    Hey, I only told y'all what I weigh.. I didn't make any mention of my height anywhere
  • sanesane Posts: 151
    dutyje:
    sane:
    I enjoy talking with people that don't see eye to eye with me and are confident enough to express there points of view.
    Hey, I only told y'all what I weigh.. I didn't make any mention of my height anywhere
    true, lol.
  • dutyjedutyje Posts: 2,263
    This "Joe the Plumber" has really caught on as a focal point in the campaigns.

    You can see his real story here. To summarize:

    1. The guy makes nowhere near $250K
    2. He would also make nowhere near $250K if he were to buy the business which isn't really even being sold to him.
    3. Even if he did manage to make $250-$280K, you'd still have to look deeper at the numbers to see if he would pay any more money in taxes.
    4. In all likelihood, if the business were pulling $280K, its additional tax outlay ($900) would be more than offset by other credits in Obama's plan, and he would still pay less annually in taxes than under current tax laws.

    So, in other words, no matter how you look at it, Joe the Plumber will be better off, financially, under Obama.
  • sanesane Posts: 151
    Thanks dutyje for the link I just heard basically the same think on NPR, I started to laugh.
  • FourtotheflushFourtotheflush Posts: 2,555
    Wow Puros rants sure has sparked some good debates here! Love it, keep up the ranting!
  • urbinourbino Posts: 4,517
    dutyje:
    This "Joe the Plumber" has really caught on as a focal point in the campaigns.

    You can see his real story here. To summarize:

    1. The guy makes nowhere near $250K
    2. He would also make nowhere near $250K if he were to buy the business which isn't really even being sold to him.
    3. Even if he did manage to make $250-$280K, you'd still have to look deeper at the numbers to see if he would pay any more money in taxes.
    4. In all likelihood, if the business were pulling $280K, its additional tax outlay ($900) would be more than offset by other credits in Obama's plan, and he would still pay less annually in taxes than under current tax laws.

    So, in other words, no matter how you look at it, Joe the Plumber will be better off, financially, under Obama.
    And his name's not Joe. And he's not a plumber (not a licensed one, anyway).

    (BTW, Doody, the / goes in front of the tag -- i.e. /a not a/.)
  • dutyjedutyje Posts: 2,263
    urbino:
    dutyje:
    This "Joe the Plumber" has really caught on as a focal point in the campaigns.

    You can see his real story here. To summarize:

    1. The guy makes nowhere near $250K
    2. He would also make nowhere near $250K if he were to buy the business which isn't really even being sold to him.
    3. Even if he did manage to make $250-$280K, you'd still have to look deeper at the numbers to see if he would pay any more money in taxes.
    4. In all likelihood, if the business were pulling $280K, its additional tax outlay ($900) would be more than offset by other credits in Obama's plan, and he would still pay less annually in taxes than under current tax laws.

    So, in other words, no matter how you look at it, Joe the Plumber will be better off, financially, under Obama.
    And his name's not Joe. And he's not a plumber (not a licensed one, anyway).

    (BTW, Doody, the / goes in front of the tag -- i.e. /a not a/.)
    Thanks, Urby... I know my (basic) HTML, it was just a typo when I put in that link... I also tend to put the extra '/' on my line breaks, just to make them well-formed, even though I'm about the only dork in the world who does that.
  • Bad AndyBad Andy Posts: 848
    Joe has said that he wants to buy his bosses business. So if he did and he grew the business like business owners generally do, he would end up paying more. I think he said a lot because was talking about the potential to earn more money but why earn more money if its just going to be taxed away.

    We had a local 'Joe the Plumber' story here in the paper yesterday. He made over 250K, has 10 employees but is still struggling partially because of the economy right now. So if he was taxed more right now, it seems to me he would have let a couple go to pay the taxes.

    I know when I worked for the phone company and I worked over time I had to watch how much OT I accrued. Less than 5 hrs of OT I could see some of it. If I worked 5-15 hrs OT I saw a lot less than I worked and that includes 10+ hors of OT was double time.
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,633 ✭✭✭✭
    ANY tax increase on ANYONE will harm the economy.

    ...and im looking at voting records here. Obama has voted to raise taxes something like 94 times since he got in the senate about two years ago.

    one of those times about a year ago was to tax families that make about 40K or so.

    also, if he lets the Bush tax cuts expire it will be the largest tax increase in US history, costing the average family of 4 making $40K - 50k about $2000 annually.

    also with the number of government programs that he wants to grow there is no way he cannot raise taxes when he implements those programs.

    AND, if you tax a corporation, that corporation will not just grin and bare the cost. to pay the tax they will raise their prices making goods and services cost more to the general public who is already complaining that the economy is bringing them down.



    just trying to spread the wealth around...
  • dutyjedutyje Posts: 2,263
    Bad Andy, your example is mathematically impossible. The tax brackets are progressive. Therefore you would only be taxed a higher percentage on the amount above the lower bracket. Let's create an easy example so everybody can understand:

    Let's pretend there are 3 tax brackets: 15%, 20%, and 25%.

