tax break for suv drivers.

[Hengst]

listen babycoc

Taken from the article above:

"Tax experts say the light-truck tax loophole was originally targeted for farmers, so their working pickup trucks would not be treated, for tax purposes, like luxury cars.

There was no mention of the need to stimulate the luxury truck market in the 1996 tax debate.

The House of Representatives attempted to make the SUV tax break even more generous as Congress debated an economic stimulus package in March.

Under the House plan, the cap for accelerated depreciation would have risen from $24,000 to $35,000. That effort died in negotiations with the Senate. "

The Republicans have subverted the original intent of this lopophole. Indeed they even tried to expand it. A democratic controlled senate stopped that.

AND law in New York does not require a canidate for the senate to have to have residency of more than 100 days in that state to run for office, so who care if Hillary Clinton didn't spend much time there. Bobby Kennedy was Senator from New York as well and he came from Mass.

For that matter, Cheney was not a resident of Wyoming but a resident of Texas when Bush asked him to be his running mate. He quickly ran back to Wyoming and established residency there LIKE 3 DAYS PRIOR TO THE CUT OFF so that he would not violate the constitutional requirement that the president and his vice president not come from the same state.

So stop trying to steer us away from the truth with hectoring and sidestepping the issues.



Typical republican response too, accuse some one of being queer to steer the reader/viewer from the main issue.

 

[Hengst]

It wsa designed for vehicles OVER 6000 lbs- that's not your average SUV, definitely NOT your explorer, ecpedition, not your X5 or ML300's.

Actually, ALL of those vehicles DO qualify. I don't care if you are a doctor, you are an idiot. If even for blindly believing the crap Bush and his cohorts spew out.

 

[Sushi X]

You've missed the point of my post completely. The point of my post is that ANYBODY CAN do the garbage man's job, but NOT ANYBODY CAN do the doctor's job. That is why the doctor is "worth" more to society (not personally as a human being, but professionally in terms of the service he is providing) and why he is paid more.



Your point? They have a valid claim. Blue collar workers receive greater benefits from tax collection and they pay the least taxes while the higher up on the white collar ladder you go, the more taxes are paid and the fewer benefits are received.

Let me put this in terms you can't so easily twist.

You're a salesman selling new Fords. There are 3 other people on the sales staff. You've been selling cars for 5 years and you drive a Ford - you're a fucking beast at selling Fords. The other salesmen range in skill level from newbie to somewhat experienced.

Last week was a very good week for you and you made $500 in commission in addition to your normal salary. The other salesmen think it's not fair because they only made $100 in commission along with their normal salary.

According to the newbie (who just got hired last week), you should be making a smaller commission percentage because he's not as good a salesman as you and it's not fairi that you're making more than he is simply because you're a better salesman than he is. He thinks you should only be making $125 in commission from those sales.

How do you feel about that?



Why wouldn't it work? The only reason an inflated federal income tax rate exists is to fund all of the social programs that wouldn't exist if a) the lower middle class got to keep more of their money each year instead of sending it to the government or b) the government would stick to it's basic duty of upholding the constitution and defending the country from domestic and foreign threats as opposed to babysitting.

Who wouldn't be happy? The parasites. Quite frankly, who gives a fuck if they are unhappy?

-Warik

the ford thing is out of whack, i prefer chevy.
commission and taxes are different however i do see your point. anyway, i could'nt agree more that the government should downsize and do it's basic duty. what you are not getting is i never said anything about raising taxes, i'm all for a tax break but make the tax break go all the way across the board, from rich to the working poor. that's my argument, not raising taxes from their current level.

as for the parasites, a little biblical notation on that even though i try to keep politics and religion seperate. if a man will not work he should not eat. how do you feel about that one?

 

[Warik]

commission and taxes are different however i do see your point.

As with any analogy, the subjects are different but the principle is the same. Person B says that Person A should be penalized because Person A is better at something than he is. In regard to taxes, Person B says that Person A should be penalized (pay higher income tax) because he's better at making money.

if a man will not work he should not eat. how do you feel about that one?

I disagree, and I'll tell you why:

What if I'm 65 and spent the past 45 years worry about my retirement and now I'm kicking back golfing by day and relaxing by night. I don't work, does that mean I shouldn't eat?

Or how about Junior who spends all day at school and all day home studying. He doesn't work, so he shouldn't eat?

A more appropriate "rule" in my book would be "He who must take should not receive."

i.e.

Do you need to TAKE money from others against their will to pay for your healthcare? Then you shouldn't receive healthcare.

Do you need to TAKE food from the store because you can't afford it? Then you shouldn't receive food.

On the other hand, a child does not need to TAKE food from his parents because his parents give it to him.

Also, please don't try to twist this around by using a child support example. A child whose father doesn't want to pay child support does not fall under Warik's TAKE/RECEIVE rule because the father has a legal/moral responsibility to do so until the child is 18 years old.

However, ex-wifey who just absolutely "needs" $1,000/wk of ex-hubby's paycheck even though she refuses to work, lives in an overpriced apartment, and has a new boyfriend everyday is "TAKING" money from her ex-husband because it's not his responsibility to support her impractical lifestyle.

-Warik

 

[Sushi X]

what was saying with the no work no eat issue is people who will not work who can work. i consider going to college work, at least it's preparing you for something. a retired person has paid his or her dues and now deserves a break. what i was getting at was the people who can work but won't cause they'd rather sit around and recieve government money. it's those leaches who should not eat. the same goes for that ex wife example you had and also to the gold digging boyfriend/girlfriend. the child support thing i could'nt agree more on.

 

[thebabydoc]

Re: listen babycoc

So stop trying to steer us away from the truth with hectoring and sidestepping the issues.

Typical republican response too, accuse some one of being queer to steer the reader/viewer from the main issue.

Hectoring, now that's[/] a good 5-dollar word!

Oh I'm sorry, you caught me trying to steer the topic away from the truth- that Hitlary is a lesbian, a crook, a perjurer, tax evader, what more did you want I should mention?

BTW- those trucks DO NOT qualify. Their weights are under 6000lbs and they therefore do not qualify under section 179. Try talking to an accountant, or maybe you don't need one to file your 1040EZ at the 10% bracket. The article is a bunch of democratic Bush-bashing propaganda which, after all, is all the Democrats are capable of anyway since they have no platform whatsoever except "whatever the Republicans are for, we are against".

And talk about deviating from the truth... Last time I checked, Dubya was NOT in the White House in 1996. This is NOT his law, plain and simple, but I like it anyway.

 

[thebabydoc]

Re: listen babycoc

So stop trying to steer us away from the truth with hectoring and sidestepping the issues.

Typical republican response too, accuse some one of being queer to steer the reader/viewer from the main issue.

Hectoring, now that's a good 5-dollar word!

Oh I'm sorry, you caught me trying to steer the topic away from the truth- that Hitlary is a lesbian, a crook, a perjurer, tax evader, what more did you want I should mention?

BTW- those trucks DO NOT qualify. Their weights are under 6000lbs and they therefore do not qualify under section 179. Try talking to an accountant, or maybe you don't need one to file your 1040EZ at the 10% bracket. The article is a bunch of democratic Bush-bashing propaganda which, after all, is all the Democrats are capable of anyway since they have no platform whatsoever except "whatever the Republicans are for, we are against".

And talk about deviating from the truth... Last time I checked, Dubya was NOT in the White House in 1996. This is NOT his law, plain and simple, but I like it anyway.