As well you should be Z. Having different people pay more or less simply isn't fair. In fact I can't see how we actually do this seeing as we bailed on England and went to war because we didn't want to pay taxes ourselves. Or atleast taxes that were unfair and unjust.szhosain wrote: I am a flat tax advocate, as you can tell.
Z
Our CEO makes a base salary of less than 300k (was 243k in '02, too lazy to look up '07).szhosain wrote:So, the average is lower than you might think. This is an example of the Media hype - where using a few examples are used ot imply that all CEO's are extremely wealthy and super-rich people.
Z
Base salary + $XXXXX in bonus and perks right.audtatious wrote:
Our CEO makes a base salary of less than 300k (was 243k in '02, too lazy to look up '07).
He has a bonus plan similar to the rest of us as it's based upon quarterly profit.rn79870 wrote:
Base salary + $XXXXX in bonus and perks right.
Like that idea, do ya Big Fella?WDRacing wrote:
As well you should be Z. Having different people pay more or less simply isn't fair. In fact I can't see how we actually do this seeing as we bailed on England and went to war because we didn't want to pay taxes ourselves. Or atleast taxes that were unfair and unjust.
What I pay, everyone should pay.
COCAINE IS AWSOME
Ugh. To retype every single issue on every single Obama thread... no thanks.C-Kwik wrote:I would ask you to be more specific about these issues you bring up.
The same argument can be used to support a candidate with serious problems, like chronic wife beating.skylndrftr wrote:Alright Qowner lets level. Your literally as bad as telecom. I did post qualifications and you unilaterally threw them out because you decided they weren't qualifications. Your logic: you know somebody in ND who after going to Harvard and being the editor of the Harvard Law review, worked as a civil rights attorney and local activist in one of the nations largest cities and did all the other things that Obama has done in support of this country. Seriously? Your like Telecoms' evil twin.
Heres the reality, you don't like Obama and thats fine. But what your doing is tyring to bash the guy as subtely as possible. Maybe military service is a qualification to you, to me its not (as I already mentioned I think its unimportant/a negative and the reason is that it affects where your loyalties lie. I'll gladly expand on that elsewhere). Thats the thing, to some extent these are personal choices so if nothign else you don't get to question my choice of qualifications and I don't yours.
I'm done arguing with you because its pointless (something about dragging and experience comes to mind) I'm sure you'll call this a win because im giving up but thats just really going to prove my point that your not interested in people answering your question. I would start a what 'What are McCains qualifications' but you would be snorting fire and brimstone and would miss the joke.
[/me in thread]
Hells yeah...smack a b1tchwingFeather wrote:The same argument can be used to support a candidate with serious problems, like chronic wife beating.
"Well, you may think that beating a woman is bad, but personally I feel that women are lesser creatures and deserve to be punished. Therefore, all that matters is that this candidate leads the same lifestyle as I do."
So since the "poor" people can have the option of filing the same way they do now and claim deductions, the flat tax rate really only does benefit the rich and powerful. I have no problem with the rich people keeping their money...it's theirs. But it's hardly a tax solution...it is fair, but it doesn't help everyone. It simply helps the rich keep more money. I'd feel better if there were a way we could simply fix the tax issue for everyone rather then a single group.audtatious wrote:Flat tax usually refers to household income, and possibly corporate profits as well, being taxed at one marginal rate. The problem is with "fairness" in some aspects as this would not necessarily be a progressive tax rate like we have now. Proponents claim that since everybody pays the same rate, it treats everyone equally and thus is fair to everyone. Opponents of the flat tax claim that since the marginal value of income declines with the amount of income (to a poor person, $100 is worth more than to a rich person) then implementing a flat tax is unfair to the poor as they will be paying more money than they currently do.
So, a guy who makes 500k/yr pays 19% flat tax which is $95000 in taxes (has $405k left over). Lower income guy makes 30k/yr pays 19% flat tax which is $5700 (has just over $24k left over). The amount paid by the lower income guy has more impact on his lifestyle than the upper income guy. The current tax system taxes the lower income person less than the upper income guy thus those who oppose flat taxation believes it is more fair to the poor. Of course, the guy making more money does have "loopholes" to lower his overall tax rate due to investments and such which the lower income person does not have. No, there would be no loopholes for the "rich" guy with a flat tax.
Flat tax would be imposed on everyone. There would just be a line drawn where anyone making below "X" would not have to pay a flat federal tax rate. At least that's the way I understand it.WDRacing wrote:
So since the "poor" people can have the option of filing the same way they do now and claim deductions, the flat tax rate really only does benefit the rich and powerful. I have no problem with the rich people keeping their money...it's theirs. But it's hardly a tax solution...it is fair, but it doesn't help everyone. It simply helps the rich keep more money. I'd feel better if there were a way we could simply fix the tax issue for everyone rather then a single group.
Oh, brother. OK, so I went through all 93 posts over 2 days and here's what I came up with:skylndrftr wrote:Alright Qowner lets level.
Lectured on constitutional law. Somewhat different than being a professor and teaching.96Qowner wrote:4.) "-Taught constitutional law"
Primarily lived abroad until he was 10. Otherwise his trips were mostly "visits".96Qowner wrote:7.) "Has lived abroad (especially in a Muslim country). He may have been young but its still the experience.
If I became argumentative, again sorry. Actually, you put your finger on my question:Encryptshun wrote: without knowing what you consider a qualification for president (as opposed to a qualification for a nextdoor neighbor), it's still a matter of you having veto power over anything the Obama-side can ever list. It's like argumentative Calvin-ball.
These people96Qowner wrote:Who would hire a guy that did that?
