• Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum! If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page. Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.

Tax Plans

buschwhaked

NAXJA Forum User
Location
Colorado Springs
So in light of the recent bashing point email forwards posted, I thought we might try to have a civil discussion on the differences between the canditates on what matters most: money.

I was doing some research and found a report put out by the tax policy center, a non-partisan tax policy think tank formed by the Urban and Brookings Insitute. The link to the report is:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411741_updated_candidates.pdf

Now, I'm not going to lie and tell you I read the whole report, most was over my head. But two charts really stuck out to me. It's the annual savings in 2009 according to the current tax proposals the candidates have put forward, assuming they are enacted.

According to these, I'll save a pretty sizable chunk of cash if Obama get's elected compared to McCain. Am I (they) wrong?

McCain's Plan:
mcc.jpg


Obama's Plan:
obama.jpg


Please, keep this civil. This thread is not about Iraq, Al Qaeda, or your Mom, just tax policy. Ideally, there will be no name calling, clever name substitutions (Obama/Osama, McCain/McBush), or just random bouts of hate. Please use reason, logic, and if neccessary, sources, in order to state your opinion. In other words, be civil.
 
If you believe everything you read the Oregonian is the paper for YOU!


BTW...who is running Taxpolicy.org? You might want to see if it's George Sorros.
 
red91 said:
If you believe everything you read the Oregonian is the paper for YOU!

And my intent fails already...wow, has to be a record. To re-enforce the OP:

Buschwhaked said:
Please use reason, logic, and if neccessary, sources, in order to state your opinion.
 
red91 said:
BTW...who is running Taxpolicy.org? You might want to see if it's George Sorros.

Didn't see your edit...and once again, from the original post:

Buschwhaked said:
found a report put out by the tax policy center, a non-partisan tax policy think tank formed by the Urban and Brookings Insitute.

I should quit.
 
Nothing is ever as "non partisan" as it seems.


WOO HOO DEAD on page 1!

I think I've set my all time new thread kill record with this one....


and for the record...think tank is an oxymoron.

What is not logical about "don't believe everything you read?"
 
red91 said:
Nothing is ever as "non partisan" as it seems.


WOO HOO DEAD on page 1!

I think I've set my all time new thread kill record with this one....


and for the record...think tank is an oxymoron.

What is not logical about "don't believe everything you read?"

Ok, I'm not saying you're wrong, or you're opinions are invalid, you just need to support them with more than a flat statement. It usually goes like this: I think this is crap because a different study done by the Red91 Institute states this. Their research seems more valid because they have a history of highly accurate analysis.

Sources:

-wiki source
-wiki source
 
buschwhaked said:
Ok, I'm not saying you're wrong, or you're opinions are invalid, you just need to support them with more than a flat statement. It usually goes like this: I think this is crap because a different study done by the Red91 Institute states this. Their research seems more valid because they have a history of highly accurate analysis.

Sources:

-wiki source
-wiki source
Trust me, you want no part of the research done at the Red91 Institute.
 
Darky said:
Trust me, you want no part of the research done at the Red91 Institute.


Politics are not our fortay here at the Red91 institute. We concentrate on Gynecology.


and don't believe everything you read is a very valid point.
 
red91 said:
Politics are not our fortay here at the Red91 institute. We concentrate on Gynecology.


and don't believe everything you read is a very valid point.

Anybody have a point of contention to make on this besides "don't believe everything you read?"
 
buschwhaked said:
Anybody have a point of contention to make on this besides "don't believe everything you read?"
The Red91 Institute is run by a bunch of Jews. Its funding is miniscule at best.
 
I see the problem, the tax laws are written by asshats who have to continue justifying their jobs and making it as complicated as possible. I look at those tables and think 'Do I really want to spend the time figuring out who's trying to screw me'... the answer is 545....
 
RichP said:
I see the problem, the tax laws are written by asshats who have to continue justifying their jobs and making it as complicated as possible. I look at those tables and think 'Do I really want to spend the time figuring out who's trying to screw me'... the answer is 545....

O-TAY
 
TRNDRVR said:
The Red91 Institute is run by a bunch of Jews. Its funding is miniscule at best.


That could be but we control all of the Porn you buy...don't forget.

Oh...and we own most of Manhattan !
 
it's a deal then, consumption tax, with food an alcohol excluded. I'm putting all my money into Jack Daniels, I'll call it liquid investments
 
Mstrkage said:
it's a deal then, consumption tax, with food an alcohol excluded. I'm putting all my money into Jack Daniels, I'll call it liquid investments


And people say I'm argumentative, and a dissident.

Go figure....

alcohol is a great subject here at NAXJA with many resident experts !

You just have to know how to pick a subject that most of us can relate to.
 
Back
Top