Looks like Joe the Pumber was the game changer

[Pa(b)st Prime]

Read my bottom post. Taxing XOM on profits they make merely selling oil is not akin to the Alaska situation.

McCain blew it again. His retort should've been:

1. High corporate taxes result in higher prices for consumers

2. XOM sent 8 billion last year back into the economy via dividends

3. There's no Mr.Exxon. XOM's largest shareholder is CALlPERS!

Quote from seneca_roman:

Land ownership as I expect you to know is divided amongst the USA, the State, the County, The City and the individual; so I disagree, Ak does not own the land; they are part owners.

The oil companies paid huge sums to lease and develop these resources; so why should they be subject to a tax and spend and wealth redistribution scheme that Palin and others got passed to make themselves popular by cutting $3200 checks to each citizen?

Then why did McCain and almost all other Republicans oppose the windfall tax on a national level? This is a Jimmy Carter IDEA:

From FOX NEWS:
"
Republican Sen. John McCain criticized Sen. Barack Obama's call for a windfall profits tax on the oil industry on Tuesday, despite leaving the door open to the same idea last month.

The presumed GOP nominee leveled his attack in prepared remarks in which he said the next president must be willing to break with policies of both the Bush and Clinton administrations to reduce dependence on foreign oil.

"This was a troubling situation 35 years ago. It was an alarming situation 20 years ago. It is a dangerous situation today," the Republican presidential contender said.

While McCain was speaking in Texas, the energy-producing state that is home to President Bush, he is attempting to chart his own course on energy issues. He parts company at times with the Bush administration as he courts independent voters, opposing drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, for example. Yet he announced on Monday he favors lifting the federal moratorium on offshore drilling to allow states to decide whether to explore coastal waters, an approach backed by Bush that drew quick criticism from some environmentalists.

McCain criticized Obama, his Democratic rival, repeatedly in excerpts of a speech planned for delivery Tuesday evening. He cited Obama's advocacy of a tax on excess oil industry profits as well as the Democrat's vote for President Bush's energy legislation in 2005.

McCain reserved his sharpest words for the windfall profits tax.

"If that plan sounds familiar, it's because that was President Carter's big idea, too. ... I'm all for recycling, but it's better applied to paper and plastic than to the failed policies of the 1970s," McCain said in the excerpts."

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/0...a-for-proposing-windfall-tax-on-oil-industry/
S

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from Lucrum:

OK, without me even checking YOUR "facts" let's say he's a lying cheat.

My question still stands, which you completely avoided.

Factcheck: Joe the tax cheat.

Here is the court docket:
http://apps.co.lucas.oh.us/onlinedo...TDATE=01/01/1900&ENDDATE=01/01/2100&PARTY=D,1

FILING DATE: 1/26/2007 CASE TYPE: ACV ACTIVATION OF CASE
MONETARY AMOUNT: $1,182.98

Plaintiff 1:
DEPT OF TAXATION STATE OF OHIO


Alias(es)
DEPT OF TAXATI. STATE OF .
DEPT OF TAXATION STATE OF .
DEPT OF TAXATION STATE OF OHIO
STATE OF OHIO DEPT OF TAXATION

Defendant 1:
WURZELBACHER SAMUEL J
30 DERBYSHIRE RD
TOLEDO, OH 43615

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from seneca_roman:



3. Buffet is not always right, but he is spot on in this comment.


Likely he will pay a few hunder more in income tax but the deduction for insurance would more than offset it; assuming he is making about 250K.

Seneca

3) You mean spot on in YOUR opinion.


By your explanation it sounds like less net revenue to the federal government.

 

[seneca_roman]

Quote from Lucrum:

3) You mean spot on in YOUR opinion. I presume you have citations showing where Buffet is off base regarding his comment on taxes.


By your explanation it sounds like less net revenue to the federal government.

NO, I mean in almost all ways; the rich have gotten richer via many schemes.


Net revenue to the govt will increase under Obama as the very wealthy will being paying more; but not the small biz guy making near 250K as the marginal rate goes up but is more than offset by the deduction for medical.

I don't know where the breakpoint is and it really does not matter because any tax plan goes through the sausage factory known as Congress.

Seneca

 

[seneca_roman]

Quote from Lucrum:

3)

By your explanation it sounds like less net revenue to the federal government.

NO, I mean in almost all ways; the rich have gotten richer via many schemes.

I presume you have citations showing where Buffet is off base regarding his comment on taxes.

Net revenue to the govt will increase under Obama as the very wealthy will being paying more; but not the small biz guy making near 250K as the marginal rate goes up but is more than offset by the deduction for medical.

I don't know where the breakpoint is and it really does not matter because any tax plan goes through the sausage factory known as Congress.

Seneca

 

[Fractals 'R Us]

I wonder if most voters pay any attention to politics and the elections until the last week or two? Maybe a lot will wake up to the fact that Obama will be making Supreme Court appointments that will affect the rest of their lives. They might decide that they don't care about cradle to the grave security, they would rather have their guaranteed freedoms. Obama will put UN laws in place and take away the Bill of Rights in a heartbeat given a chance..

 

[saxon]

If you are worried about how Obama's tax plan would effect plumbers, ask yourself...

"How many plumbers do you know who are making a quarter of a million dollars a year?" - B. Obama

 

[seneca_roman]

As has been said, a picture is worth a 1000 words:

 

[seneca_roman]

I think this may have been what Joe was looking at or maybe it was that tax lien on his property or his lack of a license or his being booted off the voter rolls by one of the many Republican led purges.

 

[Jayford]

Quote from seneca_roman:

NO, I mean in almost all ways; the rich have gotten richer via many schemes.

I presume you have citations showing where Buffet is off base regarding his comment on taxes.

Net revenue to the govt will increase under Obama as the very wealthy will being paying more; but not the small biz guy making near 250K as the marginal rate goes up but is more than offset by the deduction for medical.

I don't know where the breakpoint is and it really does not matter because any tax plan goes through the sausage factory known as Congress.

Seneca

net revenue from cap gains taxes increases will DROP, and BO even acknowledges this. He doesn't care because it would be "fair".

If that is not beyond stupid, I do not know what is.

BTW, it is pretty much accepted as fact that revenues drop when cap gains are raised. Last two rate rate changes proved this almost immediately, both a raise and a drop, depending on the rates. This is not Laffer Curve theory (that's income tax), this is easily observable fact. Both myself and others have posted articles, charts about this ad nauseum. Not really needed when Barak admits it though.