Per Bob's post, add:96Qowner wrote:1.) "He went to an Ivy league school thats kind of a De Facto qualification"2.) "He is a fantastic orator"3.) "He has also participated in the several levels of government from the grassroots level on up as opposed to jumping right into a senate role."4.) "-Taught constitutional law"5.) "worked to foster neighborhood development throughout his life.6.) "Worked as a civil rights attorney"7.) "Has lived abroad (especially in a Muslim country). He may have been young but its still the experience.8.) "Is not and Has not been involved with military leadership
Making it sound like Obama's party has never failed America. I seem to recall his party being the one letting the captured bin Laden go... likely helping to fuel the whole mess we're in now.rn79870 wrote:To the list I add that Obama has not been part of an administration that has failed the American people for the last 8 years. He brings none of the baggage, nor any of the skeletons that come from familiarity with the failed administration. He severs the ties of failure that have held America away from world respect and allow us to be a positive influence on the international community. McCain carries the stigma of the failed administration for a reason, he's part of it.
Few people who attempt to live off 20K of taxable income per year would complain about being able to afford to pay 3.5 times that in taxes while still having 9 times that to actually live off of. I'd venture to guess that if a person who made $250K/year were suddenly put into a situation where he could only muster up $20K per year of income for the rest of their life, he would likely change their outlook on taxes.szhosain wrote:Indeed, in the above example, his tax payment $ is MORE than the taxable income of the other person. Why is this considered unfair? The benefit received by that more than 10X payment is not 10X - frankly, the ROI is horrible.
My fault for not being more specific. But I do believe you understand who I was referring to. But just so that we're clear, I'll define it as broadly as large corporations.szhosain wrote:Um, no. Not accurate. Please don't assume that the large corporations CEO salaries are the norm for all businesses. In fact, the average small to mid-size businesses, whose totals far outnumber the large corporations, have CEO salaries that are less than that by a lot.
So, the average is lower than you might think. This is an example of the Media hype - where using a few examples are used ot imply that all CEO's are extremely wealthy and super-rich people.
From my observations, its a two-way street we are on. You've been asked what you define as qualifications for President and have essentially avoided the question. Those you are asking for Obama's qualifications have answered your question. Perhaps not to your liking or satisfaction, but they have answered. So who is really avoiding the questions? If you're quest is for a good discussion and answers, then you might share with us what matters most to you. Then perhaps those you ask the questions to can be more specific about the qualifications you want to hear about most.96Qowner wrote:When I ask Obama supporters for his qualifications, they never give them to me. Instead, they ask questions, as if they didn't understand me. Like you, they just don't want to try to answer. Like you, they'll try to change the subject. Like you, they'll talk about anyone BUT Obama. Here we are, almost 100 posts later, and you're still trying to change the subject.
Sorry, but I really can't understand what is SO DIFFICULT about the question.96Qowner wrote:When I ask Obama supporters for his qualifications, they never give them to me. Instead, they ask questions, as if they didn't understand me.
96Qowner wrote:I assume no such thing. I'm just asking if ANY Obama supporters can actually list ANY qualifications. I was hoping for something more meaningful than he's smart or educated or talks pretty, or worked as an organizer in the Chicago black community until he could start running for political office. Whether Obama is qualified has nothing to do with any opponent.
And so we're clear here, you acknowledged a response from the Obama guys here:96Qowner wrote:Well, if that's all you can come up with, he IS unqualified. You described a rather ordinary American citizen. A guy with all of those qualifications lives on my block in my modest neighborhood in Fargo, ND. No way should he be President. He wouldn't have a clue.
And you've again dismissed it. Which is fine. But don't expect others to jump on your bandwagon as a result. Dismissing it without reasoning lowers your credibility here. But if you want to address the qualifications that you are judging this on, then you need to come forth with your metrics. Give Obama supporters a chance to prove you wrong. If you have a strong case, you needn't worry about what the responses will be. In fact, so long as you provide reasonable metrics (Being old and white would not be one of them for example ), it would further strengthen your arguments. Your position is not much different than pleading the fifth. Its a strategy that might work when working with a standard of proof that is beyond a reasonable doubt, but not enough to hold water to a preponderance of evidence.96Qowner wrote:
Oh, brother. OK, so I went through all 93 posts over 2 days and here's what I came up with:
1.) "He went to an Ivy league school thats kind of a De Facto qualification"2.) "He is a fantastic orator"3.) "He has also participated in the several levels of government from the grassroots level on up as opposed to jumping right into a senate role."4.) "-Taught constitutional law"5.) "worked to foster neighborhood development throughout his life.6.) "Worked as a civil rights attorney"7.) "Has lived abroad (especially in a Muslim country). He may have been young but its still the experience.8.) "Is not and Has not been involved with military leadership (rather dubious as a qualification)
Have I missed anything? Step back a minute and ask yourselves if these 8 qualify him to be President. Usually, we expect more ... don't we?
When I say that this election is between McCain and an unqualified guy, how am I incorrect? Would anyone with these qualifications (like my neighbor) be suitable to run for President, or is Obama somehow special?
I apologize for the hurt feelings, guys ... just trying to get people to respond. There's an entire page of posts that have nothing to do with the thread topic. I asserted that Obama fans don;t like to talk about his qualifications. More than one poster seems angry that he's been called to task. That's ok with me as long as y'all acknowledge that you just don't care whether he's qualified or not.
Again the same applies to you. It's hypocritical to ask this and not consider that you've also been asked a simple question to help further this discussion.96Qowner wrote:Sorry, but I really can't understand what is SO DIFFICULT about the question.
That last paragraph applies to you too...wingFeather wrote:Ugh. To retype every single issue on every single Obama thread... no thanks.
