# Obama's plan is to redistribute the wealth.



## AllieBaba (Oct 13, 2008)

Hey, but he's no socialist.

Breitbart.tv  Obama Tells Tax-Burdened Plumber the Plan is to &#8216;Spread the Wealth Around&#8217;


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Oct 13, 2008)

Hey, a little redistribution never hurt anybody. 

Just take a look at this: What could $700 billion do for the rest of us? | SocialistWorker.org 

That's hilarious.


----------



## midcan5 (Oct 13, 2008)

What is a socialist? When words are only sticks you know there is no mind included. 


*"This is the Bush-McCain economy. Senator McCain may have forgotten, but President Bush already tried his economic policies and the results are not good. We have just been through a business cycle in which the wage of the typical worker and the typical working family fell. This is the first time that has ever happened."*

The Whiner&#039;s Recession | CommonDreams.org
The Conservative Nanny State
CEPR - America Since 1980: A Right Turn Leading to a Dead End
>


----------



## rayboyusmc (Oct 13, 2008)

Bull crap and more of the same.


----------



## editec (Oct 13, 2008)

Oh no!

The socialist are coming! The socialists are coming!

Quick everybody!  

_Go shopping!_


----------



## jreeves (Oct 16, 2008)

*When Barack Obama responded to the Ohio plumber who didn't want his taxes raised that Obama wanted to "spread the wealth around," I wanted to tell him to spread his own wealth around. *It was in any event a rare moment of candor on the part of Senator Obama. 

*Obama all but told the plumber that his wealth should be seized in the name of equity. The encounter played out one of the old themes of democratic politics: the appeal to the many to take from the few. It's traditionally an easy sell in democratic regimes. *

*Despite Obama's implication to the contrary, however, It doesn't represent much in the way of change. According to the most recent (2006) data released by the IRS, the top 1 percent of filers paid nearly 40 percent of all income taxes; the top 5 percent paid 60 percent of all income taxes. The bottom 50 percent paid virtually no income taxes (3 percent of all income taxes paid). *
The personal income tax, the federal government's main source of revenue, is collected overwhelmingly from a relative handful of Americans. The large majority of all Americans pay little or no income tax. 

Given that poorer citizens always outnumber the rich, political philosophers have long worried that government based on majority rule could lead to organized theft from the wealthy by the democratic masses. "If the majority distributes among itself the things of a minority, it is evident that it will destroy the city," warns Aristotle.

The founders of the United States were deep students of politics and history, and they shared Aristotle's worry. Up through their time, history had shown all known democracies to be "incompatible with personal security or the rights of property." James Madison and others therefore made it a "first object of government" to protect personal property from unjust confiscation. Numerous provisions were included in the Constitution and Bill of Rights to protect the property rights of citizens. 

Given that one of the causes of the American Revolution was a tax, the founders understood very well that taxation could become a way for one group to prey on another. So while the Constitution empowered the federal government to levy taxes, it limited this power mostly to indirect taxes like tariffs, duties, and excise taxes. For much of American history the federal government subsisted solely on those fees.

The Constitution did grant the federal government the power to levy "direct" taxes on a "per head" basis, but required that all money raised this way must be given to the states according to their population. The aim here was to preserve a decentralized federal system of rule, and to make it "difficult to place a direct tax on capital, the most destructive tax in terms of economic growth and economic initiative," according to Professor Edward Erler.

Until the Civil War, the idea of a tax on individual incomes would have seemed preposterous to most Americans. Only as an emergency wartime measure did Congress adopt an income tax in the 1860s, and the measure was allowed to lapse with little fanfare in 1872. Estimates vary regarding the percentage of citizens affected by the income tax of this era, but none places it at more than 10 percent.

The modern income tax begins with the Progressive era in American politics. In an influential 1889 article entitled "The Owners of the United States," crusading attorney Thomas Shearman argued that the lion's share of the country's wealth was in a limited number of hands. If an income tax was not adopted, he warned, within 30 years "the United States of America will be substantially owned" by 50,000 people.

This marked the beginning of a never-ending campaign. Many activists since have characterized America as a permanent plutocracy. And their prescription has generally been more and higher taxes. 

Shearman's advocacy of an income tax found a receptive audience in populist politician William Jennings Bryan. Exploiting the dire economic circumstances created by the depression of 1893, Bryan avidly promoted the adoption of an income tax. His proposal succeeded when Congress passed a 2 percent flat tax on incomes over $4,000 in 1894. The following year, however, the Supreme Court held the tax to be unconstitutional.

In response, Progressives condemned the Constitution as an instrument crafted by the rich to protect their selfish interests (Allen Smith), and a document rendered obsolete by intellectual progress in the century since its drafting (Woodrow Wilson). 

The Progessive condemnation of the Constitution climaxed in 1913 with the publication of An Economic Interpretation of the United States Constitution by Columbia history professor Charles Beard. Beard purported to expose the Constitution as the handiwork of a propertied elite serving its own interests to the exclusion of the majority. 

Few works of American history have been more erroneous than Beard's, as later shown by debunking historians like Robert Brown and Forrest McDonald. But by the time scholarship caught up with Beard's book, a lot of damage had been done. Frenzied attacks on "the rich" and "the wealthy" culminated in the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, authorizing federal taxation of income from all sources without limit.

So why hasn't the majority in America helped itself to more of the minority's wealth, as Aristotle and our founders feared? Partly because the protections for individual property erected by the founders have worked. Partly, too, because many Americans' political convictions are (thankfully) based on principle rather than immediate economic self-interest. And partly because the fraction of Americans who think of themselves as rich, or likely to become rich in the future, is quite large, undercutting the incentive for bashing the rich.

Obama's appeal for higher taxes to "spread the wealth around" nevertheless harks back to an old theme in political philosophy and American politics. You can believe in it, but it's not exactly change, and it is more to be worried about than hoped for.
Power Line - Spread your own wealth around
Obama's tax plan is the largest expansion of Welfare since the beginning of the War on Poverty.


----------



## editec (Oct 16, 2008)

Why is the economy in trouble?


----------



## jillian (Oct 16, 2008)

editec said:


> Why is the economy in trouble?



That's easy... because it's the logical extension of everything the right said they've said they wanted since Reagan. 

Trickle down? RAFLMAO!


----------



## PeterS (Oct 16, 2008)

editec said:


> Why is the economy in trouble?



Because of the lack of government regulation and oversite.


