59 Votes

If Obama Wins Will He Re-Institute The Luxury Tax?

Agent001 submitted on 10/26/2008 Official Bell & Ross Timestamp: 5:19:27 PM

188 user comments | Category: Spy Shots | Source: www.autospies.com

Okay, before you say I'm picking on Obama (which I'm not and in no way is this article meant to disrespect him), I'm curious about this subject.

..

From what I can see his focus in all of his speeches is that he intends to get the people who make over $250k to pay the majority of the bill to fund his initiatives.

So, as I sit here on a Sunday bouncing between football games and the political stump, I began to wonder how this strategy will effect the premium car companies.

And one of the ways our government raised money under the Clinton's was with the luxury tax on high end items.

To be honest with you, if I had my way, I wish they would abolish the IRS and just put a flat 15% tax on all goods.

No deductions, no loopholes, just 15% on everything we consume.

Do you think if Obama wins (as far as the polls go he's already won) that the luxury tax could make a comeback?

And would it be good or bad?

2008 SEMA Show Photo Gallery

AutoSpies.com Photo Galleries

If Obama Wins Will He Re-Institute The Luxury Tax?

About the Author

The way a man treats his car is how he treats himself.
— Agent001 (View Profile)

User Comments

I predict he won't. But he should over tax starbuck patrons, more money to be made there.
— Badgewhore (View Profile)

Posted on 10/26/2008 5:30:28 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -4

The Democrats never saw a tax they didn't like. As for the flat tax, its a good idea but more like 25%

Obama's plan to tax the over 250k crowd doesn't add up to his spending proposals. A better tale to tell is his record in Illinois which is in no way consistent with the fairy tale he is telling the electorate.
— 993Turbo (View Profile)

Posted on 10/26/2008 6:58:07 PM | | Votes: 7

Obama is like BMW, bragging about things it can't deliver. But I still vote for him just to peedoff those nutcase republicans.
— Badgewhore (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 3:47:53 AM | | Votes: -14

That's intelligent.
— 993Turbo (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 7:12:05 AM | | Votes: 9

Why do you care, you don't make 250K. Those making 250K is not going to notice any increase anyway, if they did, there's so much loop holes in that class for them to easily hide their money to make up for the difference.

Would you prefer Obama increase tax on those making 50K and under?
— Badgewhore (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 1:22:09 PM | | Votes: -5

obammy is a taxaholic. and a socialist for that matter. "spread the wealth around..."
— lexusrox123 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/28/2008 9:00:34 AM | | Votes: 1

Obama is like that used car salesman that tells you that if you buy the new Corvette , it will get you some action with the ladies. You buy the car because you are stupid and you listen to what a lying salesman told you. Then you are financially crippled for four years while you have to pay for your mistake. He says his taxes are only for the rich, but he will definately tax the middle class too. Gas tax, luxury tax, cigarette tax, you name it , he will tax it- just like his "great president, in case you forgot what one looks like" Bill Clinton.
— kornholio (View Profile)

Posted on 10/31/2008 6:58:41 AM | | Votes: 0

1000% he will.
— ucla95 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/26/2008 5:53:21 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 13

I was worried someone would say that. I really really wish he wouldn't because luxuries are one of those things that you work hard for, but in the end, you'd have to consider the extra taxes and lots of other crap.

I bought my '98 Lexus LS w/ luxury tax, and '08 Lexus LX w/o. For some weird reason, I just felt that taking the burden of that extra tax off my back was...less stressful, especially the lessening of the feeling that the government is gonna get you the harder you work and the more money you make.

I...just don't like it. It's "unconstitutional." We work hard to make our money, and it just isn't fair to have that privilege taken away from you.
— WorldofLuxury (View Profile)

Posted on 10/26/2008 7:40:29 PM | | Votes: 7

Besides, things get to complicated. I agree that we should just have a flat 15% tax on all items.

About Obama... He's a great speaker, and kudos to him for that. But we should stop this campaign of appealing to the mass because that is the ONLY way to win. Again, that is very unfair and against our country's principles. I understand that it's been like that for centuries, but please...appeal to the mass only if it does good to both them and others.
— WorldofLuxury (View Profile)

Posted on 10/26/2008 7:50:09 PM | | Votes: 11

Seriously, it's just Obama that has done that? How do you think Bush got elected? He promised his evangelical base everything they wanted (i.e. marginalize the gays and ban abortion). That's the way it works in politics. If you think someone can get elected by talking straight with no soundbites, then you are overestimating the intelligence of the population.
— finishline (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 8:39:54 AM | | Votes: 6

can anybody name just ONE legislative accomplishment that obammy achieved when he was senator ?

thats right. he has none. i wonder how well he'd lead this country with his socialist/marxist ideology???
— lexusrox123 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/28/2008 9:04:08 AM | | Votes: 0

"thats right. he has none. i wonder how well he'd lead this country with his socialist/marxist ideology???"

1. Cosponsored Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act
2.Introduced two initiatives bearing his name along with follow-up legislation with none other than Mr. McCain
3. Primary sponsor of Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief act which Bush signed into law

and that is 1 1/2 years into his tenure. Your second point is typical of the extreme conservatives that sully our nations reputation. Idiotic would be a complement.

Please go and read SOMETHING informative before you go and vote this November.
— henbmw (View Profile)

Posted on 10/28/2008 12:10:07 PM | | Votes: 2

Seriously, co-sponsoring a bill means nothing. Any Senator can do that. He has introduced exactly 0 bills to the U.S. Senate. That fact that those are "accomplishments" in your regard shows the lack of depth of Obama's supporters.

Ol' Barry is going to be like the dog who chases the car. Once he gets there...what do I do now? Guess I'll just do what Ried and Pelosi tell me to do....

Get ready for the 2010 backlash...
— BMW740Z4 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/28/2008 11:27:07 PM | | Votes: -1

i was just gonna type that BMW, thanks.
— lexusrox123 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/29/2008 9:00:20 AM | | Votes: -1

That would be great an obese tax. Instead of a .4kg over more like a certain rate over a 22kg increment. High fatty food should have an obese tax as well to give the incentive to eat healthier.
— veyron1001 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/26/2008 6:34:02 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3

That's actually a fairly cleaver idea. Certainly decreases a lot of the money spent on medical issues here in the states. Problem is, it wouldnt fly as it would be called an "unfair tax against the poor" like every tax seems to be. Poor people tend to eat the less expensive (read KFC, McDonalds) foods.
— Threepoint1415926 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/26/2008 7:02:58 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 4

thats a good idea - tax on fatty foods
— KZ258 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 3:31:40 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2

Poor can't afford KFC, its too expensive. I know, I was super poor before I graduated high school, entered the real world and made something of myself. We ate Churches chicken when we were poor, or the local hood chicken spot where you could get an 8 pc dark for 4 bucks. lol.
— 85bmw745i (View Profile)

Posted on 10/28/2008 12:48:32 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

If Obama wins, he'll reinstate every tax!
— jeffgall (View Profile)

Posted on 10/26/2008 6:25:44 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3

McCain is Bushes puppet hanging from strings so he gonna screw us just like bush screwed us in the war and totally F*&KED up the economy. So why wouldnt his puppet do the same
— B7FAN (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 7:47:21 AM | | Votes: -4

Well things have to be paid for somehow. You can't keep increasing spending (to record levels, as Bush has done) AND cut taxes. We end up with massive, never before seen deficits like we have now. Nobody wants more taxes, but you can't massively INCREASE government spending (which Bush has done) and not pay for it somehow. (Besides by mortgaging our childrens' futures to the Chinese.)
— finishline (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 8:43:10 AM | | Votes: 3

"things have to paid for somehow"

LOL. You Barack Obama voters are IDIOTS! Listen to what your own candidate is telling you! OMG!