    Let's pretend the first bracket applies to income under $20K, the second applies to income $20,001-$40K, and the third applies to income over $40K.

    Let's now pretend that a person, we'll call him Andy, makes $20,000 this year, while some other person, we'll call him Joe, makes $21,000 this year.

    Andy is in the 15% tax bracket, and owes $3,000 in taxes, creating a net income of $17K
    However, Joe does NOT owe $4,200 in taxes (20% of $21,000) for a net income of $16,800. Joe owes $3,000 (15% of $20K) plus an additional $200 (20% of $1K), for a total of $3,200 in taxes, creating a net income of $17,800.

    In other words, it is not possible to reduce your income by making more money, even if that extra income pushes you into a higher tax bracket.

    "Joe the Plumber", by forecasting a 280% increase in revenue on this business he hasn't even purchased, is **** about paying, in all likelihood, less taxes under Obama than under our current system, even if his outlandish prediction were to come true.

    Kuzi, if Obama raises taxes, but then creates a nationalized health care system, nobody would need to use private money to pay for their health care. Businesses wouldn't be paying for health plans. So that money would be a wash, and you can't find anything but conjecture that would tell you otherwise.
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,633 ✭✭✭✭
    dutyje:
    Kuzi, if Obama raises taxes, but then creates a nationalized health care system, nobody would need to use private money to pay for their health care. Businesses wouldn't be paying for health plans. So that money would be a wash, and you can't find anything but conjecture that would tell you otherwise.
    i can look at every socialized system that exists or has existed in the past and show you that they are inefficiant, opressive, and have failed. this one will too. not to mention that i dont want Uncle Sam to tell me who what when how or where i can/cannot see a doctor. if you think that wont happen, look at both Canada and England, where the system worked for a moment... then when it started to fail, as all socialized systems do, they tried to cut corners by denying health care to people that are a drain on the system due to their own behaivior. ...i.e. smokers in the later years of their life, alcaholics, people with terminal disease... this effects us.


    not to mention waiting lists and the infinite demand that this will create because of "free" healthcare. ... that will drive the cost up.

    like all social systems, it looks good on paper, but will fail.

    if you dont think this is true, just watch what happens to health care if that system takes hold. its only a matter of time.

    any time the government puts its hands in a system it has mucked it up. this is no different. Its not the Goverment's job to interfere with private lives and systems.
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,633 ✭✭✭✭
    dutyje:
    ... and you can't find anything but conjecture that would tell you otherwise.
    I cant?
    just as i hit "post" i heard on the radio that Hawaii has dropped their universal health care for children because it has failed. It seems that anyone in hawaii that could not afford or did not have health care for their kid could get it for free through the state. because people could get it for free the people WITH private health care dropped it and went for the state run health care... cos it was free. there was a huge demand in hawaii for it; so much so that the state could not keep up.
  • dutyjedutyje Posts: 2,263
    kuzi16:
    i dont want Uncle Sam to tell me who what when how or where i can/cannot see a doctor.
    You're right... it's better to have an insurance company tell you the same thing.
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,633 ✭✭✭✭
    dutyje:
    kuzi16:
    i dont want Uncle Sam to tell me who what when how or where i can/cannot see a doctor.
    You're right... it's better to have an insurance company tell you the same thing.
    but i have a choice on what company to choose. and if i dont like what i hear i can change my company or just drop it all together. when its government run i will have less or no choices.

    for example. I smoke cigars. my insurance company is OK with that and charges me less than others that are not. I have that choice. i wont if its a government run system. i have to take what they dish out.
  • dutyjedutyje Posts: 2,263
    kuzi16:
    dutyje:
    kuzi16:
    i dont want Uncle Sam to tell me who what when how or where i can/cannot see a doctor.
    You're right... it's better to have an insurance company tell you the same thing.
    but i have a choice on what company to choose. and if i dont like what i hear i can change my company or just drop it all together. when its government run i will have less or no choices.

    for example. I smoke cigars. my insurance company is OK with that and charges me less than others that are not. I have that choice. i wont if its a government run system. i have to take what they dish out.
    I don't have a choice of providers. I need to choose whatever is offered by my employer. If I try to go through a private provider, my annual costs are astronomical ($40K+ for my family) because I have MS.
  • Bad AndyBad Andy Posts: 848
    Um ok. I know I was taxed more when I made more. Period. Math and Taxes are notthe same thing. Where math is pretty standard and logical, taxes are not and essentially opposite. It's just that taxes are so complicated.