----------



## PeterS (Oct 16, 2008)

jreeves said:


> *Despite Obama's implication to the contrary, however, It doesn't represent much in the way of change. According to the most recent (2006) data released by the IRS, the top 1 percent of filers paid nearly 40 percent of all income taxes; the top 5 percent paid 60 percent of all income taxes. The bottom 50 percent paid virtually no income taxes (3 percent of all income taxes paid). *
> 
> .............
> 
> So why hasn't the majority in America helped itself to more of the minority's wealth, as Aristotle and our founders feared? Partly because the protections for individual property erected by the founders have worked. Partly, too, because many Americans' political convictions are (thankfully) based on principle rather than immediate economic self-interest. And partly because the fraction of Americans who think of themselves as rich, or likely to become rich in the future, is quite large, undercutting the incentive for bashing the rich.



So the poorest pay only 3% of personal taxes and you think the latter true? That's funny....


----------



## jreeves (Oct 16, 2008)

PeterS said:


> So the poorest pay only 3% of personal taxes and you think the latter true? That's funny....



The article doesn't say the poorest, it says the bottom 50% of wage earners. Furthermore, the poorest receive tax refunds from the government in the form of tax credits which is a type of welfare.


----------



## jreeves (Oct 16, 2008)

editec said:


> Why is the economy in trouble?



You really think something as complex as the American economy can be explained in a simple post?


----------



## PeterS (Oct 16, 2008)

jreeves said:


> The article doesn't say the poorest, it says the bottom 50% of wage earners. Furthermore, the poorest receive tax refunds from the government in the form of tax credits which is a type of welfare.



So if you are in the bottom 50% of wage earners you aren't the poorest? Explain. Also the CTC means tests at 110K. That's not exactly poor is it?


----------



## DavidS (Oct 16, 2008)

editec said:


> Why is the economy in trouble?



Because when left to their own devices, rich people will screw this economy up moreso than middle and lower class people.


----------



## Red Dawn (Oct 16, 2008)

"powerlineblogspot.com"


*ROTFLAMO!*


----------



## jreeves (Oct 16, 2008)

PeterS said:


> So if you are in the bottom 50% of wage earners you aren't the poorest? Explain. Also the CTC means tests at 110K. That's not exactly poor is it?



The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) sometimes called the Earned Income Credit (EIC), is a refundable federal income tax credit for *low-income working individuals and families. *
It?s easier than ever to find out if you qualify for EITC


----------



## jreeves (Oct 16, 2008)

Red Dawn said:


> "powerlineblogspot.com"
> 
> 
> *ROTFLAMO!*



It's an opinion piece using facts, due you dispute any of the facts in the article due to their obvious bias....?


----------



## PeterS (Oct 16, 2008)

jreeves said:


> The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) sometimes called the Earned Income Credit (EIC), is a refundable federal income tax credit for *low-income working individuals and families. *
> It?s easier than ever to find out if you qualify for EITC



CTC is also a means tested refund. What is your point?


----------



## Chris (Oct 16, 2008)

jreeves said:


> The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) sometimes called the Earned Income Credit (EIC), is a refundable federal income tax credit for *low-income working individuals and families. *
> It?s easier than ever to find out if you qualify for EITC



You really are an evil fuck.

Poor working mothers get an income tax credit, and the rich real estate guy is against it.

Fuck you.


----------



## Turboswede (Oct 16, 2008)

Yes, this is the familiar argument against a graduated income tax and is yelled from the mountain tops by almost every high net worth individual (but not super HNWs, they are smarter than that).  The reason the top 1% income individuals pay 40% of the income tax is because that is (proportionately) how much they benefit from government spending.

You may be thinking &#8220;What&#8230; that doesn&#8217;t make any sense, rich folks don&#8217;t collect welfare, they don&#8217;t use food stamps, so what gives!?!!

Say you have HNW guy, let&#8217;s call him Sam and Sam as an annual income of around $1,500,000 (that&#8217;s about the median for the top 1%).  Sam does not have a job (per se) but in a typical month receives the following:
$25,000 Stock dividend income
$40,000 income thrown off by family trusts
$26,000 in interest income
$6,000 in partnership income
$2,000 in income as a contractor (Board Member)

According to 2006 figures (I know out of date, but they are on my desk) his income would be subject to a marginal rate of tax of about 23%.

Sam has monthly living expenses of, say $24,000 per month so he is being taxed at a 23% rate on his gross income of $99,000 so after tax his net monthly saving would be about $52,230 or about 52% of his gross taxable income.

Now look at what Sam&#8217;s taxes pay for.  

$608 billion Social Security-
If the private sector covered these costs rather than the US government, Sam would have a smaller income from investment earnings.

$386 billion Medicare-
If the Federal Government didn&#8217;t cover these costs, Sam&#8217;s business (Sam mart?) my need to provide retiree health insurance, and that cuts down on Sam&#8217;s investment income.

$209 billion Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program
If the Federal government didn&#8217;t provide this, the workers generating dividend and interest income for Sam may want to be insured by their employer and could for a union (Sam doesn&#8217;t like unions), that would cut down Sam&#8217;s investment income.

$324 billion Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending
Without Unemployment benefits people who are without work wouldn&#8217;t be able to buy stuff and the sale of stuff is what pays Sam&#8217;s investment income.  Without Unemployed people buying stuff Sam makes less money

$261 billion (+9.2%) - Interest on National Debt 
Sam needs a stable economy with stable interest rates, without economic stability, Sam looses income.

$481.4 billion United States Department of Defense
Without a strong defense people could come and take Sam&#8217;s stuff away, besides he has Boeing Bonds and FMC stock so the more the Defense Spends, the more money Sam makes.

$145.2 billion - Global War on Terror
See DOD above.

$69.3 billion - Health and Human Services
As plagues and the rampant spread of communicable disease would negatively affect worker productivity, DHHS decreases absenteeism and that increases dividends.

$56.0 billion (+0.0%) - United States Department of Education
The businesses that pay Sam&#8217;s dividends need managers, accountants, engineers, etc.  If subsidized student loan programs and grants were eliminated businesses would need to pay professional workers more, thus profits go down, as does Sam&#8217;s monthly dividend.

$39.4 billion - United States Department of Veterans Affairs
See DOD above

$35.2 billion - US Department of Housing and Urban Development
 Sam has been trying to get rid of this one for years because he doesn&#8217;t realize any benefit from its existence.

$35.0 billion (+22.0%) - State and Other International Programs
Sam likes to be able to go to other countries and not be shot at.  Sam also receives payments from companies that do business overseas in foreign markets.

$34.3 billion - Department of Homeland Security 
Hold up, this is a whole separate line item from the DOD and Global War on Terror?  Anyway, see DOD above.