Your candidate has announced his intentions to "raise taxes" to "redistribute wealth". Understand? He is not raising taxes to 'pay for things'.

For god's sake, why is this so difficult for you urban voters to understand?

LISTEN CAREFULLY: B.O. isn't going to 'raise taxes to pay for things'. These "government things" you are referring to are either paid for at the existing tax rate, per the budget, or they are CUT from next FY budget if there is a FY shortfall.

Taxes are NOT raised to 'pay for things'; they are raised by socialists for the subsidization of grossly expensive social programs.

SOCIALISM. That IS the initiative here; Obama has said so himself. BRIGHTEN UP!

— randy33 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/28/2008 1:15:51 AM | | Votes: 2

Amen randy!!
— lexusrox123 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/28/2008 9:05:49 AM | | Votes: 2

too All Raise the taxs idiots. Heres a simple analogy for you.

If you spend too much money, do you:

1) Go to your boss and say 'Hey I bought too much blow this month give me more money'
or
2) Stop spending money on blow?

The problem with goverment is it spends to much money on too much stuff.

So instead of raising taxes, lets cut spending.
— michal1980 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/29/2008 7:04:14 AM | | Votes: 1

Oh yes, Obama is the leader of superfluous spending after years of pork barrel politics from our very own republican legislature. Thank God good ole Ted is out.
— henbmw (View Profile)

Posted on 10/29/2008 3:50:26 PM | | Votes: -1

good thing im not planning to vote for him :)

but he might, he seems to hate rich people. i mean this subject on luxury tax is just a mini picture of the broad picture, which is, he hates rich people. thats the bottom line. IMO, you cant tax people more just because they want nicer things. its really unfair.
— LexusKindaGuy12 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/26/2008 6:27:08 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3

I don't think its mean to tax expensive items, but when someone buys a car that costs $300,000, that kinda looks like frivolous spending, so why not give them the opportunity to help their fellow Americans and pay a little more in taxes. Some people have more money than they could ever spend anyway.
— BlakuraTLS (View Profile)

Posted on 10/26/2008 6:52:36 PM | | Votes: 2

whats wrong with being rich from successful business?! its not like rich people steal money from anybody, they earn it. get it? its called capitalism
— lexusrox123 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/28/2008 9:08:23 AM | | Votes: 0

I dont need the "luxury tax" to make a comeback. I plan on being a successful scholar after college and do plan on buying nice things for myself as well for my family. Do not attack the successful people only because they went to school and made something out of themselves(this does not include people who inherited their riches btw). instead, encourage the lazy bums to make something out of themselves or encourage middle class idiots to stop spending money on the unnecessary things(excessive going out to movies/collecting DVDS, going out to eat every week, raising a spoiled child, adding more credit debit, etc).

i agree with 2zero1, a low, fixed tax rate on all goods
— KZ258 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/26/2008 6:31:05 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 5

It is scary to think how he plans to tax us into oblivion. This 95% tax break he touts is essentially a gift to people who don't pay taxes now being given money by people who are paying already.

It is sad we live in a society that punishes those who are successful to give to those who aren't.

God help this Nation if Obama wins.

-00J

— Agent00J (View Profile)

Posted on 10/26/2008 6:34:15 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -4

00J - I think you should stick to your automotive editorial duties.
— henbmw (View Profile)

Posted on 10/26/2008 6:40:11 PM | | Votes: 5

00J,

IF?

Sure looks like game over to me.

Like I said before I just hope whoever wins does the right thing for this country.

I think the media demonizes/sensationalizes both sides and neither candidate is as good or as bad as they say they are.

001
— Agent001 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/26/2008 6:42:08 PM | | Votes: 4

And by the way, neither one will be able to accomplish ANYTHING saddled with the 700B in debt.

They're BOTH lying to us.

001
— Agent001 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/26/2008 6:44:21 PM | | Votes: 8

00J and 001 aren't dong any by complaining.
— Brembo (View Profile)

Posted on 10/26/2008 7:49:19 PM | | Votes: -6

Its unbelievable that Obama still wants to increase taxes during a recession.
— Kyle (View Profile)

Posted on 10/26/2008 10:18:06 PM | | Votes: 0

OOJ is absolutely correct. Rather than blindly deboost him, why not attempt to refute the facts of argument? Everything he's said is correct. I defy henbmw or anyone else to prove otherwise.
— MBCLS07 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 12:25:49 AM | | Votes: -5

A bailout is needed to prevent a depression The only way to cut the debt of the country is to cut costs, or to make more money (taxes)
— chewy (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 1:27:09 AM | | Votes: 3

http://common-sense-conservative.com/

watch the "Obama’s Tax Deception Exposed" video. i dont know if its completely true but its interesting
— KZ258 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 3:26:10 AM | | Votes: 2

Agent00J has no clue what he's talking about. Research shows the rich cheats more on their taxes all the time, which means they don't want to pay their fair share. Lets hope Obama wins so he can tax the crap out of them since rich make their millions off the poor and middle class anyway.

Through pure uncontrollable greed, the capitalist pigs have run their ship aground.

— Badgewhore (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 3:59:02 AM | | Votes: -1

Yes, OOJ, because people making less than $250,000 aren't paying taxes now? Gimme a break. At least think before spouting the party line.

