A Hannity caller put it beautifully the other day (before the figure went down to $120k) He said,"I own a business that makes more than a quarter of a million dollars. Of course it took 25 years and I went bankrupt twice on the way. Why should I have to be punished for my hard work?"
I tend to disagree. These oil companies already paid the residents for use of the land when they acquired the leases. They already pay taxes on their net income, Why should they pay again?
How much of the North Slope do you think is privately owned? Anyway, my point is that what Alaska did and what B.Hussein proposes are 2 vastly different things. And now, we are suddenly selfish because we don't want to be taxed more and spread the wealth? I already pay plenty of $$ in taxes and it's not my fault if there are people who haven't properly lived their lives in order to provide sufficiently for themselves and their family. No one is born with the right to be taken care of by the Government.
Damn!...I got up this morning to raid my kids' Halloween candy and found what I was looking for...a 100 GRAND candy bar. Unfortunately after all my time and effort digging through their bags, there's was only about 60 GRAND of it left. Obama has ruined my Halloween! :hihi:
The math aint hard. Over 250K and your tax would go back to the level you paid before the Bush welfare for the rich tax cuts. Between 200K and 250K your taxes remain the same. Under 200K your taxes will go down. Thats the Obama tax plan. It's obvious that Biden was using the $150,000 figure as an example of a middle class income, just as he was using the $1.4 million figure as an example of the average wealthy income. He didn't say that only people under 150,000 a year would pay less tax. He said that the average middle-class worker made less than 150,000, which is true. He did not change the figure that Obama has given all along. The McCain campaign is very desperate to try to make this into an issue. Obama's tax plan is on the record. Trying to twist Bidens campaign rhetoric into a last-minute change is an amazing stretch and easily disproven.
Well, you got one part right... You're right, it's completely different. It's taxing successful business and redistributing the wealth, so that people who don't make enough money can survive... Hmmm. :rofl: Yea, you obviously are the only one with a clear view of this - it's not like you're only seeing what you want to see.
That is one thing I disagree with her on. But for the most part, I agree with what she has done. But I would not call it redistribution wealth since she is not taking from some to benefit others.
WTF!? She is taking from the wealthy corporations & giving it to the much-less wealthy residents. HOW IS THIS NOT REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH?
the resources are owned by the collective , not individuals. the owners of the resources benefit when the resources are developed and benefit is shared by all....equally. in the coming days you'll see enough to tell the difference.