$24.3 billion - Energy 
Part of Sam&#8217;s dividend income comes from an oil trust

$20.2 billion - Department of Justice
 Kind of like DOD but now its US citizens that want to take Sam&#8217;s stuff

$20.2 billion - Department of Agriculture 
Sam has shares of ADM, supermarket to the world.  ADM receives massive government subsidies.

$17.3 billion - National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
Sam thinks space stuff is cool. Oh, and did I mention he has shares of Boeing stock already?

$12.1 billion - Department of Transportation
Sam&#8217;s investment income comes from businesses that turn stuff into different stuff, all this stuff moving needs roads.  How much would it cost private business to maintain the road network?  That would really lower Sam&#8217;s ability to buy more Stuff

$12.1 billion- Department of Treasury
You need the treasury otherwise no one will pay for all these government programs.

$10.6 billion - United States Department of the Interior 
Sam likes parks, and the stuff the DOI buys helps pay Sam&#8217;s dividends.

$10.6 billion - United States Department of Labor
Sam doesn&#8217;t like the DOL but knows that if it didn&#8217;t exist more workers may organize.

$51.8 billion (+9.7%) - Other On-budget Discretionary Spending 
Don&#8217;t know, but if they buy stuff, Sam gets a cut.

$39.0 billion - Other Off-budget Discretionary Spending 
See above.

So, as you can see the reason Sam&#8217;s income is what it is stems from all these different areas and all of them benefit his bottom line through the additional profits they provide business.

Oh, and we are not even talking about Sam&#8217;s CAPITAL income.


----------



## jreeves (Oct 16, 2008)

Chris said:


> You really are an evil fuck.
> 
> Poor working mothers get an income tax credit, and the rich real estate guy is against it.
> 
> Fuck you.



Ah yes I am evil cause I believe in the original foundation of America; hardwork breeds success. I won't stoop to your name calling and profanity, it just shows your intellectual deficit.


----------



## Chris (Oct 16, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Ah yes I am evil cause I believe in the original foundation of America; hardwork breeds success. I won't stoop to your name calling and profanity, it just shows your intellectual deficit.



Bullshit.

You don't know what hard work is. You make money off of other people's hard work.


----------



## Charles_Main (Oct 16, 2008)

jreeves said:


> You really think something as complex as the American economy can be explained in a simple post?



Apperantly this boards resident Raving idiot Jillian does. 

She has to be the single most ridiculously Partisan person I have every run across.

I love how she says she used to like McCain. Sure she did, only because he ran against Bush.

Such a disingenuous Person she is.


----------



## pegwinn (Oct 16, 2008)

The income tax is anti-constitutional. 

It is past time to simply enact a national sales tax. There is one on the table in Congress, but the elected crooks won't let it out of committee.

Google H.R. 25 for more info.

Another option (not in a bill to my knowledge) would be a national property tax.

In both cases the infrastructure and logistics is already in place in all fifty states.


----------



## Charles_Main (Oct 16, 2008)

Chris said:


> Bullshit.
> 
> You don't know what hard work is. You make money off of other people's hard work.



Typical Liberal asshole making assumptions about others based on his diluted vision of the world. The brainwashing is totally complete with you bud.


----------



## elvis (Oct 16, 2008)

pegwinn said:


> The income tax is anti-constitutional.
> 
> It is past time to simply enact a national sales tax. There is one on the table in Congress, but the elected crooks won't let it out of committee.
> 
> ...



Ron Paul can't raise enough money to put that into place.


----------



## Chris (Oct 16, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Typical Liberal asshole making assumptions about others based on his diluted vision of the world. The brainwashing is totally complete with you bud.



I don't make assumptions about the single mothers raising children while working full time who are helped by the tax credit, my friend. 

I see it every day.

You can stand up for your rich friends if you want to. That is what Republicans do.


----------



## pegwinn (Oct 16, 2008)

Chris said:


> Bullshit.
> 
> You don't know what hard work is. You make money off of other people's hard work.



Source?


----------



## jreeves (Oct 16, 2008)

Chris said:


> Bullshit.
> 
> You don't know what hard work is. You make money off of other people's hard work.



I was raised in poverty my dad was a carpenter. My dad worked his butt off to provide for my family. I didn't get where I am, which isn't rich by the way (maybe rich according to Obama because I pay taxes), by holding my hand out. I have gotten to where I am by working full time and going to college at night. Even working two jobs at some points in my life....


----------



## elvis (Oct 16, 2008)

not going to happen


----------



## bush lover (Oct 17, 2008)

The Messiah is a terrorist-loving communist Moslem who wants to turn our great country as created by our great President Bush into a third world dirthole. He wants to communize our country and undo all of the great accomplishments of our President Bush. Who is this Messiah, anyway? Where did he come from and who sent him?


----------



## Jon (Oct 17, 2008)

Chris said:


> I don't make assumptions about the single mothers raising children while working full time who are helped by the tax credit, my friend.



Working mothers get tax credits = a'okay with me.

Fat lazy fucks sitting on their couch all day getting tax credits = not okay with me.


----------



## Turboswede (Oct 17, 2008)

pegwinn said:


> The income tax is anti-constitutional.



Is that the extent of your argument?

Um, sorry to tell you this but the 16th Amendment made it constitutional, just like the 19th Amendment made Womens Suffrage Constitutional and the 13th Amendment made slavery unconstitutional.  

To make income tax unconstitutional would take a repeal of the 16th amendment like we had with the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition.

I guess you just cant keep a good document down.


----------



## pegwinn (Oct 17, 2008)

Turboswede said:


> pegwinn said:
> 
> 
> > The income tax is anti-constitutional.
> ...


----------



## jreeves (Oct 17, 2008)

Chris said:


> I don't make assumptions about the single mothers raising children while working full time who are helped by the tax credit, my friend.
> 
> I see it every day.
> 
> You can stand up for your rich friends if you want to. That is what Republicans do.



I see a lot of low income people, receiving low income housing funds while they drive their Esclades around....

Sure there is people who need a helping hand but they don't need a handout. Handouts do nothing more than further seal their doom to a life of poverty. It's a fact, just throwing money at poverty has no effect on poverty rates. Look at LBJ's war on poverty....


----------



## Chris (Oct 17, 2008)

jreeves said:


> I see a lot of low income people, receiving low income housing funds while they drive their Esclades around....
> 
> Sure there is people who need a helping hand but they don't need a handout. Handouts do nothing more than further seal their doom to a life of poverty. It's a fact, just throwing money at poverty has no effect on poverty rates. Look at LBJ's war on poverty....



I agree about the war on poverty, and Clinton reformed welfare.

But tax credits for working poor are not handouts.