Bush's policies are breaking the backs of the middle class, and contrary to what McCain feels, "middle class" is not people who make less than $5million.
— finishline (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 8:46:09 AM | | Votes: 4

why is paying taxes a punishment? you should be happy you could make such a contribution to society.
— 1995e34 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 9:30:23 AM | | Votes: 0

Idiot, you can't even deduct state from federal taxes of charitable donations anymore.
— 993Turbo (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 11:37:13 AM | | Votes: 1

excuse me liberals (yes, you are), but can anybody explain why the top 1 % of income earners (rich people) pay 40 % of all income tax being collected?

obama said to joe the plumber "i dont want to hurt you, but we have to take money and spread the wealth around." so he's taking rich peoples money through enormous taxation and giving it to the "middle class." that is exactly what socialism is! do not deny it. and obama wants a ban on all guns. idiotic if u ask me

my 2 cents
— lexusrox123 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/28/2008 7:12:23 PM | | Votes: -1

yes, they do . look it up. the truth hurts
— lexusrox123 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/29/2008 9:02:02 AM | | Votes: 0

I agree with 001 about them both lying to us. I do believe that we have tried making the rich richer and look where that's gotten us, so now lets try putting more money in the hands of the middle-class and see what happens. Imagine if that $700Billion bailout had been distributed to all adults who have a job. I think the majority of people would pay off lots of debt (which would actually help the banks out), invest more in the stock market (helping turn around the markets free fall), and so many people would be able to keep their homes and more would be able to pay for college and healthcare. Can someone do the math to see how much that would equate to for each adult taxpayer?
— BlakuraTLS (View Profile)

Posted on 10/26/2008 6:59:36 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -5

That argument was made already, however splitting the $700 Billion amongst the 200 million taxpayers only results in a small amount per person, however it is still our money that was taken from us in the first place.

-00J
— Agent00J (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 2:48:40 PM | | Votes: 1

People do make a big deal about the tax of the "wealthy", though I do admit, I dont feel "wealthy." I for one *would* be with them and I would LOVE a flat tax and I do think taxing people simply because they're more successful is wrong. However.... I like most others who make $250K a year or more, make my money off the working class. My sales have been very slow this year without a strong working class to support my income. The more I can do to get consumer confidence up in the middle or working class, the better. I would gladly give a higher tax to see a generally better economy, because in the end my net income goes up! In that sense, I close my eyes and pretend that the higher tax is just another expense for my business, like marketing or travel expenses. It's just a consumer confidence expense.
— Threepoint1415926 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/26/2008 7:15:16 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 6

very smart.
— 1995e34 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 9:52:02 AM | | Votes: 2

Great point!!! When the working class suffers, the majority suffers, including the wealthy. Look at the stock market!
— 0to60 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 9:56:51 AM | | Votes: 3

I make over 250K a year. And I have no problem being tax. I believe if we give a little, we will make more in the end. We want to make as small businesses but if the customers don't have money how are they going spend?

It's always ok to give to those who don't have much. Is that what USA is about. Or is about I'm rich and you're not so F*you?
— Brembo (View Profile)

Posted on 10/26/2008 7:47:32 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -1

Then GIVE!

Why do you need the government to impose it?

When there is a disaster or people in true need, people give, even though they are not forced to...

Name ONE thing the government ever takes over that runs efficiently?

Social Security (Broken almost beyond repair)? Post Office (Their inefficiency helped forge new businesses like Fedex and UPS)?
Military (People serving living in poverty)?
IRS (NOT!)
Public Schools (More money spent than ever before and they have the lowest scores ever!)?
Bailout (Filled with pork to get approved)?

Anything they touch turns to crap.

How can people expect anything different moving forward?

001
— Agent001 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/26/2008 8:15:16 PM | | Votes: 5

I do. I give about 10K a year.
— Brembo (View Profile)

Posted on 10/26/2008 8:42:22 PM | | Votes: -1

I see you still in the USA from all your complaints.
— Brembo (View Profile)

Posted on 10/26/2008 8:43:27 PM | | Votes: -2

Not much different from you and other tools. You complain and yet you still live the USA and don't do much about what you dislike. USA may not be perfect but our country is still the best place of acceptance and freedom. You base your judgement on news which only report bad events but yet there are way more good things happening to counter those bad ones.

So quit your complaining and be active in making the USA a better place or just move to Canada - unless they don't want you either and kick you out.

— Brembo (View Profile)

Posted on 10/26/2008 8:55:39 PM | | Votes: 5

agent001, do you recommend the military and all schools therefore should be privatized?

i'm amazed by the disproportional ratio of fear of government vs fear of corporations in america. perhaps NOBODY won the cold war.
— 1995e34 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 9:13:19 AM | | Votes: 1

you wish you made 250gs a year lol
— KZ258 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 9:25:55 AM | | Votes: 3

Funny, guys who say they don't mind paying taxes don't ever just write a check. $10k! What is that for taxes. Almost nothing.
— 993Turbo (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 12:06:34 PM | | Votes: 1

001 conveniently ignores what happens when the gov't DOESN'T have oversight. He seems to think that deregulation and a hands off government is what will work best. So we should do that for Social Security and education, too. You know, the same way we have with banking. Oh. Wait.
— finishline (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 12:19:56 PM | | Votes: 2

10K is what I give for charities. That does not include the taxes paid to the government.
— Brembo (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 3:31:35 PM | | Votes: 1

Point is, Brembo that these programs would be much better administered by a charity/the private sector than the government. If you want to give to them, then have at it. If your satisfied by paying high taxes so a bunch of your fellow nationals can sit at home and play video games, then that's your choice.

We also enjoy something in America called "freedom" where you don't have to give money away if you don't want to.

It's hard for most of us to stomach the thought of higher taxes when it's the democrats in public office that pay the lowest tax rates in the country with all of their tax shelters, but are happy to give other people's money away. If they actually put their money where there mouth is, they might have some credibility amongst the hard working American public....note I said hard working American public - Acting doesn't count as hard work.
— BMW740Z4 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/28/2008 11:48:07 PM | | Votes: 0

I agree with 001 on a flat tax with no loopholes. Didn’t Forbes (or some “outsider”) run for Prez on this platform in the 1990’s? Of course, with a flat tax the IRS would get A LOT smaller, which isn’t a Democratic trait, so I doubt Obama will go for it.

Now 2012’s “fat tax” sounds innovative. That’ll pay for subsidized healthcare that Obama wants. But it will come down to lawyers about disenfranchisement about the obese (or poor, as Threepoint says above), so I doubt that will fly.

I think either candidate will be so constrained with the bailout cost and sinking economy that neither could raise taxes substantially without revolt (till the economy rebounds). The Dems (Barney Frank) says they’ll cut 25% of the military budget, but I haven’t heard what the Repubs will do to stop the bleeding of cash (reduce tax on businesses?).
— hybridfarce (View Profile)

Posted on 10/26/2008 8:39:19 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2

Doesnt ron paul support a flat tax.
— 0to60 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 10:00:47 AM | | Votes: -1

Obama's an idiot so I'm guessing he will. He wants to tax the holy crap out of everything during a WORLD ECONOMIC CRISIS. How stupid can you be?
— kut17 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/26/2008 9:31:15 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

Definitely not as stupid as you.
— henbmw (View Profile)

Posted on 10/28/2008 11:33:35 AM | | Votes: -1

At this point, anything is better than Mcain & Palin, and/or the republicans...even many republicans agree.
— _43LE (View Profile)

Posted on 10/26/2008 10:01:48 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3

YES, he will tax it. He needs to "SPREAD THE WEALTH AROUND" as Obama says.

