Chandler on paying taxes

http://my.nba.com/thread.jspa?threadID=5700022375

From Tyson Chandler's blog:
"It's funny, because when Obama was giving his speech, he said he was gonna give a tax cut to 95 percent of the people. He says, "If you make under $250,000 a year, raise your hand." And everybody there raised their hand, except for this one small section of guys. That was our section. And everybody around us was laughing.

But you know what, it's a bigger cause. And the way I look at it is that I can afford to pay more in taxes. But my parents, my grandparents, my cousins ... with what they make, they can't afford to cut back in their household with what they're trying to survive with. I can afford to make cuts and still survive. They can't take that knock.

I think that's what's going on now and the reason why the middle class is struggling so much. The upper class, we can take that hit. Obviously, nobody wants to take it, but we still can. And we can afford to live nice lives.

I've lived in both situations. And not only that, I'm obviously the only one in my family that can say that I'm a millionaire. I've seen my entire family struggle. So, would I rather see my whole family struggle while I get a break, or have me not get a break while the rest of my family gets one? I'll take my entire family getting a break."

Cool Tyson, you wanna pay for my tax increase too skippy?

Go ahead, I mean, you can afford it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chandler

But my parents, my grandparents, my cousins ... with what they make, they can't afford to cut back in their household with what they're trying to survive with. I can afford to make cuts and still survive. They can't take that knock.

---

Do you mean to tell me that ungrateful douchebag didn't even setup his own momma? Why should she still be struggling? WTF????

There you go. A 25 yr old playing a game and making 10 mil a year speaks for all small business owners working 14 hours 7 days a week.

This 95% b.s. line is foolish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anti.Hero

There you go. A 25 yr old playing a game and making 10 mil a year speaks for all small business owners working 14 hours 7 days a week.

This 95% b.s. line is foolish.

---

Good lord, people. Small business owners don't make over $250K a year. Show me one who does. By small business, it has to have fewer than 20 employees and not be a franchise.

The only people who are making over 250K a year are high ranking executives in corporations, professional athletes, politicians, Hollywood celebrities, some lawyers and doctors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T Park

Cool Tyson, you wanna pay for my tax increase too skippy?

Go ahead, I mean, you can afford it.

---

Do you make $250,000 a year?

If you do, you really have nothing to complain about, since you have a very good living.

If you don't, what are you bitching about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peewee's lovechild

Do you make $250,000 a year?

If you do, you really have nothing to complain about, since you have a very good living.

If you don't, what are you bitching about?

---

Principle?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supergirl

Good lord, people. Small business owners don't make over $250K a year. Show me one who does. By small business, it has to have fewer than 20 employees and not be a franchise.

The only people who are making over 250K a year are high ranking executives in corporations, professional athletes, politicians, Hollywood celebrities, some lawyers and doctors.

---

This $250k mark isn't the only tax increase genius.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anti.Hero

Principle?

---

But, it doesn't affect anyone of you.

So, what principle?

You won't be paying any taxes.
I won't be paying any taxes.

So, what's the point on being outraged?

Let those making $250,000 a year speak for themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peewee's lovechild

But, it doesn't affect anyone of you.

So, what principle?

You won't be paying any taxes.
I won't be paying any taxes.

So, what's the point on being outraged?

Let those making $250,000 a year speak for themselves.

---

It won't affect you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anti.Hero

This $250k mark isn't the only tax increase genius.

---

Oh, there wouldn't be any tax increases with McCain as President?

Do you honestly believe that??

Are you fucking kidding me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anti.Hero

It won't affect you?

---

I don't make $250,000 a year.

So, how the hell would it affect me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supergirl

Good lord, people. Small business owners don't make over $250K a year. Show me one who does. By small business, it has to have fewer than 20 employees and not be a franchise.

The only people who are making over 250K a year are high ranking executives in corporations, professional athletes, politicians, Hollywood celebrities, some lawyers and doctors.

---

Do you seriously believe the crap you are typing??? Small business is defined by the SBA (Small Business Administration) as a company having not more than 500 employees and not being dominant in their industry.

Here is the list of the top 100 small us businesses...they all make in the millions.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fsb/f...et_income.html

Gotta laugh at the people who think "small business" only means their parents taco stand...

Hey TFat, how much money do you make a yr? If you make between $203,000 and $600,000 your taxes will go up $12 under Obama's plan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supergirl

Good lord, people. Small business owners don't make over $250K a year. Show me one who does. By small business, it has to have fewer than 20 employees and not be a franchise.

The only people who are making over 250K a year are high ranking executives in corporations, professional athletes, politicians, Hollywood celebrities, some lawyers and doctors.