----------



## elvis (Oct 17, 2008)

Chris said:


> I agree about the war on poverty, and Clinton reformed welfare.
> 
> But tax credits for working poor are not handouts.



Clinton also deregulated the banks and signed NAFTA.


----------



## Chris (Oct 17, 2008)

elvis3577 said:


> Clinton also deregulated the banks and signed NAFTA.



Nothing wrong with NAFTA.

Deregulating the banks was Phil Gramm's doing.


----------



## elvis (Oct 17, 2008)

Chris said:


> Nothing wrong with NAFTA.
> 
> Deregulating the banks was Phil Gramm's doing.



nothing wrong with NAFTA unless you live in Michigan or Ohio. all those jobs are in Mexico now because of Clinton.


----------



## Chris (Oct 17, 2008)

elvis3577 said:


> nothing wrong with NAFTA unless you live in Michigan or Ohio. all those jobs are in Mexico now because of Clinton.



There were plenty of jobs until George Bush borrowed $700 billion dollars from China to fund the occupation of Iraq.

Bill Clinton - Eight years of peace and prosperity.

George Bush - Eight years of war and debt.

Barack Obama - A return to peace and prosperity.


----------



## elvis (Oct 17, 2008)

Chris said:


> There were plenty of jobs until George Bush borrowed $700 billion dollars from China to fund the occupation of Iraq.
> 
> Bill Clinton - Eight years of peace and prosperity.
> 
> ...



I guess Kosovo and Somalia don't count.
I guess Clinton's bombing of Iraq and his sanctions that killed 200000 Iraqis don't count either. Jobs are in Mexico because GM can pay Mexicans a dollar a day instead of 20 dollars an hour. Clinton liked the corporations, too.  Obama won't do anything but raise everyone's taxes and kill more babies.


----------



## Chris (Oct 17, 2008)

elvis3577 said:


> I guess Kosovo and Somalia don't count.
> I guess Clinton's bombing of Iraq and his sanctions that killed 200000 Iraqis don't count either. Jobs are in Mexico because GM can pay Mexicans a dollar a day instead of 20 dollars an hour. Clinton liked the corporations, too.  Obama won't do anything but raise everyone's taxes and kill more babies.



Now you are just being silly.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 17, 2008)

Chris said:


> Now you are just being silly.


and you arent?


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 17, 2008)

elvis3577 said:


> nothing wrong with NAFTA unless you live in Michigan or Ohio. all those jobs are in Mexico now because of Clinton.



I would think that jobs have been outsourced because of cheaper labour elsewhere - happens to us in Aus and it's not because of any free trade agreement, the businesses just offshore them to increase profit.


----------



## Ravi (Oct 17, 2008)

Does anyone have a transcript of Obama's conversation with Joe? Because I have a feeling it is being interpreted incorrectly and I'd like to see for myself.


----------



## rayboyusmc (Oct 17, 2008)

> Obama all but told the plumber that his wealth should be seized in the name of equity. The encounter played out one of the old themes of democratic politics: the appeal to the many to take from the few. It's traditionally an easy sell in democratic regimes.



Did you actually read the transcript of their conversation or listen to it.  Your interpretaion above is a little skewed.

It's interesting that when we want to take back the tax cut from the rich, it's class warfare.  But when it was given to them it wasn't.

Look at the actual data to see how much the rich really pay in taxes.  It may not be speading the wealth like you say.


----------



## editec (Oct 17, 2008)

jreeves said:


> You really think something as complex as the American economy can be explained in a simple post?


 
I think that inequiy in Federal taxation is only part of the problem.

Those poor, that you insist are only paying 3% of the personal incomes taxes, (and that is true) are paying the vast majority of all other state and local taxes, which means that they are really paying the for the vast majority of services that citizens actually use.

Why you guys keep missing that obvious fact I don't understand.

Generally, I notice that you complaints about FEDERAL TAXES are an excuse to suggest that the rich need more tax breaks.

Look at the net worth of the monied class. Note how their net worth keeps rising, while the bottom 80% of us are getting poorer?

Given that, how on earth can you still be complaining about how put upon the rich are in this nation?

State after state is finding they can no longer support their infrastructures, (and it's the working class that pays most of _those_ local taxes) and STILL some of us here are demanding that the rich get still more tax breaks for their FEDERAL taxes.

Meanwhile the FEDERAL government is sluffing off its revenue sharing agreements with the states, thus putting them into the red all over the nation.

I don't get how you can keep missing this Federal/STATE disconnect, to be honest.


----------



## DiamondDave (Oct 17, 2008)

Chris said:


> I agree about the war on poverty, and Clinton reformed welfare.
> 
> But tax credits for working poor are not handouts.



Tax "credits" with money coming back when they are paying no taxes to begin with, is INDEED just another form of welfare.... kirky boy


----------



## Navy1960 (Oct 17, 2008)

I had the chance to see T. Boone Pickens yesterday in an interview discussing his energy plan , and during the interview he was asked about taxes. His answer was quite telling, he said that it would be a big mistake to raise taxes on anyone during an economic downturn, forgive my paraphrase. IMO his energy plan which Obama has  used from time to time to promote his own is the way to energy independance in this country.  It's telling when a businessman of his stature  is basically saying the same things about  Obama's tax plan, that many others have been saying.  Please forgive the paraphrase, as I am still working on that first cup of coffee. 

[youtube]vdB_STNOGU[/youtube]


----------



## Chris (Oct 17, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> Tax "credits" with money coming back when they are paying no taxes to begin with, is INDEED just another form of welfare.... kirky boy



Sorry, Brainiac, they are paying taxes to begin with. They are just getting some of them back. 

I have friends who are single mothers who work full time and count on those tax credits to help them raise their families.


----------



## Navy1960 (Oct 17, 2008)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vdB_STNOGU]YouTube - Pickens On The Obama Tax Plan[/ame]

Here is the link, I don't know why all I got was a white box on that last post.


----------



## Chris (Oct 17, 2008)

T. Boone is a billionaire Republican. 

No suprise he doesn't want the rich taxed.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Oct 17, 2008)

editec said:


> I think that inequiy in Federal taxation is only part of the problem.
> 
> Those poor, that you insist are only paying 3% of the personal incomes taxes, (and that is true) are paying the vast majority of all other state and local taxes, which means that they are really paying the for the vast majority of services that citizens actually use.
> 
> ...



Personally, I'd much rather have 20% of my tax money paid locally and send only 7-10% to the feds.

As you say, most of the services I use are provided by my local government.

The federal government should be reduced to its original functions of national defense and diplomacy. Everything else should be the responsibility of each individual state. At least then we could see where our money is going.