People who drive BMWs should be taxed and the money given to those who drives Kia.

— Kyle (View Profile)

Posted on 10/26/2008 10:13:27 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3

Here in lies the lie in how he will only tax the top 5%.

That luxury tax will cause a decrease in sales for expensive things like cars, boats, RV's and other expensive products. There is historical precedence for this.

What happens when the rich stop buying toys?

The dealerships suffer. Salespeople, mechanics, lot boys, accountants, secretaries, maintenence workers, car washers stop being hired or laid off. At best, a raise in salary is less likely.

Factories suffer. Yep, that union worker who voted for "soak the rich" gets laid off or does not get the next raise. Construction workers dont build the new factory. Painters dont get paid more next year. Janitors get laid off. The guy whom makes the logo jackets the company used to give away at the Chrismas party doesn't get that order. On and on.

No, the reality is that we ALL PAY HIGHER TAXES no matter WHO they get handed to.

— SteedPub (View Profile)

Posted on 10/26/2008 10:37:54 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2

The boating industry half collapsed, if you'll recall.
— 993Turbo (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 12:09:57 PM | | Votes: 2

Herein lies the problem with the media reporting only 1 side of a campaign.

11,000,000 households would fall into Obama's "rich" category (in reality, 10 million would get out of it because of loopholes, including his wife's 300K salary).

Now, if each household in that 1million paid an extra $25,000 in taxes (10% more) that makes up $25billion in extra revenue.
Now factor in the 60million households considered middle-class and say they get $1000 back (2% of 50K avg salary), that's $60billion.
Maybe Obama can clap his hands and make the missing $35billion appear out of nowhere and CNN can report how such an amazing accountant he is (on top of being a lawyer, economist and whatever else ppl seem to think he's qualified to be).

The above calculation was me being nice and not including the about 40million households considered poor who may or may not get anything (depending on what the fineprint says) and the $1000 tax cut, from what I've seen, is supposed to be $2500 per household.
— huu76 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/26/2008 11:55:19 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 4

media reporting one side of the campaign? so which side of the campaign does fox news report? which side does talk radio castigate?
— 1995e34 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 9:06:41 AM | | Votes: 2

The RIGHT side. The LEFT is wrong.
— 993Turbo (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 12:11:42 PM | | Votes: 1

Sorry SteedPub, I stole your opening word.
— huu76 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/26/2008 11:55:48 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0

Kyle,
People who drive BMW's wouldn't even notice the new tax since 99.9% of them barely qualify as middle-class let alone rich. Rich people don't lease cars.
— huu76 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/26/2008 11:58:01 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -1

Actually many "rich" people do because it is the smartest way to spend your money. You BUY real estate and other things that "appreciate" You RENT cars and other things that "depreciate".

Thinking like that is how people get rich to begin with.
— SteedPub (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 2:20:31 PM | | Votes: -1

It simply isn't a politician's right, even those capable of delivering inspiring speeches, to decide how much earned income someone should be allowed to keep before it's confiscated and given to someone else deemed more worthy. The purpose of the IRS isn't to enforce some warped version of "social justice" that punishes productivity and success while rewarding irresponsibility. I already work from January to May just to pay the gov't their "share" of the fruits of my labor. Is this what the founding fathers of this country had in mind?
— fuelfool (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 12:51:25 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

who do you suggest does it if not uncle sam?
— 1995e34 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 9:18:39 AM | | Votes: 1

Nobody! Who's right is it?
— SteedPub (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 2:28:34 PM | | Votes: 0

the wealth has to be spread. pick your method. trickle down doesn't count.
— 1995e34 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 2:55:38 PM | | Votes: 1

1995 - the wealth should be spread indeed. Get a job and earn some of it!
— BMW740Z4 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/28/2008 11:57:09 PM | | Votes: 1

i do earn it.
— 1995e34 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/29/2008 9:44:51 AM | | Votes: 1

We can all speculate, but isn't it better to hear Obama in his own words? Stunning audio of Obama from 2001.
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=205883&comments=1#comments
— MBCLS07 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 2:13:47 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

yes he will tax tax tax tax tax. sadly whatever McCain would do would most likely be worse.
— 1234xyz (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 3:51:35 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3

With McCain we can at least hope for gridlock provided he does not sleep across the aisle too much.

That would be a markedly better thing than a unstoppable fast-rack bullet train toward European Socialism.
— SteedPub (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 1:42:48 PM | | Votes: 1

Why are all the low income people taking issues with Obama taxing the rich? It's not like anyone of them is ever going to make 250K a year anytime soon. Rich people don't hangout at autospies.
— Badgewhore (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 4:08:03 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: -2

Actually you would be surprised. And what is missed is that you tax the rich, it affects everyone, not just "the rich".

Complaining about taxes and too much of them is not a rich vs. poor argument. It is about right and wrong and the social engineer power you want to hand over to the government.

It is not the government's right or charter to take from one to give to another. That is socialism pure and simple. That is not what America was founded on and what has made us great.

— SteedPub (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 1:45:46 PM | | Votes: 2

No love from you required. Hate all you want, it seems to be your nature - and oddly enough the foundation of class warfare of the type we are discussing here.

Bottom line is, historical precedent has proven that once the plebes, non-producers, and dregs of society realize they can vote themselves bread and circus, they take over as the dominant voting bloc.

The Liberal class warfare redistribution movement seeks to feed the hate of these people to use them for their own power gains, taking away the finances and freedom of those who threaten them.

There comes a tipping point, where the producers are outnumbered by the non-producers and can no longer turn back the tide. I think we are at or just past that tipping point in America.
— SteedPub (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 5:25:53 PM | | Votes: 2

People that dont think the rich pay their 'Fair Share' are just IDIOTS. Do you even know what share the 'rich' pay?

The top 1% earners in america (>$364,657) pay 39.9% off ALL income taxes.

The top 5% earners in america (>$145,283) pay 59.9% off ALL income taxes.

The top 10% earners in america (>$103,912) pay 70.3% off ALL income taxes.

the BOTTOM 50% of earners (<$30,881) pay 3% of taxes in america.

So please spare me the rant that the rich dont pay their 'fair' share.

— michal1980 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 7:28:43 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3

ok, maybe they pay their fair share, but they make too much in the first place. so you have to remove it from their wallets somehow.

how else do you recommend making wealth more even across the population?

— 1995e34 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 9:04:27 AM | | Votes: -3

1995e34

This is pretty stupid comment. Why whould I want to make "wealth more even across the population".

Do all people have to be equal in this country?
Is this socialist country?

Most of the people who makes money, EARN them, and work hard. On top of that, they are already in the highest tax bracket, and their itemized deductions are almost non-existent, because they are phased-out.