---

Uhh...my mother did, and there are tons of people out there like her. WTF?

And it wasn't a taco stand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KenMcCoy

Do you seriously believe the crap you are typing??? Small business is defined by the SBA (Small Business Administration) as a company having not more than 500 employees and not being dominant in their industry.

Here is the list of the top 100 small us businesses...they all make in the millions.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fsb/f...et_income.html

---

So which one of these companies do you own? Republicans inherit their ideas from their parents, and they have to cling on to stupid crap like this because nothing else about being republican makes any sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ratm1221

So which one of these companies do you own? Republicans inherit their ideas from their parents, and they have to cling on to stupid crap like this because nothing else about being republican makes any sense.

---

I'm clinging to a definition of small business???

I think that most Americans would not consider a company with 500 employees, or anything close to that, a "small business." regardless of what the "small business association" says.

Also, the point of Chandler's blog post and Obama's campaign is that if you make millions of dollars, it's not unreasonable to expect to pay more for taxes when we have an enormous national debt and a floundering economy for the rest of the citizens of this country. I call that patriotism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supergirl

Good lord, people. Small business owners don't make over $250K a year. Show me one who does. By small business, it has to have fewer than 20 employees and not be a franchise.

The only people who are making over 250K a year are high ranking executives in corporations, professional athletes, politicians, Hollywood celebrities, some lawyers and doctors.

---

Bless your heart, you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

People I Personally Know Who Own or Have Owned Small Businesses in Which They Made Over $250,000 a Year

Person #1: energy trader. Had a stake in an commodity brokerage firm. Employees: less than 10, as in himself and his partners.
Person #2: an actuary by trade who left his firm and became a freelance commercial real estate appraiser. Does some development on the side. Employs 1 clerk.
Person #3: runs his own tax office. Employees: 6
Person #4: brokers surplus pipe in exotic alloys. By himself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Extra Stout

Bless your heart, you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

People I Personally Know Who Own or Have Owned Small Businesses in Which They Made Over $250,000 a Year

Person #1: energy trader. Had a stake in an commodity brokerage firm. Employees: less than 10, as in himself and his partners.
Person #2: an actuary by trade who left his firm and became a freelance commercial real estate appraiser. Does some development on the side. Employs 1 clerk.
Person #3: runs his own tax office. Employees: 6
Person #4: brokers surplus pipe in exotic alloys. By himself.

---

Small lawyer firms come to mind too...
My lawyer had 3 employees and I'm fairly sure he makes over $250,000/year

Paint me stupid like many of you do, but I'm still trying to figure out how Obama plans to give 95% of the people tax breaks when 40% don't pay taxes...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Paint me stupid like many of you do, but I'm still trying to figure out how Obama plans to give 95% of the people tax breaks when 40% don't pay taxes...

---

I believe it's 95% of families. But you've lost faith in me so look it up yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Paint me stupid like many of you do, but I'm still trying to figure out how Obama plans to give 95% of the people tax breaks when 40% don't pay taxes...

---

It's implied that you have to pay taxes to get a tax break. So, the 60% of the population that pay taxes form a subgroup of 100% taxpayers. 95% of those will get a break. Got it now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

It's implied that you have to pay taxes to get a tax break. So, the 60% of the population that pay taxes form a subgroup of 100% taxpayers. 95% of those will get a break. Got it now?

---

Should I have not assumed he knew you have to pay taxes in the first place to get a tax cut?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

It's implied that you have to pay taxes to get a tax break. So, the 60% of the population that pay taxes form a subgroup of 100% taxpayers. 95% of those will get a break. Got it now?

---

Actually, I got it all along. I was making a point. Omaba actually want to give 95% of the people money back. The term "Tax Break" is wrong. He want to increase "Tax Credits" which are already giving people credit for paying taxes that didn't, then they get some of yours and my money. Redistribution of wealth! This goes beyond Earned Income Credit, which I think is also wrong. Obama want to increase these "Tax Credits" giving non tax payers even more money from the coffers.

HE'S TRYING TO BUY YOUR VOTE PEOPLE. Are you going to prostitute yourselves?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shastafarian

Should I have not assumed he knew you have to pay taxes in the first place to get a tax cut?

---

That's why the democrats are against the Bush Tax cut. It only benifits tax payers. Tax credits benifit those who dodn't pay taxes too!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Actually, I got it all along. I was making a point. Omaba actually want to give 95% of the people money back. The term "Tax Break" is wrong. He want to increase "Tax Credits" which are already giving people credit for paying taxes that didn't, then they get some of yours and my money. Redistribution of wealth! This goes beyond Earned Income Credit, which I think is also wrong. Obama want to increase these "Tax Credits" giving non tax payers even more money from the coffers.