----------



## Ravi (Oct 17, 2008)

Found it. As I suspected, this quote was taken out of context. Obama was clearly talking about giving middle class people a tax cut...thereby spreading the wealth by allowing them to keep more of their personal income and spend it in the community.

It's almost gotten pathetic, what the Republicans are doing.


----------



## jillian (Oct 17, 2008)

Almost?


----------



## Navy1960 (Oct 17, 2008)

It's interesting though Chris that Obama was not calling him a "Rich Republican" when he was using  T. Boone's name  to promote his own energy plan.  The other thing to consider here Chris is that the someone that has that kind of wealth tells you that if you tax me more, I'm simply going to pass along the cost to you the consumer, or lay you off, then its something that needs to be paid attention too. As I had said earlier, a tax cut is not a tax cut when you don't have a job to pay taxes. Another thing to consider as well Chris, is you get a tax cut on one end and then go to purchase goods and services, and your paying a tax on the other end. Even if you don't call it a tax it is.  A corporation is in the tax collection business not the tax paying business.  Once people understand that concept then people might understand that it may be a better idea to give companies incentives to HIRE rather than penalties to lay them off.


----------



## Chris (Oct 17, 2008)

Navy1960 said:


> It's interesting though Chris that Obama was not calling him a "Rich Republican" when he was using  T. Boone's name  to promote his own energy plan.  The other thing to consider here Chris is that the someone that has that kind of wealth tells you that if you tax me more, I'm simply going to pass along the cost to you the consumer, or lay you off, then its something that needs to be paid attention too. As I had said earlier, a tax cut is not a tax cut when you don't have a job to pay taxes. Another thing to consider as well Chris, is you get a tax cut on one end and then go to purchase goods and services, and your paying a tax on the other end. Even if you don't call it a tax it is.  A corporation is in the tax collection business not the tax paying business.  Once people understand that concept then people might understand that it may be a better idea to give companies incentives to HIRE rather than penalties to lay them off.



Reducing taxes on the rich and passing them on to the ordinary taxpayer is the Republican's mantra. David Stockman, Reagan's budget director said Reagan's tax cuts were a "trojan horse" to reduce taxes on the rich. Obama's plan is to reduce taxes on those making less than $250,000 a years and pass some of the burden on the rich. I guess they won't be able to afford any more $10,000 watches or $75,000 Land Cruisers. 

So sad.....


----------



## Navy1960 (Oct 17, 2008)

Chris said:


> Reducing taxes on the rich and passing them on to the ordinary taxpayer is the Republican's mantra. David Stockman, Reagan's budget director said Reagan's tax cuts were a "trojan horse" to reduce taxes on the rich. Obama's plan is to reduce taxes on those making less than $250,000 a years and pass some of the burden on the rich. I guess they won't be able to afford any more $10,000 watches or $75,000 Land Cruisers.
> 
> So sad.....



I don't think you saw one word in any of my posting that used the word "rich".  The bottom line Chris is that when you work hard in the United States  here is a difficult concept for some to swallow, its not a bad thing to realize SUCCESS for your hard work.  At the same time, the so-called rich that Obama wishes to punish for their success and then re-distribute their  incomes to people who don't pay taxes are the very same people who pay most of the taxes in the first place. All these  Obama supporters think that this impending  "middle class" tax cut is going to be a great thing. You want to know whats going to happen during an economic downturn when you raise taxes on 80% of the tax payers and raise the corporate tax rate during this kind of situation.  One, you will have a rise in "inflation" costs of goods will rise such as  food, transportation, home heating, etc. Two, companies will reduce overhead to adjust for the new tax rate by laying off employee's, causing a rise in unemployment and even more people looking to the governement for assistance. Three, in a further effort to reduce costs,  companies will seek cheaper alternatives in offshore labor i.e. outsourcing. You want to see a real display of this Chris, when Obama implements his "windfall profits" tax on oil go to the gas station that very same day or the next and see what the price of your fuel is the next day. That tax YOU will be paying not the oil companies.  So lets look at it this way, you have a gigantic budget deficit, and have recently added over a trillion dollars in numerous "bailouts" and then you add another trillion in new spending on top of that for social programs, and then you raise taxes on 80% of the tax base to help pay for the social programs then turn around and give back a tax break to the other 100 million who pay little or no taxes. You have not reduced the deficit, or spending, you have added to it in multiple ways.  It's as plain as day.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 17, 2008)

Turboswede said:


> Yes, this is the familiar argument against a graduated income tax and is yelled from the mountain tops by almost every high net worth individual (but not super HNWs, they are smarter than that).  The reason the top 1% income individuals pay 40% of the income tax is because that is (proportionately) how much they benefit from government spending.



No they aren't smarter than that.  they have simply reached a level of wealth where they can afford not to care if the government decides their entitled to half of it.  that paragraph couldn't be a bigger load of bullshit if you wanted it to be.




Turboswede said:


> Say you have HNW guy, let&#8217;s call him Sam and Sam as an annual income of around $1,500,000 (that&#8217;s about the median for the top 1%).  Sam does not have a job (per se) but in a typical month receives the following:
> $25,000 Stock dividend income
> $40,000 income thrown off by family trusts
> $26,000 in interest income
> ...



And you want to maintain a level of credibility by telling us these figures constitute a typical income for a HNW individual?  You won't get far around here making stuff up.




Turboswede said:


> $608 billion Social Security-
> If the private sector covered these costs rather than the US government, Sam would have a smaller income from investment earnings.



You just got done using you lame quote of a person unknown to prove the notion that these people use a large chunk of tax dollars.  And you start out by listing figures on programs where their tax money is going to go predominatly to other people?  That makes sense.  HNW individuals aren't depending on social security.



Turboswede said:


> $386 billion Medicare-
> If the Federal Government didn&#8217;t cover these costs, Sam&#8217;s business (Sam mart?) my need to provide retiree health insurance, and that cuts down on Sam&#8217;s investment income.



That is a HUGE 'might'.  Plus you previously claimed 'Sam' doesn't work.  If he has his own business, he works.



Turboswede said:


> $209 billion Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program
> If the Federal government didn&#8217;t provide this, the workers generating dividend and interest income for Sam may want to be insured by their employer and could for a union (Sam doesn&#8217;t like unions), that would cut down Sam&#8217;s investment income.



Wow assumption laden and a totally contrived scenario.



Turboswede said:


> $324 billion Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending
> Without Unemployment benefits people who are without work wouldn&#8217;t be able to buy stuff and the sale of stuff is what pays Sam&#8217;s investment income.  Without Unemployed people buying stuff Sam makes less money



Unemployed people should be buying only what they need.  So this is contingent upon whether Sam's Mart sells said types of goods or not.