So, don't you think they already paying enough in taxes?
— vladyxa (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 10:16:14 AM | | Votes: 2

not everyone has to be completely equal in terms of monetary compensation, but we do need to be more equal than we currently are.

and yes, to a degree i think this is a semi-socialist country. we are a mixed economy, as in a mix of privately owned entities and government owned. i know its really "out of the box" to refer to the united states as socialist. but we have given a great deal of corporate welfare in the past couple weeks.

anyhow, Alex Rodriguez made $28,000,000 this year playing a children's game, while many teachers in this country made 1/1000th of that. is a professional athlete worth 1000 teachers? either we have an inadequate economic system or a serious cultural flaw. maybe a little of both.

i just think we're more likely to advance as a nation with a bit more order rather than a bit more anarchy.
— 1995e34 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 10:37:40 AM | | Votes: -3

1995e34

That is a lot of money for a person to make playing children's game. However, on $28,000,000 he would have to pay about $12,000,000 in taxes.

Also, you are taling about two extremes: teachers and pro athletes.

How about people who work 80-90 hours a week under stress, under deadlines, with no weekends and holidays?

Then, on the other hand, you have someone who makes average salary, skim those workdays, and thinks that he does a favor by showing up for work.

Why the first hard-working person, who really earned the money, has to share it with this second person, or pay his share by paying higher taxes?

There are lots of opportunities in this countly, and if you work hard, you are rewarded accordingly. Why higher taxes should take that incentive away???
— vladyxa (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 11:34:52 AM | | Votes: 3

The simple fact is that there has never been so much disparity between the upper and middle class in the last 80-100 years. 1% of people control 20% of the wealth. 1%!

And we're not talking about NEW and INCREASED taxes for the wealthy. We're talking about rolling them back to the same levels they were at before Bush took office. So we won't pay MORE taxes. We'll only pay what we were paying BEFORE Bush gave the rich all the breaks. As McCain pledges to continue.

— finishline (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 12:24:54 PM | | Votes: -2

Lets not forget, the top 1-5% do practically no work, they goof off all the time, hired super sneaky accountants to hide more of their money so they get tax less. So in the end, their 39% share becomes more like 1% and they're even richer than ever.
— Badgewhore (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 1:31:27 PM | | Votes: 1

1995e34,

Your idea of equalization is just simply wrong and frankly socialistically evil at its core.

Not everyone DESERVES to have wealth. Some people do DESERVE to have wealth. It is good to be rich and most people that have gotten there have paid a dear price of sweat and toil.

To take from one who has created and give to another who has not is an evil communist manifesto. Period.

I always find it funny how Liberals are all into Darwin's theory of "survival of the fittest" when it comes to combating the concept of "Creation". But when the rubber hits the road, they want to prevent the theory from running its course in social governance.
— SteedPub (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 1:51:26 PM | | Votes: 3

nobody buys the "evil commie" crap anymore. it's wearing thinner by the day.

you can't give major subsidies to corporations meanwhile underfunding public infrastructure in the name of free markets. you end up speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

the welfare of corporations can't come before the welfare of the working class.

i never claimed everyone deserves wealth, and i understand some will bust their hump while others are slugs their whole life.

but the gap must be closed. people are busting their ass just treading water.

and the notion that the wealthy have made a contribution to society is for the most part a fairytale. maybe their great, great, great, great grandaddy came up with a novel idea that advanced mankind, but i know waaaaaayyy more wealthy people that are living off a trust fund than ones that have earned it themselves. they are as useless as any welfare queen.

my ideas aren't evil. i look out for those who don't have the advantages i have had.

the social evolution crap is just an excuse to have no soul.

nobody loves you.
— 1995e34 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 3:18:05 PM | | Votes: -3

i went too far on that last line. i apologize. no need to get personal.
— 1995e34 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 3:28:28 PM | | Votes: 1

No love from you required. Hate all you want, it seems to be your nature - and oddly enough the foundation of class warfare of the type we are discussing here.

Bottom line is, historical precedent has proven that once the plebes, non-producers, and dregs of society realize they can vote themselves bread and circus, they take over as the dominant voting bloc.

The Liberal class warfare redistribution movement seeks to feed the hate of these people to use them for their own power gains, taking away the finances and freedom of those who threaten them.

There comes a tipping point, where the producers are outnumbered by the non-producers and can no longer turn back the tide. I think we are at or just past that tipping point in America.
— SteedPub (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 5:26:42 PM | | Votes: 1

so the oligarch sees his days are numbered. impressive.

— 1995e34 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 5:58:35 PM | | Votes: -1

As are America's as we know it.
— SteedPub (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 8:50:52 PM | | Votes: 0

do you read any conservative periodicals? some of your views are interesting. i like to learn of other's perspectives.
— 1995e34 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 9:19:51 PM | | Votes: 1

"I always find it funny how Liberals are all into Darwin's theory of "survival of the fittest" when it comes to combating the concept of "Creation". But when the rubber hits the road, they want to prevent the theory from running its course in social governance."

1. Creationism need not be combated, merely refuted and squelched.

2. Social liberalism favors individual freedom inherently destructing centralization of power in the private sector. Taxation merely serves to provide us with our basic needs (healthcare, education, etc.). What Obama's taxation plan exhibits is, in a way, punishment for some the upper 5%'s irresponsible behavior in the finance sector.

Liberalism encourages individual freedom and success but discourages centralization of power and wealth to the point that it creates a crisis like we have just experienced.
— henbmw (View Profile)

Posted on 10/28/2008 11:50:44 AM | | Votes: 2

So 1995, why don't you put your money where your wealth is and redistribute all of your cash to the poor?

I am sure you will be happy to see all of the Escalade's in the driveways of the ghetto for your charitable effort...

You wreak of ignorant second-generation wealth.
— BMW740Z4 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/29/2008 12:09:04 AM | | Votes: 0

your sense of smell is faulty. i wouldn't consider myself wealthy. i make my own $$$.

nobody is suggesting a completely uniform income for everyone. there will be health care and reasonably priced education. the world is not turning upside down, america is just going to make repairs to the foundation.
— 1995e34 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/29/2008 9:49:44 AM | | Votes: 0

boohoo, wahhh, oh no, taxes...boohoo...

pay your taxes with a smile. you get relatively well maintained interstates, dirt cheap gasoline, and a military that could blow the planet up 100 times if they wanted to. what else could anyone need, health care?

if you want to live in a world with no taxation, go wear a loincloth in a goddamn third world country. taxation is the price of admission in a country that offers as much.

your all a bunch of spoiled little pussies.
— 1995e34 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 9:24:53 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 5

agree.
— Brembo (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 9:37:26 AM | | Votes: 0

Good Point, don't like the taxes? Go live elsewhere to get some perspective, then see how you feel about our tax system.
— BlakuraTLS (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 9:58:00 AM | | Votes: 3

The problem with the type of taxation that Obama and most Liberals want to enact is not that it is too much across the board - though it most often is.

The problem is that they are using taxation and a graduated scale as a tool to social engineer our society into their vision of nirvana.