HE'S TRYING TO BUY YOUR VOTE PEOPLE. Are you going to prostitute yourselves?

---

Please post your evidence that people who currently don't pay taxes will receive a check for thge balance of the tax credit.

If he's trying to buy votes, his campaign hasn't made this point clear at all. In fact, I would go so far to say they have never once mentioned it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Please post your evidence that people who currently don't pay taxes will receive a check for thge balance of the tax credit.

---

By this statement, I assume you never filled out your own tax returns. Tax credits are added to paid taxes, then you get back anything over what the tax table says your liability is.

Look at your 2007 1040a or 1040.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

HE'S TRYING TO BUY YOUR VOTE PEOPLE. Are you going to prostitute yourselves?

---

I pay taxes and I can't vote. Can I keep the money?

Again, if this is indeed the case, the Obama campaign hasn't advertised this nearly as much as you think. I'd like to see those quotes from the Obama campaign explaining that to the people you claim don't pay taxes and therefore likely do not use 1040a or 1040 forms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Again, if this is indeed the case, the Obama campaign hasn't advertised this nearly as much as you think. I'd like to see those quotes from the Obama campaign explaining that to the people you claim don't pay taxes and therefore likely do not use 1040a or 1040 forms.

---

Sure he hasn't advertised the details, but if you do a little research, you'll find that's exactly what he wants. It's the only way he can give money to more people, in effect, to buy their vote.

I think the people who get money from credits know it, and those who actually pay taxes only see it as a tax break, because that is all it does for them. I think if he talked much about it, and the middle class realized people who didn't pay taxes are getting other tax payers money, they would be rather boisterous about it. Right now, we only have education and child credits that most people can use. He also wants to include credits that automatically give single people a credit. I don't recall the number for sure, I think it was $600 for an individual and $1200 for a family, or Head of household.

Did you look over you 2007 tax return yet?

Find the section and math that includes the credits we now have?

Quote:

---

Sure he hasn't advertised the details

---

So he's not really trying to buy any votes then.

Thanks.

I thought McCain wants to give tax credits too? He certainly mentioned that in the Debates. Is he trying to buy votes too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

So he's not really trying to buy any votes then.

Thanks.

---

You miss my point. It's understood that under Obama, poor people will get money from the govornment that they won't get under McCain. That is, in effect, buying votes, using our money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

You miss my point. It's understood that under Obama, poor people will get money from the govornment that they won't get under McCain. That is, in effect, buying votes, using our money.

---

But rich people will get money from McCain that they won't get under Obama. Is that buying votes too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

You miss my point. It's understood that under Obama, poor people will get money from the govornment that they won't get under McCain. That is, in effect, buying votes, using our money.

---

You can't sell your vote if you don't know anything is being offered for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

I thought McCain wants to give tax credits too? He certainly mentioned that in the Debates. Is he trying to buy votes too?

---

Yes and no. I'm not sure but I think he used the wrong term. He want to increase the exemption for children, I think he said by $3500. The 2007 number for exemptions is $3400, I think $3500 is the 2008 number. You effectively then get two exemptions per child. This is taken off your adjusted gross income, then what you own in taxes is calculated. This method does not give money to people who don't pay taxes. It just reduces taxes on those who pay it. If you pay the 28% marginal rate, you save $980 per child in taxes.

I could be wrong, and if he really meant "Tax Credit" then he can go fuck himself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

But rich people will get money from McCain that they won't get under Obama. Is that buying votes too?

---

I guess it's all perspective. It's one thing to reduce taxes, redistribution of wealth is another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I could be wrong, and if he really meant "Tax Credit" then he can go fuck himself.

---

McCain health plan includes $2,500 tax credit
LINK

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I guess it's all perspective. It's one thing to reduce taxes, redistribution of wealth is another.

---

So when the money goes to the poor people, it's redistribution of wealth. But when the money goes to the rich people, is a fair tax reduction.
I know you're better than that. I also know you don't like Obama or his policies. But you can't say McCain is not doing basically the same thing.
So if one is buying votes, the other one is just as guilty.

^^It was the rich peoples money in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KenMcCoy

^^It was the rich peoples money in the first place.

---

It was the poor's people money in the first place too. What Obama is offering is no different than McCain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

So when the money goes to the poor people, it's redistribution of wealth. But when the money goes to the rich people, is a fair tax reduction.
I know you're better than that. I also know you don't like Obama or his policies. But you can't say McCain is not doing basically the same thing.
So if one is buying votes, the other one is just as guilty.