Turboswede said:


> $261 billion (+9.2%) - Interest on National Debt
> Sam needs a stable economy with stable interest rates, without economic stability, Sam looses income.
> 
> $481.4 billion United States Department of Defense
> ...



Wow.  that was an awful lot of numbers to pull out of your ass.  And you didn't even come to close to proving your original point.  You contrived a bunch of ifs and mights plus you said he was getting a proportionate amount of benefits from his taxes when almost all of your list are things provided to other people that he doesn't have a need for so you try to make this bullshit indirect link between all these expenditures and Sam's income.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 17, 2008)

Chris said:


> There were plenty of jobs until George Bush borrowed $700 billion dollars from China to fund the occupation of Iraq.
> 
> Bill Clinton - Eight years of peace and prosperity.
> 
> ...



How and where, EXACTLEY, were jobs lost by doing this?


----------



## Chris (Oct 17, 2008)

Navy1960 said:


> I don't think you saw one word in any of my posting that used the word "rich".  The bottom line Chris is that when you work hard in the United States  here is a difficult concept for some to swallow, its not a bad thing to realize SUCCESS for your hard work.  At the same time, the so-called rich that Obama wishes to punish for their success and then re-distribute their  incomes to people who don't pay taxes are the very same people who pay most of the taxes in the first place. All these  Obama supporters think that this impending  "middle class" tax cut is going to be a great thing. You want to know whats going to happen during an economic downturn when you raise taxes on 80% of the tax payers and raise the corporate tax rate during this kind of situation.  One, you will have a rise in "inflation" costs of goods will rise such as  food, transportation, home heating, etc. Two, companies will reduce overhead to adjust for the new tax rate by laying off employee's, causing a rise in unemployment and even more people looking to the governement for assistance. Three, in a further effort to reduce costs,  companies will seek cheaper alternatives in offshore labor i.e. outsourcing. You want to see a real display of this Chris, when Obama implements his "windfall profits" tax on oil go to the gas station that very same day or the next and see what the price of your fuel is the next day. That tax YOU will be paying not the oil companies.  So lets look at it this way, you have a gigantic budget deficit, and have recently added over a trillion dollars in numerous "bailouts" and then you add another trillion in new spending on top of that for social programs, and then you raise taxes on 80% of the tax base to help pay for the social programs then turn around and give back a tax break to the other 100 million who pay little or no taxes. You have not reduced the deficit, or spending, you have added to it in multiple ways.  It's as plain as day.



Sorry, after Reagan and Bush created 90% of the National Debt by reducing taxes on the rich, I don't trust Republican presidents with my money. Clinton balanced the budget by cutting the incredibly bloated defense budget. Defense is the biggest welfare queen there is.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 17, 2008)

jreeves said:


> You really think something as complex as the American economy can be explained in a simple post?



Yes.  At least the problem with taxes can.

Unfair and complex tax codes that_ both_ the republicans and the democrats have used to manipulate the marketplace to dole out favors in exchange for campaign money.

Tax codes:  Making them simple makes them fair.

-Joe


----------



## DiamondDave (Oct 17, 2008)

Chris said:


> Sorry, Brainiac, they are paying taxes to begin with. They are just getting some of them back.
> 
> I have friends who are single mothers who work full time and count on those tax credits to help them raise their families.



No... kirky boy... a little over 1/3 of Americans pay no federal tax... any additional money coming back to them, moron, would indeed be a disguised form of welfare....

And as for what they 'count on'... start counting on yourself and the efforts you put toward EARNING for your family... not what can be sapped from or redistributed by the government


----------



## DiamondDave (Oct 17, 2008)

Chris said:


> Sorry, after Reagan and Bush created 90% of the National Debt by reducing taxes on the rich, I don't trust Republican presidents with my money. Clinton balanced the budget by cutting the incredibly bloated defense budget. Defense is the biggest welfare queen there is.



Your spewing of the same lie, over and over and over and over again... does not make it truth, kirky boy... and your little reaganbushdebt.org or whatever site is not proof with it's selective and biased 'analysis'


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 17, 2008)

AVG-JOE said:


> Yes.  At least the problem with taxes can.
> 
> Unfair and complex tax codes that_ both_ the republicans and the democrats have used to manipulate the marketplace to dole out favors in exchange for campaign money.
> 
> ...



Then why won't either candidate propose one ?


----------



## Navy1960 (Oct 17, 2008)

Chris said:


> Sorry, after Reagan and Bush created 90% of the National Debt by reducing taxes on the rich, I don't trust Republican presidents with my money. Clinton balanced the budget by cutting the incredibly bloated defense budget. Defense is the biggest welfare queen there is.



President Clinton began his presidency with just a few guidelines relating to national security and defence policy and without the firm backing of the military establishment. Clinton believed the US military should be streamlined and roles and missions re-assessed. Accordingly, the administration ordered an examination of the military's long-term budget needs based on potential security threats in the post-cold-war world. The conclusions were unveiled in September 1993 in the Bottom-Up Review (BUR) and have served as the basis for defence policy goals. BUR outlined a new strategy and force structure to meet four key threats to US security. First was regional conflicts; second, proliferation of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction; third, threats to US economic strength; and fourth, failure of democratic reforms in the former Soviet Union. Clinton was offered four policy alternatives for force levels and chose the Pentagon's preferred win-win option. Under this option, sufficient force levels are to be maintained to win two almost simultaneous major regional conflicts (MRC). The US military would fulfil this option by cultivating a high state of readiness, ensuring morale was high, and continuing to deploy technologically superior weaponry.

While I will completely agree with you on the fact that Clinton did in fact cut the DoD budget. I will tell you this, it is rather short sighted Chris to say that the sole reason for a budget surplus at the end of the Clinton years was because of cutting DoD's budget.  DoD' issue is not in how much money they spend but how they spend it and what they spend it on. Let me give you just one example, The Comanche helicopter was a scout helicopter that was axed by Don Rumsfeld after DoD had spent several billion in development on it. Thats with a B.  The DoD is RIPE with programs like this and still we have a military that has in the field weapons systems in some cases that are over 60 years old and falling apart all because of the good old buddy network.  When this nation take over 20 years from development to active deployment of a weapons system it becomes a cash cow.  Take a look at some of these weapon systems we have in the field. B-52. first flew in 1952, the KC-135 also a 50's and 60's era aircraft, F-15, F-16, the list is endless. With all the untold billions of dollars spent we still have weapons systems limping along. Thats because during many Administrations the DoD has been mismanaged at the expense of the US Military.  So Obama cuts the DOD budget in an effort to balance the budget or pay for his social agenda , he has not addressed the real problem.