This is to say that they want to punish those who have too much and give to those who would be their voting block. It is purely a power grab to create a dependence class upon which must keep electing those who provide bread and circus for them.

It is an evil power insurance strategy that seeks to destroy productivity, freedom, and individual exceptionalism for the sake of staying in power and gaining more.

The fact that proves this is that every time taxes have been cut, productivity increases and therefore the total tax revenue INCREASES. It has been a factual result every time it has been tried. The liberals know this very well.

Fact is they dont want to raise taxes to get more money, they want to raise taxes to control people. If it was about more money, you lower taxes.
— SteedPub (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 1:57:38 PM | | Votes: -2

Yours is a fallacious argument, 1995e34. No one is suggesting paying zero taxes. But there has to be a middle ground between paying nothing in income taxes (as is the case for 40% of Americans) and working for almost half the year, not for my family, but for the gov't. A flat tax in which every voter has a vested interest is the most equitable. Not only is it more fair, as it will remedy the situation we have now with 40% voting on how best to serve themselves with the money of those who do pay income tax, but it will actually increase total revenues overall. Now rather than blindly deboost me for speaking against your redistributionist, rainbow-fueled utopian dreams, how about actually refuting me with a substantive, factual argument?
— MBCLS07 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 7:20:33 PM | | Votes: 1

those that earn less spend a higher percentage of their income on basic survival.

just using arbitrary figures, a $50k/year worker may spend $35k/year on the basics.

a $250k/year worker may spend a bit more, say $45k on the basics.

the lower waged worker's prospects for increasing his salary through education/training/whatever are greatly diminished as he has so much less to invest in his future.

the flat tax therefore takes an inordinately large portion of the low income worker's money. on the surface, the flat tax sounds interesting. it doesn't take much thinking to see its morbidly flawed.

unless the intention is to make the american dream just a dream.

i understand the animosity towards those that take advantage of the system. but i'll concede a few freeloaders in order to allow upward mobility of the ambitious lower class.
— 1995e34 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 7:59:45 PM | | Votes: -1

Bottom line is that "survival" is not a right.
— SteedPub (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 8:50:06 PM | | Votes: 2

do you not categorize "survival" under "life" in terms of our inalienable rights?
— 1995e34 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 9:08:00 PM | | Votes: -1

"The fact that proves this is that every time taxes have been cut, productivity increases and therefore the total tax revenue INCREASES. It has been a factual result every time it has been tried. The liberals know this very well."

Statistically, Republican administrations produce poorer economic performance. Stock markets have less annual gain, average pretax income growth is lower, etc. Sorry.
— henbmw (View Profile)

Posted on 10/28/2008 11:58:03 AM | | Votes: 0

Statistically, its republican administrations that have start the greatest economic expansions during the 20th century (Reagan/Bush H.W.) and democrats wh0 destroy them with social reforms and poor national security...Sorry.
— BMW740Z4 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/28/2008 11:51:46 PM | | Votes: 1

@ 1995e34 ----- THAT WAS THE MOST SPOT ON COMMENT EVER !!!!!!
— blacktip007 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 10:56:15 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0

OH was it....

Just remember who pays the taxes. I believe it was the top 25% that bears 71% of the tax burden so obviously we have issues with paying a larger share. We don't need to live somewhere else - it's the folks in the bottom 75% of America that should live somewhere else to appreciate how much we give to support them. I'm sure that includes 1995 along with the rest of the complainers on this site.

Make no mistake, it's the top 10%-25% that built this country, finance this country, keep it safe and keep it rich. Don't piss us off more than you already have.

If you want a class war as you are always bitching about...we'll be happy to serve one up for you.
— BMW740Z4 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/29/2008 12:04:14 AM | | Votes: 0

Fact, the rich and big corporations pay less % tax than the average American, ask Warren Buffet. He calculated his secretary paid a higher % tax rate than he did. The right wing want to scare you to death about Obama's proposals to tax the top 5%. But the wealth gap is absurd, and it is helped by the fact that the more you have to more you can get away with. Go look at any big Yatch as see where it is registered, Road Harbor BVI, Grand Cayman etc etc. Your average Joe buys a boat and pays tax on it, the rich guy does not. We have to get real, the whole system is geared to delude you, while the rich guys and their govt. cohorts take everything for themselves. Hank Paulson made hundreds of millions in the private sector and then was able to divest of it TAX FREE, because he was going to work for the govt. Nice break.
— steve27t (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 11:49:27 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2

Idiot. Corporations are taxed twice. Corporate and personally. I have bought a lot of expensive stuff and have yet to find a way not to pay tax on something. I love the talk about loopholes. You should write a loophole book and make a million dollars!
— 993Turbo (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 12:25:13 PM | | Votes: -1

Completely idiotic statement. Buffett doesn't pay himself a salary through his business therefor he doesn't pay income tax. Buffett makes his money through investments and pays a capital gains tax. Money made through investment should be taxed at a lower rate because it is gained through risk of capital and if you raise the rate on such investments, the potential rewards cease to outweigh the risks. Once that happens, investment drops and the economy slows further resulting in less growth and more job losses. This is economics 101. It's alarming to find so many voters so lacking in basic knowledge, which of course, explains Obama's unfortunate popularity.
— MBCLS07 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/28/2008 12:03:02 AM | | Votes: 0

How 'bout we leave this sort of shit to the Free Republic and the Democratic Underground and keep your gawd-damned political opinions to yourself..
This is an automotive forum!!!!!
— AgentOrange (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 12:29:37 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0

Autospies has experts in practically every field.
— Badgewhore (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 1:39:07 PM | | Votes: 4

The article is about the luxury tax on CARS...did you read it?

Can YOU read it?

001
— Agent001 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 2:17:29 PM | | Votes: 4

Agent001:
Since there has been no mention from either campaign that Obama is contemplating a luxury tax, it seems to me like this topic is NOT about cars but was thrown out ONLY to further a political agenda or start a pissing contest.
Why not ask the question "if Obama loses will he encourage the "brothers" to torch cars in the 'burbs"?
After all, it is also a question relating to cars, n'est pas?
— AgentOrange (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 2:30:08 PM | | Votes: -1

Defining the “Rich” as >250K/year is incorrect.
HENRY (High Earner Not Rich Yet) = 250K <–> 500K / year.
So if >500K/year is “Rich”, those above 500K/year constitute 0.63% of all US tax payers and “contributed” to the IRS 37% of all taxes paid in 2006.

Reference: Taxes paid by income bracket 2006 IRS data.
— topneuro (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 1:32:23 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 4

HENRY (High Earner Not Rich Yet) = 200K <–> 500K / year.
Average income 287K, average taxes paid 57K.
HENRY constitutes 2.3% of all US tax payers and “contributed” to the IRS 17% of all taxes paid in 2006.

Reference: Taxes paid by income bracket 2006 IRS data.

