... as we rush headlong into Socialism, something that thousands of men ended up giving up their life to protect us again. Now we are willingly embrasing a concept that has failed everywhere it has been tried as a nation... how sad.

Be careful what you ask for because you may end up getting it.

I couldn't disagree more.  For the first time in months I see hope for America and the world.

I agree, America is screwed.

keep in mind that the President is not a dictator, the only way Obama can make significant changes is with the support of the ENTIRE Democratic Party. I anticipate very little change. As for all the people that were voting for CHANGE, We now  have a liberal democrat President, like Clinton, like Carter, like Johnson. BFD if you know what I mean.

I expect reality will set in before too long and we will lurch along the middle of the road.  I survived the inexperience of Carter, I can susvive anything.

True, the Prez isn't a dictator but he is much more like one when his party has control of both house and senate.

The original premise of this thread is true enough.  This is a Sad Sad day for America; doubly so for those who fought for (what should have been) our freedom.

---

An ascendant man, living in a degenerate age, MUST, by definition, live in contradistinction to his times.

I don't have much money, so there's only so much he can take from me, but the two friends I have who own companies are selling down to move money somewhere else, as they don't want to forfeit everything they have worked so hard to build.

One of them is going to try to sell his business within the year, because he expects the tax rates to kill him within two years.

"Good Morning America" did a segment on a young couple, a doctor and a lawyer, who were struggling to make ends meet because they had over $500,000 in student loans. Their student loans were almost $6,000 per month, so they had to earn almost $100,000 JUST TO PAY THE LOAN DEBT after taxes. Under Obama, those poor kids are totally screwed. They would have been WAY better off if they skipped all that school and just became carpenters. Now, about the time they're earning enough to live like regular folks earning $70,000 they'll be getting reamed by the new tax structure, as they'll be considered part of the new rich. (Student loans are not tax-deductible, and the new Obama doesn't care what you had to sacrifice to get where you are. If you're earning more, you don't deserve it. Whatever you earn gets to pay for the lazy guy who never did anything but smoke weed. That's the new fairness...to each according to his WANT, and from each according to his industry. Like I said, I'm glad I don't have much, because I'd be really pissed if I worked and saved only to have the socialists tell me I have to give it to somebody else.

We have been "hurtling" towards "socialism" for decades.

What do you call medicare? Food stamps? Aid to families? Social Security? All of these are noble and beneficial programs, and all of them are "socialist".

Before people start panicking and screaming about a socialist agenda, they really need to understand exactly what that means. In simple terms socialism is the public/government ownership of industry, banks, transportation, media, schools, and medical facilities. It does not mean ALL of these kinds of businesses, just the large, dominant players. Think Microsoft and Boeing, not Joe the Plumber. Once these behemoths are government owned, they are streamlined and told what to produce, when to produce it, and at what price to sell the goods.

Sorry, but I don't see the Obama administration buying up a company like Microsoft and telling it how, when and at what price to produce the next version of Windows. (Altho, god knows all of our PCs might be better off if this did happen!) However, the CURRENT Bush administration is buying up interests in american financial companies and banks to the tune of over 800 BILLION dollars. This too is socialism. So are public schools, county health facilities, public transportation, etc etc.

Finally, I think people are confusing their socialism with their communism.

Hmmm. My dad's a CPA & according to him it would be pretty hard for a "small business" to net 250K in profit after tax deductions, depreciation, wages, donations, etc. Same goes for personal income taxes as well. Especially in today's economy.

Dad sat down & piece mealed together what both candidates would do regarding income taxes. My parents would have PAID $400 more in income taxes under McCain's new rules, and RECEIVED $1800 more under Obama's. Dad suggests if you are some of the lucky few that are near this 250K benchmark, then perhaps you should think about donating to a tax deductable cause to bring your net worth under that line.

And thanks to OregonWoods for the posting. You are correct; people are getting Communism and Socialism mixed up.

"I put my faith in the people, but the people let me down......

....So I turn the other way and I carry on,..... anyhow!

I just wanna celebrate.  Yeah - Yeah!  Another day of Livin'!  Yeahhhhhh " (before it's taxed and illegalized)

 

(P.S.  Communism is always Socialism, Socialism is not always Communism.)

---

An ascendant man, living in a degenerate age, MUST, by definition, live in contradistinction to his times.

OregonWoods:

...Finally, I think people are confusing their socialism with their communism.

I think that's right. As Obama said in several speeches before he realized he had any chance of being a presidential contender, he means to redistribute the wealth. "Joe the Plumber" will lose, because his gross income is on the wrong side of Obama's current $250,000 line.