----------



## LordBrownTrout (Oct 17, 2008)

I'm anxious to see how this trickle up poverty is going to work.


----------



## DiamondDave (Oct 17, 2008)

Because the party of entitlement and the buying of votes thru entitlement has no wish in the concept of fairness... 

There have been a few, and only a few, on the REP side that have called for a true and fair and streamlined tax system.... and I fully support those that have that agenda


----------



## editec (Oct 17, 2008)

Skull Pilot said:


> Personally, I'd much rather have 20% of my tax money paid locally and send only 7-10% to the feds.


 

Understood.  But the game has been that the FEDs take the lions share of taxes, and they do revenue sharing to help the states pay for things like welfare, and roads and all those social services which we depend on our states for.

And what is going on, policy by policy, is that the FEDS are abandoning that revenuse sharing system.

For example, here in Maine, the FEDS changed the way they're willing to pay medicade thus putting Maine another $80 million in the red.

Now who pays the difference?  The working class in the form of fewer social services, higher fees, higher local and state taxes, that's who.

The rich meanwhile?  They keep getting more FEDERAL tax breaks.



> As you say, most of the services I use are provided by my local government.
> 
> *The federal government should be reduced to its original functions of national defense and diplomacy*. Everything else should be the responsibility of each individual state. At least then we could see where our money is going.


 
If we lived in the 18th century, I'd agree with you on that. But now we live in a time where we need a strong central government, too.

However, we should be able to write off every state and local tax I pay from our Federal taxes.

We can't.

So our federal government still takes our money and sends less and less of it back to our states.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 17, 2008)

editec said:


> However, we should be able to write off every state and local tax I pay from our Federal taxes.
> 
> We can't.
> 
> So our federal government still takes our money and sends less and less of it back to our states.



And why does strong central government equal government taxing and spending gobs of money?  A strong government to me would be one that efficiently and wisely spends money, which ours clearly doesn't.


----------



## pegwinn (Oct 17, 2008)

Depends on how you define strong.

Strong in the modern sense means controlling. And IOT be controlling the .gov must be both large and complex.

I want a small, efficient, central .gov that only does those things enumerated.


----------



## AllieBaba (Oct 17, 2008)

jillian said:


> That's easy... because it's the logical extension of everything the right said they've said they wanted since Reagan.
> 
> Trickle down? RAFLMAO!



I notice the bail out is certainly having an immediate effect on the economy.

Everything the right wanted went out with Reagan. So if there's no trickle down, it has absolutely nothing to do with his policies.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 17, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> Then why won't either candidate propose one ?



They won't until we demand it.  We won't demand it as long as we are spending our time calling each other names and arguing over passionate but pointless issues like gay rights, abortion and religion.

From the point of view of the wealth that controls most of this planets resources and is working hard to get the rest, Republican -vs- Democrat squabbling over lifestyles is a whopping 'Mission Accomplished'... 

-Joe


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 17, 2008)

Skull Pilot said:


> Personally, I'd much rather have 20% of my tax money paid locally and send only 7-10% to the feds.
> 
> As you say, most of the services I use are provided by my local government.
> 
> The federal government should be reduced to its original functions of national defense and diplomacy. Everything else should be the responsibility of each individual state. At least then we could see where our money is going.



How would you feel about the counties collecting tax however is best suited for them - Income tax for bedroom counties, business tax for industrial counties, sales tax for retail counties or some combination that the people of a county agree on, and the state collecting 10% off the top of county revenues, with the federal government collecting 10% off the top of state revenues...

Talk about taxation _with_ representation!

-Joe


----------



## Turboswede (Oct 17, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> Wow.  that was an awful lot of numbers to pull out of your ass.  And you didn't even come to close to proving your original point.  You contrived a bunch of ifs and mights plus you said he was getting a proportionate amount of benefits from his taxes when almost all of your list are things provided to other people that he doesn't have a need for so you try to make this bullshit indirect link between all these expenditures and Sam's income.



You seem to have me at a disadvantage sir as I do not know how to multi-quote on this forum, so I will restate your points and offer my responses

_Wow.  that was an awful lot of numbers to pull out of your ass. _

I actually pulled the budget numbers from the Office of the President, which was not my ass the last time I checked.  If you would like to check (the numbers, not my ass) please go to:

Budget of the United States Government: Browse Fiscal Year 2008

As for the median AGI and income I used for Sam, that I admitted were a little dated I pulled from the Tax Foundation and can be verified at:

The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data

Once againnot my ass.

_And you didn't even come to close to proving your original point._

That someone who realizes all of his AGI from investment income benefits financially from government spending? (that was my point in case you missed it) Yes I think I did, but the weekend is coming so will be able to elaborate further.

_You contrived a bunch of ifs and mights plus you said he was getting a proportionate amount of benefits from his taxes when almost all of your list are things provided to other people that he doesn't have a need for so you try to make this bullshit indirect link between all these expenditures and Sam's income._

This post is for fun, you pay me my hourly rate and I will be happy to generate the numbers.  I am basing my statement off a project I did in graduate school that found the net effect of tax/spend/invest/dividend equation is about 20%.  I know you will say I am pulling that out of my ass too, but NO ONE who isnt paid to grade economics theses would ever want to go through that paper (not even me).

_They have simply reached a level of wealth where they can afford not to care if the government decides their entitled to half of it.  _

Here you are just wrong, VHNW individuals do care about what they give to the government and happen to be some of the most effective drivers of progressivism when it comes to tax policy.  An example?  Bill Gates support of the Federal and Washington State estate taxes.

_that paragraph couldn't be a bigger load of bullshit if you wanted it to be._

I think profanity cheapens the argument and chills open debate.  Other than that, I assure you, if I wanted it to be a bigger load of BS it could be.  Some of the liberals on this forum post things that are clearly inflammatory or untrue, thats not my goal.

_And you want to maintain a level of credibility by telling us these figures constitute a typical income for a HNW individual?  You won't get far around here making stuff up._

I dont understand what figures you are referring to?  If you mean the Median AGI of Sam I think I explained my methodology and my source data can be found at the link above.  If you mean the breakdown of where Sams income comes from then I obviously needed to make it up as Sam does not really exist, are you questioning my apportionment of partnership and dividend income?  More specifics please.
_
You just got done using you lame quote of a person unknown to prove the notion that these people use a large chunk of tax dollars._

I didnt quote anyone.