— topneuro (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 1:41:08 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 4

On a more positive note, the current Administration has so fuked up the good ol' USA that either of the 2 running couldn't do too much more damage..
— AgentOrange (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 2:33:04 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -3

Few words to all people screaming "take wealth from rich and share it with everyone!"

If it wasn't for rich, in the first place, you would all suck big Uncle Sam's d%@c, because rich people already paying most of the taxes collected in this country.
— vladyxa (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 2:34:34 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2

the working class can exist without the rich, the rich can't exist without the working class.
— 1995e34 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 2:54:12 PM | | Votes: -2

1995e34

The points is NOT who can exist, or cannot exist without another class.

The point IS, however, that without rich, working class would be hard-working class, since they would all have to chip in for taxes which otherwise would be paid by rich.

Oh, and BTW, increasing taxes on corporation will just mean more lay-offs, more outsourced jobs, higher prices, and more rich people. Yes, it will create more rich people, but only not in United States. This new rich people will be overseas - owners of factories in China, or IT companies and call centers in India. And guess what, they will not be paying that increased US tax at all.

How is the idea will help American working class?
— vladyxa (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 3:34:08 PM | | Votes: 5

1995e34! I'm on your on this statement.
— Brembo (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 3:39:05 PM | | Votes: 0

vladyxa,

companies outsourcing jobs to markets with labor rates lower than the federal minimal wage have no business operating in our country in the first place. its a slightly gentler form of slavery.

fair trade principals address this issue.

american manufacturing jobs are disappearing because there are countries exploiting their work force. the solution is not exploit our workers even further. this can not become an international pissing contest of who can more effectively screw the working class.

the manufacturing jobs are gone forever. america's future is dependent on maintaining our superiority in technology/R&D. we need industry to shift so that its impractical to outsource jobs.

— 1995e34 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 4:48:47 PM | | Votes: 0

such taxes would would have most Americans driving 10,000 dollar econoboxes. Which is what Europe has.
— chewy (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 7:26:17 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 5

Sailor, with all due respect what you people have allowed in your country is exactly what we DONT want.

Sorry
— SteedPub (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 8:46:47 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3

even I will admit thats a tad excessive.
— 1995e34 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 9:01:19 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0

If you still live there, and allowed it to get that bad, then you are an idiot.

Do you actually believe that the government is administering your tax dollars better than the private sector could? What's the unemployment rate in your country? With all of that "trickle up" economics your GDP growth should be through the roof...is it?

I thought so....

I think you just answer the age old questions of "Why did people move to America?"
— BMW740Z4 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/29/2008 12:20:30 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0

Mr. Sailor,

If your government administers money and services better than the private sector then there is either 1. a brain drain in your country or 2. participating in government is more profitable than working in the private sector (talk about corruption)

If it takes 65% of your income to make sure that everyone is living as good as a poor American, a brain drain indeed.

In America, the smart people don't pay taxes, we have tax shelters (LLC's, LP's, Trusts, etc) to avoid paying taxes. - I only paid 15% last year. For my 15%, I never have to worry about being invaded by another country (and no terrorist attacks since 2001), can enjoy leisurely trips on the interstate between houses, enjoy being able to own the natural resources under the dirt (which you can't most European countries - strike oil, coal, gold? too bad cause it goes to the gov'ment even if you own the land!), more freedoms than anywhere else in the world - last time I checked, you can't even choose what surgeon you go to (or when you can go to him) which is why over 3 million people a year come to America for surgery/general healthcare from Canada and Europe.

I could go on, but frankly it must be overwhelming so I'll spare you further insult.

For all of our greed...Americans give more to charity than anyone else in the world on a per capita basis ($355) which is "slightly" ahead of Spain at $155 per capita. - this does not include our regular few billion here, few billion there that we (our government via our tax revenue) shells out whenever any other country has a crisis.

What country was it that you live in again?...with a 65% tax rate I would hope that the government would be able to employ everyone.
— BMW740Z4 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/29/2008 10:28:53 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0

Oh yes that right Demark...

Well you are right on the nominal GDP, but when you include the purchasing power parity (what you can get for the $$$), the United States per capita GDP is 26% HIGHER than Denmark.

Need to talk apples to apples to make your point sir...

With a monster population of 5.4 million about one quarter of the New York City metro area, I would hope that you could keep most employed.

Seriously, our economy is 70 times bigger than yours.

I don't know why I even respond anymore.
— BMW740Z4 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/29/2008 10:45:06 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0

obama hussein will raise all taxes on the rich to re-ditribute wealth, so if you dont make over $250 you probably don't care and would love some "relief" if you make over that, its called robin hood....tax increases never work and they wont in the future, esp during the economic weakness in the economy,,,,do not fool yourself we will be no better off next year or for years and the higher taxes will be passed along to all of us in items we consume, oh yeah that is 71% of the us economy...income taxes, luxury taxes, estate taxes, sales taxes it never ends....
— bocabimmer (View Profile)

Posted on 10/27/2008 7:48:42 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

Hussein NObama wants the wealthy to pay for all of his "distributions". I'd LMAO if all of the rich left the USSA en masse and took their wealth with them... ala Jimmy Rogers. Then there would be no "goose to lay golden eggs". The Socialists HAVE NOTHING unless they can tap someone else to pay for their politico power objectives.
— Hose (View Profile)

Posted on 10/28/2008 10:48:04 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3

bimmerfan25-

Remember it was us hillbillies that put man on the moon while you Euros did nothing.

What do you mean our troops don't have enough armor?

It was Socialist pig Obama that voted against the troops having enough armor.

In fact, it was the Libs that underfunded our military which led to the attack at Pearl Harbor.

At the beginning of WWII the US military was a joke because of the gun hating Libs in charge.
— EL34 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/28/2008 8:36:51 PM | | Votes: -1

Just so YOU don't sound like a dumb European hillbilly....

1. Most of us left Europe to escape socialism at one point or another.
2. Unlike Europeans (apparently) Americans don't believe that people should be
punished for innovation, success, and ambition via higher taxation.
3. If it wasn't for America, you'd all be speaking German right now (or Russian)
4. Bush speaks 3 languages (Spanish, English, Texan)
— BMW740Z4 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/28/2008 11:39:56 PM | | Votes: 0

Okay... You actually believe that most of Europe isn't socialist?

Just stop posting comments. What was left of your little credibility is lost.

While you are living in your little Euro dream world, consider this: When America gets a cough, the rest of the world is deathly ill. Read the financial times lately? Guess after 8 "terrible" years of Bush, America is still number 1.

Must be hard for you folks to swallow...huh?