    You can change insurance companies. It may be expensive but you can still change.
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,633 ✭✭✭✭
    dutyje:
    kuzi16:
    dutyje:
    kuzi16:
    i dont want Uncle Sam to tell me who what when how or where i can/cannot see a doctor.
    You're right... it's better to have an insurance company tell you the same thing.
    but i have a choice on what company to choose. and if i dont like what i hear i can change my company or just drop it all together. when its government run i will have less or no choices.

    for example. I smoke cigars. my insurance company is OK with that and charges me less than others that are not. I have that choice. i wont if its a government run system. i have to take what they dish out.
    I don't have a choice of providers. I need to choose whatever is offered by my employer. If I try to go through a private provider, my annual costs are astronomical ($40K+ for my family) because I have MS.
    then you have MADE THE CHOICE to go through a company that does not give you everything you want because of a cost factor. its still your choice to go through them. if you are willing to pay more then you can choose to go to another company.
  • dutyjedutyje Posts: 2,263
    kuzi16:
    dutyje:
    kuzi16:
    dutyje:
    kuzi16:
    i dont want Uncle Sam to tell me who what when how or where i can/cannot see a doctor.
    You're right... it's better to have an insurance company tell you the same thing.
    but i have a choice on what company to choose. and if i dont like what i hear i can change my company or just drop it all together. when its government run i will have less or no choices.

    for example. I smoke cigars. my insurance company is OK with that and charges me less than others that are not. I have that choice. i wont if its a government run system. i have to take what they dish out.
    I don't have a choice of providers. I need to choose whatever is offered by my employer. If I try to go through a private provider, my annual costs are astronomical ($40K+ for my family) because I have MS.
    then you have MADE THE CHOICE to go through a company that does not give you everything you want because of a cost factor. its still your choice to go through them. if you are willing to pay more then you can choose to go to another company.
    But the point is that, regardless of provider, the expected value of the services provided is less than the amount you pay out of pocket. Since I have a high expected value for provided services, I am saddled with a high out-of-pocket cost. The system is fair when you're talking about a fluke accident or illness here or there that is not predictable. When you have a known cost for medication approaching $20K/year, there is no equitable choice.
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,633 ✭✭✭✭
    so you would rather let someone else pay for your health care via government mandate and taxes?
  • dutyjedutyje Posts: 2,263
    Alright, I have to stay out of this discussion. I am trying to use facts to support my argument, and all I can get back is that "I know I had a lower net income with a higher gross income" and examples of "failure" in the healthcare systems of countries like Canada, despite the fact that they still rank higher than the U.S. in the independent study conducted by the WHO. Facts. Gripe all you want about those systems not working as well as they should "in theory" and I'll do the same about our current system. The fact is that the systems in those countries are working better.
  • dutyjedutyje Posts: 2,263
    kuzi16:
    so you would rather let someone else pay for your health care via government mandate and taxes?
    No... I think it should all be individually privatized. Enough with this insurance crap, which is like a half-socialization anyway. That is to say, everybody should be responsible for their own healthcare out of their own pocket. And if somebody's kid gets cancer, *** 'em.

    If we're gonna take this socialism bullshit to the extreme, I get to take the capitalist bullshit to the extreme, too.
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,633 ✭✭✭✭
    dutyje:
    No... I think it should all be individually privatized...
    who is going to pay for it when you can get it for "free" through the government? thats what happened in Hawaii.
    dutyje:
    And if somebody's kid gets cancer, *** 'em.
    in a way it sounds harsh. but this is what charity is for. the difference is that charity isnt government mandated. i have a choice to give to it (and i do actually participate in our local MS walk every year BTW)

    you are right about it being half socialized anyway. i could make an argument that its all messed up right now BECAUSE of the government involvement.

  • Bad AndyBad Andy Posts: 848
    ok, works for me. the market, consumers, supply, demand would allow for the prices to come down. the kid with cancer would not go without, people would not allow that to happen. there would be donations and charity groups to help, they help already, why would they stop.
  • dutyjedutyje Posts: 2,263
    Bad Andy:
    ok, works for me. the market, consumers, supply, demand would allow for the prices to come down. the kid with cancer would not go without, people would not allow that to happen. there would be donations and charity groups to help, they help already, why would they stop.
    Donations and charity? What are you some kinda Commie? Capitalists unite! If that kid can't afford a half dozen aggressive rounds of chemo and a year and a half in the hospital in addition to a number of surgeries, they're just dragging down the economy.

    I wonder how many of Joe the Plumber's buddies would have to pitch in a hundred bucks to help out of one of his kids gets cancer? I hope he's got some rich friends. I'm sure a lot of people working minimum wage jobs are swimming in rich friends that can help them pull through a costly accident or illness.
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,633 ✭✭✭✭
    i wonder how many thousands of dollars the taxpayers will be forced to give up so that same child can have chemo. I wonder how many illnesses that are unexpected out there that will also cost thousands more for those same tax payers. I wonder how many people will go to the doctor that never have before because cost was an issue thus rasing demand on doctors and thus price.

    and like i said, charity isnt government mandated. thats a very big difference.
Sign In or Register to comment.