How can you possibly justify voting for a candidate that, without a doubt, will reduce your take home wages by 10% within the first year? With the current budget proposal it would be slightly more than that. I can understand hating Bush, he does not present himself or his values well. But I cannot understand why anyone in my age group would even consider going back to the aggressive taxation of the Clinton and Carter administrations. I would like to find out a reasonable explanation for why the majority of the breadwinners (our group) should bear the brunt of taxation. The Democrats want to repeal the Capital Gains tax and make it ordinary income tax. Do you not have a 401k? The Dems are going after the "trying to get wealthy" not the poor or the wealthy. I just don't understand what ya'll are seeing.
2007-10-26 18:12:54 · 11 answers · asked by Wine and Window Guy 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Fraginal - your vote may be bought for $5000 but not mine.
Informat... In economics, value of money is affected more by the tax rate than the national debt, especially in the US where are debt is secured by our reputation, not by our treasury. But hey, I appreciate my daily dose of liberal propaganda.
Phineas Bogg-
According to Webster's: QUIBBLE: n. an evasion of the main point as by emphasizing some petty detail.
When you can't provide a well reasoned answer to support your indefensible political view, just quibble. It's much easier than changing your mind.
2007-10-26 20:22:11 · answer #1 · answered by smartr-n-u 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I would like to try to answer your question intelligently, but I am unclear on the first few sentences. Could you show where you got the numbers for "will reduce your take home wages by 10% within the first year? With the current budget proposal it would be slightly more than that." To make this 10% calculation you need three things: the income range that you consider to be middle class, the current tax brackets and percentages, and the proposed new tax brackets.
I suppose if you made all of your income in capital gains, and the capital gains tax rates reverted back to normal income taxes, you might get close to a 10% decrease in take home wages. However, I do not know anyone in the middle class who even has capital gains -- let alone middle class people who make all of their money through capital gains. Most folks I know, if they can afford to save, put away what they can in IRAs, 401Ks, and 529s, which are all tax deferred vehicles, exempt from capital gains taxes. You typically only have to pay tax on either the front or back end of these. If you know of some sort of proposal to change the tax status of these, please do post a link.
Thanks!
Naked: Thank you for the swell Scrabble word. I will try to use it sometime. I thought the main point was that the Democrats tax plans will dramatically increase the tax burden on the middle class -- and I simply asked for supporting details. What did you think the main point was?
Furthermore, I have not given my political view, nor have a fully formed it, but I surely won't form it purely on the basis of rhetoric -- I need to see some justification of the asker's assertions.
By your definition of "quibble" I would be quibbling if the asker actually gave the numbers, and I said something like "That only works out to be a 9.83%, not 10%, tax hike!" That would be quibbling! Here's a little tip for you: next time you look up a word in the dictionary (such as "quibble"), if you don't understand all the words in the definition (such as "main" and "point" in this case), go ahead and look them up too.
2007-10-27 02:06:33 · answer #2 · answered by Phineas Bogg 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
I think you really answered your own question. The "breadwinners" bear the brunt of taxation because they are the only group who is expected to pay. The rich aren't going to be critically affected by an increase in their taxes(which would never happen anyway with Republicans in office), and the poor Have nothing extra to give to anyone but their families. So who's left?
2007-10-27 06:39:38 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
This country is supposed to ensure that everyone has an equal chance when starting out, not level the playing field of where you end up. I agree with you. What's the incentive for becoming successful if you're taxed until you're back in the middle class?
2007-10-27 01:46:13 · answer #4 · answered by thor_torkenson 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Dems try to make successful, hard working people who actually want to keep the money they worked hard for feel ashamed that they live a "privileged" life while the leaches of society always have their hand out.
2007-10-27 01:25:06 · answer #5 · answered by Vox Hardin 3 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Hillary Clinton might lower the taxes since she is promising many benefits just the giving 5,000 dollars to new born children.
VOTE for your choice as US President on my 360 degrees blog and know if Hillary will likely win.
2007-10-27 01:18:36 · answer #6 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 2⤊ 5⤋
maybe you'll be able to save a few dollars on taxes with republicans but those dollars won't be worth much because of the debt they rack up.
2007-10-27 01:21:52 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
vote Ron Paul, hes is trying to get rid of the IRS and let you keep your money.
2007-10-27 04:33:53 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
If you base your vote solely on the immediate impact to your paycheck, I can understand your confusion. Others may base their votes on a wider range of issues and priorities.
2007-10-27 01:22:31 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 4⤋
they will get my money against my will because I will not be voting for them.
2007-10-27 01:43:59 · answer #10 · answered by hmm 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