— BMW740Z4 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/29/2008 12:14:15 AM | | Votes: 0

Mr. Sailor,

1. We're the largest economy is the world - BTW, in 2007 we're ranked between 4th and 6th in terms of per capita GDP (depends upon whether you are talking to the World Bank or IMF). When considering our population relative to the rest "ahead" of us is 305 Million vs. 4.8 Million (Republic of Singapore) it is evident that we have the greatest expanse of wealth in the world.
2. 75% of the national debt is owed to our own citizens. We like to invest in T-Bills, what can I say?
3. The average poor person in America has a higher standard of living than the average European.
4. Education in America is excellent given the vast area and population that our system encompasses. Our private schools are by far the best in world (why damn near everyone comes to America to get their college or private high school education).
5. In terms of "your peace" index, yep we have our ghetto's and slums (the democrats/the ignorant have to live somewhere). We also have our WASP's nests and more widespread expensive real estate than anywhere in the world (even now).

Aside, from the fact that we come to the rescue of every foreign country when ever there is a natural disaster/conflict with our money and military, fund half of the African continent, and provide Billions of people worldwide with jobs that they wouldn't have if we didn't consume as much as we do...well I'll just stop there. That's why we are number 1.
— BMW740Z4 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/29/2008 9:59:30 PM | | Votes: 0

bimmerfan25-

What do you know about living under a Socialist or Communist dictatorship?

I live in Orange County, California and we have the highest population of Vietnamese people that fled Vietnam after the war and I know quite a few.

In fact, I have a friend that was forced to watch his father get buried alive by the communist Vietnamese.

The Socialist/Communist make lots of promises and then when they get power they always forget about the poor.

Obama has a Socialist friend here in the US named Bill Ayers. Ayers' girlfriend Diana Oughton was ripped apart when the nailbomb she was building exploded and killed her and two other scums. The nailbomb would have used to kill US Army soldiers in New Jersy.

Afghanistan and Iraq are not wars, you have never seen a war.
— EL34 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/28/2008 8:45:41 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2

ur an idiot bimmer. congrats EL
— lexusrox123 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/29/2008 9:03:17 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0

Strong imagery, but EL, are you truly trying to link the violent oppression Vietnam to Obama's eventual presidency? It's getting kind of ridiculous, don't you think?

Let's start being realistic here. Obama will not bring socialism or communism to the United States. His views are merely liberal. Nothing more and nothing less.
— henbmw (View Profile)

Posted on 10/29/2008 3:59:31 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2

1995, damikco,
Let's see, they can make fun of Palin because she's a hick, but not a word on Obama being a pothead.

Mention her daughter getting knocked up but not mentiong Obama's daddy took off. I'll give him credit though, he did ask the media to layoff Palin's kid which they did (except SNL).

Obama has less experience than Palin running anything, yet she's not qualifed to be VP or President, yet he is.

How about Palin's 150K wardrobe which the RNC bought her (not her money). Haven't heard anything yet on how Obama wants to buy the election by outspending everyone in history, not to mention he decided not to take public funding when he realized how many stupid people were out there just itching to give him money.

McCain doesn't understand the economy. Guess what, neither does Obama, he's a lawyer and weasel by trade. Atleast half his ideas were stolen from Bush.

Church people are gun-lovin' nuts, but illiterate inner-city crackheads who watch (make if you're in LA) porn all day are fine Democrats.

Media bias is something the Republicans have learned to live with. All it'll take is another tragedy to occur under the Democrats to put the Republicans back in power. 9/11 didn't start on 9/10, it started in 1993 with Clinton's lame-ass response to the WTC bombing, by bombing an empty training camp.
— huu76 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/28/2008 11:00:23 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

ur an misinformed koolaid drinking dope.
— lexusrox123 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/29/2008 9:06:46 AM | | Votes: 1

i'll take a pothead over a moron any day.
— 1995e34 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/29/2008 9:58:38 AM | | Votes: 0

Did you hear Biden say today that its not $250K and above who will have taxes increased, but $150K ?

How many small businesses fit that category? Plus, we already know their figures don;t add up, get ready to bend over!

More taxes, just to "spread the wealth".
— Kyle (View Profile)

Posted on 10/29/2008 12:01:18 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3

Yes, Obama first said anyone over $250k, then later it became $200k, now I hear $150k from Biden. Question I have is how many "S" Corporations will be affected by this? I notice they keep referring to "individuals". Anyone knowledgable have the figures for persons & corps at risk?
— aussie2u (View Profile)

Posted on 10/30/2008 7:42:36 PM | | Votes: 1

If Obama wins I urge all Republicans to not buy any Union made American products.

Buy Korean, Japanese or German.

Invite all the illegal aliens to come to the USA and let them know where the sanctuary cities are.

Tell anyone in the military to get out.

Force Obama to create more and more jobs!

:-D
— EL34 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/29/2008 1:34:27 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0

The 'flat tax' rate you mentioned for everything is basically called the Fair Tax Act. People disagree on what the rate should be. When I first heard about it, I thought it was a great idea. But upon further examination and talking to accountants, you notice that it doesn't work out as it should. Basically, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. You eventually end up with the 2 classes of people. An upper and lower class. India is a perfect example of this concept in practice. You see a small percentage of really rich people, and the rest are not so well off.
But the Fair Tax Act in theory does sound great though. I'd love to do away from having to deduct this, write this off, etccc........it would great ly simplify things.
— Dave (View Profile)

Posted on 10/29/2008 11:34:50 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

The 'flat tax' rate you mentioned for everything is basically called the Fair Tax Act. People disagree on what the rate should be. When I first heard about it, I thought it was a great idea. But upon further examination and talking to accountants, you notice that it doesn't work out as it should. Basically, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. You eventually end up with the 2 classes of people. An upper and lower class. India is a perfect example of this concept in practice. You see a small percentage of really rich people, and the rest are not so well off.
But the Fair Tax Act in theory does sound great though. I'd love to do away from having to deduct this, write this off, etccc........it would great ly simplify things.
— Dave (View Profile)

Posted on 10/29/2008 11:35:15 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

here are a few facts you may not know. If you own a company now you get the privilege of giving the government more than 50% of your income NOW. 37.4% personal plus all the misc taxes and fees the government charges you to even have a business.

now follow this logic. Obama raises taxes on the people that already pay the most. Business owners decide it is too much of a hassle to deal with paying for his new new deal, decide to move facilities to south America where they actually will pay you to set up facilities. To cut costs all personnel in the U.S. are eliminated. Your jobs sent to Mexico to save taxes. Due to NAFTA corporation doesn't even have to pay tariffs. So obama will be redistributing wealth to Mexico. No one is left to pay for his deal. Hmmmm viva la recession.
— 350zman (View Profile)

Posted on 10/30/2008 7:03:36 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0

Add your Comments

Images hosted in your AgentSpace can now be posted in the comments section using the following syntax (case matters): [img]IMAGE URL[/img]
Example: [img]http://agent001.myautospies.com/images/sample.jpg[/img]

Email Me When Someone Replies To My Message

If Obama Wins Will He Re-Institute The Luxury Tax?

About the Author

User Comments

Add your Comments

Submit an article

Photo Galleries

Cars

Autoshows

Latest Articles