That income line was set based on the number of potential voters below it. To the average welfare recipient or college student, "a quarter of a million dollars" is a staggering amount of money. To the professional couple with $500,000 in student loans, or a small business owner who had to get a second mortgage and a business loan to buy a $400,000 plumbing business, a $250,000 income is barely enough to meet debt-service and keep the lights on, but they don't care.

At some level almost everybody believes in wealth redistribution, the question is where the line is drawn and what the limits are. I listen to talk radio at the job-site, and I regularly hear people call in advocating for simple communism. They say things like, "Why should he make so much? They (government) should take everything over $50,000 and give it to other people, like me, who don't make as much." That's communism. I think the phrase references above was actually, "From each according to his ability and to each according to his needs." Many in this country are leaning that direction... especially those who do little or contribute nothing. I can tell you this: I currently work between 50 and 60 hours per week, longer in the summer when there is usually more construction work. I employ two other carpenters and a clean-up kid today, and we're still busy, but I'm planning to dissolve my company and go back to "handyman" status as soon as the tax machine gets geared up. Our gross income was almost $400,000 last year. By the time we paid the employee taxes, truck payments, bond/insurance payments and other business expenses my family averaged about $7,000 per month in spendable money, and that has to fund our retirement. I have no expectation "social security will be solvent in nine years when I can start collecting it and even if it is, I don't want to live on cat food.

I feel pretty good about $7,000 per month, but it's taken great risks, thirty years and long hours to get there. My wife does our invoicing and books too, so it's really two people working for it.

When you're pandering to the unemployed, welfare-set and student set, it's easy to make people like me the villian, but we're a big part of the engine that feeds their families, and we're very, very tired.

Our present plan is to unwind the business as quickly as possible. I'm fond of our employees, and I enjoy my work, but I'm not going to let the government speed me into bankruptcy if I can help it. Under Obama I'll be much better off if I'm doing less and earning less. The silver lining is I'll be working much less and spending more time with my wonderful wife of twenty-nine years.

Here are two great quotes to ponder as we ride off the cliff:
“To ruin those who possess something is not to come to the aid of those who possess nothing; it is only to render misery general.”
–Klemens Von Metternich

“Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.”
–F. A. Hayek

Horsey,I feel you are quite wrong in your understanding of income taxes,present and proposed.

To close your business is foolish in the extreme....there is no new tax program yet!

I have not seen a proposal form anyone that taxes GROSS income,only NET income as now.

You seem to understand some of it, your gross minus expenses,wages,etc. equals your income,$7k per month for two people, which you state is for retirement as well.(Your retirement accounts (IRA) are tax defered and reduce your net income more, look into this),but going with your $7k number....I see $3.5k each for you and your wife.That comes to $42k net income per year on my calculator, and there is still personal deduction on the tax form...

$42k or even $84k is way way below the $250k cap for a proposed increase(which figures I saw proposed 4% increase from current 35 to 39%.

Horsey, you would have to net another $166k from your business to encounter a 4% increase.4% is hardly shattering in itself, and you are166k short of seeing that increase anyway,so don't go stampeding off the cliff...

 

Thanks for the advice, and I don't intend to jump into anything, but I have an accountant, and a better grasp then you might think.

First, we don't get to deduct all of our costs, just qualified costs, so we'll be taxed on much of the money that isn't really take home money, just as Oregon taxes me on income I've already paid in taxes to the federal government. They do it because they can, not because it's fair.

The lawyer/doctor pair in the above example are the perfect example of how to get screwed. Their student loan payments, which amount to nearly what my wife and I take home, are not tax-deductible for them, even though they had no other way to afford the $500,000++ it cost to get them both through the eight years of college they need for chosen their careers.

Here's the other thing, in Mr. Obama's initial speeches, before he was his party's nominee, he proposed higher tax rates for incomes as low as $80,000 to $100,000. I'm sure he later raised the number for his campaign because his campaign team told him he couldn't afford to alienate all the working guys like me.

Since many of our costs, including our "consumer debt" (VISA we use to finance short-term debt for our business), is not tax deductible, a 5% increase in our federal tax rate would likely cost me another $400 or $500 per month, unless he really saves the beating for the folks who earn more, but any way you slice it those kids with the $500,000 in student loans are going to get royally screwed by Obama. If the tax rate is 39%, and they're paying $6,000 per month in student loan payments, they'll be paying over $2,300 PER MONTH IN TAXES JUST ON THE MONEY THEY EARN TO PAY FOR THEIR EDUCATION, but student loan payments will never be made tax deductible.