---

I am simply against redistribution of wealth. People shouldn't get paid from the government coffers just because they don't make as much as someone else. In reality, I think the tax rates are good where they are. I think McCain trying to have his own 'tax reduction theme' is wrong.

I see it a distinct difference between reducing effective tax rates, and giving money to non tax payers.

Am I wrong there?

I use the term buy because people get money they didn't pay.

Consider this difference:

If you go to a store, and take something without paying for it, that's stealing.

If you go to a store, and pay less for it because it's on sale, did you take from someone else?

People who get back more on their return than they pay in are taking from all of us!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Consider this difference:

If you go to a store, and take something without paying for it, that's stealing.

If you go to a store, and pay less for it because it's on sale, did you take from someone else?

People who get back more on their return than they pay in are taking from all of us!

---

But people need to pay taxes to begin with in order to get tax money returned to them. So, your 'stealing' example doesn't hold water.

The correct analogy here would be this:

- If you go to a store, and pay less for it because it's on sale, did you take from someone else?

- If you go to a store, and pay full price but you get a rebate on the mail that returns a portion of what you paid, did you take from someone else?

I fail to see what's different here, other than somebody held some of your money temporarily until you got it back.

If file single and you make less than $8,000 a year and claim your personal exemption your tax liability is $0.00.

If you file married and make less than 17,000 a year and claim yourself and your spouses exemption your tax liability is $0.00.


Adjusted gross income (AGI)$17,000
deduction$10,900Deduction to use$10,900
Deduction for exemptions$7,000
Taxable income$0
Tax*$0
http://www.dinkytown.net/java/Tax1040.html

So yes, there are people that pay no income taxes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

But people need to pay taxes to begin with in order to get tax money returned to them. So, your 'stealing' example doesn't hold water.

---

I'm sorry, you are wrong here. All you need to do is file a return. If under the 2007 return, you make $24,300 adjusted gross income, deduct $10,700 as a couple, then $3400 per exemption for a family of four, your taxable income comes in at $0.00. Any tax credits are now money that you get from the government coffers, taken from people who do pay taxes. Any increase to the exemption does not give you more money because your taxable income cannot be less than $0. However, any increases in tax credits give people who pay no taxes, more of the tax payers money. If the current amount is $1,000 per child, this family gets a check for $2,000 without paying anything in. Then they also get Earned Income Credit. Add Obama's $1,200 for $3,200 and Earned income Credit. Therefore, a family of four making any amount less than $$24,300 gets money back by just filing a return, even though they have no tax liability.


Consider $40,000 minus $10,700 = 29,300. Now subtract $3,400 x 4, taxable is now $15,700. You pay $1,876 for that amount under the 2007 tax table. Now I don't file with child credits, I forget. Is it now $1,000 each? If so, $1876 - $2,000 = a tax return of $124 more than what was taken from your paycheck in federal taxes. Under McCai'ns increasing the exemptions for children, the taxable income would reduce to $8,900 (I used $3,400 rather than $3,500 for 2007) for a tax liability of $948. Retaining the current child credit would mean this family gets $1052 more back than what was taken from wage whitholding. Obama's change for $40,000 family of four would still show the liability at $1876, but $2,000 plus the additional $1200 is $1876 - $3,200 or $1,324 return over what was paid in.

I'm not in favor of either plan myself, but I am dead set against tax credits. I think they should be removed from the system. Both parties play to the entitlement mentality of the tax payer, and that is dangerous for democracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I'm sorry, you are wrong here. All you need to do is file a return. If under the 2007 return, you make $24,300 adjusted gross income, deduct $10,700 as a couple, then $3400 per exemption for a family of four, your taxable income comes in at $0.00. Any tax credits are now money that you get from the government coffers, taken from people who do pay taxes. Any increase to the exemption does not give you more money because your taxable income cannot be less than $0. However, any increases in tax credits give people who pay no taxes, more of the tax payers money. If the current amount is $1,000 per child, this family gets a check for $2,000 without paying anything in. Then they also get Earned Income Credit. Add Obama's $1,200 for $3,200 and Earned income Credit. Therefore, a family of four making any amount less than $$24,300 gets money back by just filing a return, even though they have no tax liability.

Consider $40,000 minus $10,700 = 29,300. Now subtract $3,400 x 4, taxable is now $15,700. You pay $1,876 for that amount under the 2007 tax table. Now I don't file with child credits, I forget. Is it now $1,000 each? If so, $1876 - $2,000 = a tax return of $124 more than what was taken from your paycheck in federal taxes. Under McCai'ns increasing the exemptions for children, the taxable income would reduce to $8,900 (I used $3,400 rather than $3,500 for 2007) for a tax liability of $948. Retaining the current child credit would mean this family gets $1052 more back than what was taken from wage whitholding. Obama's change for $40,000 family of four would still show the liability at $1876, but $2,000 plus the additional $1200 is $1876 - $3,200 or $1,324 return over what was paid in.

I'm not in favor of either plan myself, but I am dead set against tax credits. I think they should be removed from the system. Both parties play to the entitlement mentality of the tax payer, and that is dangerous for democracy.

---

Okay, I was wrong about the special case where people make too little.
But again, I'm not wrong at all about both guys doing the same thing. I do know you don't agree with tax credits. But they're both doing it, and so if you're going to wave the flag of 'buying votes', you can't hold it against just one candidate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

It's implied that you have to pay taxes to get a tax break. So, the 60% of the population that pay taxes form a subgroup of 100% taxpayers. 95% of those will get a break. Got it now?

---

Yet, his intentions are to let the Bush tax cuts expire ... which would make the taxes of 100% of the people that actually pay taxes go up. So he wouldn't be lying, it's not going to be HIM raising taxes because those weren't his in the first place. Pretty sneaky, huh? I believe that particular catch-phrase is "No NEW taxes!!" :spin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Extra Stout

Bless your heart, you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

People I Personally Know Who Own or Have Owned Small Businesses in Which They Made Over $250,000 a Year

Person #1: energy trader. Had a stake in an commodity brokerage firm. Employees: less than 10, as in himself and his partners.
Person #2: an actuary by trade who left his firm and became a freelance commercial real estate appraiser. Does some development on the side. Employs 1 clerk.
Person #3: runs his own tax office. Employees: 6
Person #4: brokers surplus pipe in exotic alloys. By himself.

---

Doesn't sound like any of these examples are people that would a) cut jobs or b) cant afford to pay the taxes they were paying before the Bush tax cuts

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/image...EOcomic494.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpursWoman

Yet, his intentions are to let the Bush tax cuts expire ... which would make the taxes of 100% of the people that actually pay taxes go up. So he wouldn't be lying, it's not going to be HIM raising taxes because those weren't his in the first place. Pretty sneaky, huh? I believe that particular catch-phrase is "No NEW taxes!!" :spin

---

This is true. However, McCain has said he wants to keep the Bush Tax Cuts even though he was against them originally. He says they would effectively be a tax increase when congress lets them expire. What bothers me is that McCain did also use the term Tax Credit. I do think he meant to increase the exceptions, but I could be wrong.

Now Obama and the democrat controlled congress has no intention of reauthorizing the Bush Tax Cuts. We will all see our taxes go up unless congress somehow goes back to the republicans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobinsontoDuncan

Doesn't sound like any of these examples are people that would a) cut jobs or b) cant afford to pay the taxes they were paying before the Bush tax cuts

---

Well, small businesses file taxes under the income tax system rather than corporate tax system. About 75% of the "Above $250,000" tax filers are small businesses, not individuals. When you increase their taxes, they have to make up the difference by either laying off people, not highering more, raising prices, or going out of business because they can no longer survive.

Raisin taxes on the "rich" will hurt our conomy without excluding these filers from the increase.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Well, small businesses file taxes under the income tax system rather than corporate tax system. About 75% of the "Above $250,000" tax filers are small businesses, not individuals. When you increase their taxes, they have to make up the difference by either laying off people, not highering more, raising prices, or going out of business because they can no longer survive.

Raisin taxes on the "rich" will hurt our conomy without excluding these filers from the increase.

---

I'm glad you brought this up because this is true. My dad's business is a Corporation, but the company doesn't pay the tax due, he does.

My husband and I are a S Corp and our business tax ties in with our personal return.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Extra Stout

Bless your heart, you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

People I Personally Know Who Own or Have Owned Small Businesses in Which They Made Over $250,000 a Year

Person #1: energy trader. Had a stake in an commodity brokerage firm. Employees: less than 10, as in himself and his partners.
Person #2: an actuary by trade who left his firm and became a freelance commercial real estate appraiser. Does some development on the side. Employs 1 clerk.
Person #3: runs his own tax office. Employees: 6
Person #4: brokers surplus pipe in exotic alloys. By himself.

---

Raise your hand if these are the types of "small businesses" that come to mind when you picture a "Small business"...

I'm pretty sure most people picture store owners, restauranteurs, things of that ilk...

Again, if your business is making more than 250K a year - small or otherwise - it's reasonable to expect to pay more in taxes. Why should people making 40-50 K a year continue to shoulder the bill like they've done under Bush