Like I said, "fairness" really has nothing to do with it. I had a couple years when I was trying to over-save to help me kids retire some debt, so I worked my jobs and then put in an extra 18-20 hours per weekend working for another contractor. As a result, I logged almost another 700 hours one year and nearly 800 the next. That substantially bumped our tax rate, not just the amount paid. I never quite understood why I should be penalized for the sacrifice I made to help my kids. Irregardless, working those hours was hard on my health, so I couldn't keep it up after the second year. My gross income in the third year dropped a LOT. The net dropped a lot less.

I know we like to pretend that everybody works hard and sacrifices equally. The truth is they don't. Frankly, I think it's fair for people who work harder, smarter, longer and faster to make more money. They don't automatically deserve to have the government take a larger share from them to give to people who sit on the front stoop and smoke dope. (For example) (My son got a DWI a couple years ago. Before he talked to the judge there was a 30 year old woman getting sentenced for her 4th meth case. The DA said he convictions allowed her to qualify for social security "disability" as a drug addict, so she had been taking her monthly $600 social security check and buying drugs with it, so she could mix it with something else and sell it to other dopers. That's how my tax dollars are getting spent. I can't wait to reduce my contribution to this mess, cause I don't feel like me and my family are getting our money's worth. I get zero police protection, limited fire protection, and mediocre schools which I've paid for several dozen times. About the only thing I actually get to USE is the roads.

I don't mind helping the kids with no folks, or the elderly, or the disabled, but I'm sick and tired of being soaked and getting no benefit. Then, to add insult to injury, I have to see all the welfare recipients protesting everything that allows me to remain employed! They look at my truck as if I'm some sort of villian. It's incredible.

My husband and I just returned from our first trip to Europe last night/this morning. We visited France, Germany and Denmark in ten days. Aside from the awful jet-lag it was wonderful, and it puts this conversation in perspective. Even if the tax increase is applied as Mr. Horsey describes, we'll still be paying a very small fraction of the taxes they pay in Europe.

In any society there will be some who contribute and others who don't. Some are weak, some are old, some are slow, some are ill, some are just lazy. Live with it. Denmark citizens still love, laugh, play and have wonderful lives, and they're taxed much more than Obama proposes under any scenario, as are most europeans.

Obama will be a great president, a better president than Bush-2 by at least 1,000 times. Maybe he'll save us from having a draft and/or getting into another war.

There is no doubt the doctor/lawyer example with the student debt is a tough one. Doctors don't earn money like they used to, and education in increasingly expensive. I believe the loan interest should be tax deductible, and the government should support a radical reduction in tuition costs, something we could easily do, as we used to, if we were not spending a billion per week (or whatever the number is) in Iraq and Afganistan.

Here's another problem: Obama will bring back the death tax. The idea is to take 50% or more of everything I earn as I earn it, and then grab half of whatever is left (or more) when I die. That means the government will always take at least 75% of whatever I earn during my lifetime. It can't be much worse in Europe, cause there's only 25% left.

We've never had much, and our parents didn't have much to give or leave. My wife and I wanted to do better for our kids. I don't know much about investment strategy, but I can build, so we have have repaired, remodeled and rebuilt houses again and again. In the beginning it was the only way we could get to a decent house, but we got the the house we were happy with almost twenty years ago and we moved three times since. The last three moves, and all the sweat we put into them since, was all to earn money that would be cushion for retirement and, hopefully, leave something for the kids. It totally chaps me that the democrats want to fully return the death tax by removing the exemption.

I've talked to other builders who have gotten rich doing what we've done, because they did it in southern California between 1960 and 2000. Some managed to put away a few million. I just don't see the fairness in the government taking all of that from them instead of letting their kids have it.

In our case all the after-hours work and house trading has left us with a house that's appraised at $969,000 (but probably worth only two-thirds of that.) That equity should belong to me or my family if I die, but that wasn't the case before the last republican run, and it will not be the case again. I guess the democrats feel that my kids should get no advantage, no matter how much of my life I'm willing to sacrifice to give them a leg up. I resent the hell out of that -- especially when the washington politicians are able to provide special advantages for their kids in a million ways I can't access. One thing's for certain. If the tax rates rip us for another $500 per month, we're DONE contributing charity support to United Way, Birth to Three, Relief Nursery, LookingGlass and Food for Lane County. Last year we gave almost $3,000 between them, a lot of money for us, because it felt right. If the government is going to take more, it can assume more responsibility.

p.s. Hope are you a communist?