_And you start out by listing figures on programs where their tax money is going to go predominantly to other people?  That makes sense._

I am glad you agree, the cash payments obviously go to someone else, in most cases that someone happens to be the financial markets (for national debt) or a government contractor (discretionary spending).  Most of the contractors are publicly traded companies that pay dividends.  These dividends are then paid as income to Sam.

This is not a difficult concept to grasp and is Macro Econ 101 stuff.  When the government spends money it does not disappear, it is injected back into the private sector because most people these days dont burry cash in the back yard or keep it hidden in the mattress.

_HNW individuals aren't depending on social security._

True, so it should be means tested, right?

Anyway, the HNW individual doesnt care about the SSA on an individual level.  On the aggregate level it is extremely important to the HNW individual who either lives on investment income or runs a medium to large business, here is the reason, step by step:

1.	Given that people like to stop working at some point and,
2.	Given that people need income even when they are not working
3.	Business have developed retirement plans
4.	These retirement plans need to be funded by the business
5.	The SSA offsets the amount of funding the business needs to provide given a set benefit level.
6.	If the SSA didnt exist, Businesses would still need retirement plans providing the same level of benefit to attract the same workers.
7.	The additional funding cost pulls out earnings and profits from the corporations financials
8.	The company basses dividend payments on it quarterly E&P so,
9.	Less E&P = less dividend

_That is a HUGE 'might'.  Plus you previously claimed 'Sam' doesn't work.  If he has his own business, he works._

Ok, I was a little light hearted about that one, let me rephrase, if the government did not provide medical care for retirees the private sector WOULD need to cover these costs.  If people think that health insurance premiums are high, just check out what supplemental retiree welfare benefit premiums are.  BTW, this is one of the reasons GM is just about bankrupt after a decade of record profits from light truck sales.

I was proposing that Sam lives off of investment income, even if the investment income is generated by a company he founded.  Very few individuals with an AGI above $1,000,000 actually work as §162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code limits the compensation deduction a company may take for salary to $1,000,000.  Compensation too Officers in excess of $1M is usually made in the form of Equity Compensation.  There are exceptions to that general rule, but if you go through some corporate proxy statements you will find that the Salary amounts paid to officers rarely exceed $1M.  In most cases corporations have deferral programs that allow executive to defer bonus compensation to a later date (so its not in AGI) and equity compensation can also be deferred (so not in AGI).

It is highly unlikely that an individual with an average AGI of $1.5M actually works for a living, other than sitting in on a couple of board of directors meeting per year.

If Sam is a business owner who pays himself a salary of $1.5M he needs to seek better financial advice.


_Wow assumption laden and a totally contrived scenario._

Its my scenario and I get to make up the rules, however, without Medicaid there would be a large incentive for the working poor to push for more healthcare coverage.  Nothing is as big a motivator for industrial unrest as seeing your children die of pneumonia.

_Unemployed people should be buying only what they need.  So this is contingent upon whether Sam's Mart sells said types of goods or not._

What you need is determined by how much you have to spend.  I may need a new home but will refrain from buying one until have the money.  The unemployed parent of a child may need to buy a new winter coat for their kid, but if the money is not there, it will not be purchased.  Do you know what everyone needs?  That sounds like Socialism to me.


----------



## Turboswede (Oct 17, 2008)

jreeves said:


> I was raised in poverty my dad was a carpenter. My dad worked his butt off to provide for my family. I didn't get where I am, which isn't rich by the way (maybe rich according to Obama because I pay taxes), by holding my hand out. I have gotten to where I am by working full time and going to college at night. Even working two jobs at some points in my life....



I pay taxes too, and see it as my patriotic duty to provide support for my country and countrymen.

Weird, I grew up in a single parent household and put myself through school working full time but I dont seem to feel that everyone should have it as tough as I did.  I also think that fortune smiled on me enough to get through those tough times.  There are people out there who are not as lucky and I am happy the government provides what little it does.

let me ask you, did you attend a state college or University?  Did you or your parents receive any subsidized student loans?  If so, you have also been the recipient of a government sponsored benefit

AKA

(drum roll please.) 

Welfare


----------



## Turboswede (Oct 17, 2008)

Its all a continuum with pure Capitalism on one side and pure Socialism on the other, instead of saying Obama is a Socialist, its more appropriate to say he is more of a Socialist than McCain or less of a Capitalist.

For Obama to really be a full on Socialist he would want to abolish private industry and have the State run industry for the benefit of the people, I dont think he has that in mind.

On the other hand for McCain to not have and Iota of Socialism in his make up, he would want to abolish Social Security and Medicare and I seriously doubt that those Ideas go through McCains head.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 17, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Hey, but he's no socialist.
> 
> Breitbart.tv  Obama Tells Tax-Burdened Plumber the Plan is to Spread the Wealth Around



Allie, you need to read this:

ThomHartmann.com - Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts

And then get back to me and tell me if you get it.  The rich don't pay taxes.  And if you haven't noticed, it's starting to affect the economy and our infrastructure.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 17, 2008)

Turboswede said:


> Its all a continuum with pure Capitalism on one side and pure Socialism on the other, instead of saying Obama is a Socialist, its more appropriate to say he is more of a Socialist than McCain or less of a Capitalist.
> 
> For Obama to really be a full on Socialist he would want to abolish private industry and have the State run industry for the benefit of the people, I dont think he has that in mind.
> 
> On the other hand for McCain to not have and Iota of Socialism in his make up, he would want to abolish Social Security and Medicare and I seriously doubt that those Ideas go through McCains head.



He does want to abolish social security!!!  Are you kidding?

And since McCain likes to quote Joe the Plumbers assistant, may I?

Social Securitys a joke, he said. I have parents. I dont need another set of parents called the government. Let me take my money and invest it how I please.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 17, 2008)

Turboswede said:


> I pay taxes too, and see it as my patriotic duty to provide support for my country and countrymen.
> 
> Weird, I grew up in a single parent household and put myself through school working full time but I dont seem to feel that everyone should have it as tough as I did.  I also think that fortune smiled on me enough to get through those tough times.  There are people out there who are not as lucky and I am happy the government provides what little it does.
> 
> ...



Read that link I provided to Allie.  In it, Thom talks about how back in the day you could be a waiter and put yourself through college.  I did it too in the 80's.  Today, you have to take out loans and when you leave college, you already have what amounts to a small house payment.  So all these tax cuts to the rich has drove up our costs, or we haven't updated our infrastructure because we just don't have the money.  So maybe we should start taxing corporations again.  They won't mind.  They don't have hearts or souls.  They are not living.  They don't cry, hurt, bleed.  This country is for We the People, not the corporations.  Our founding fathers even warned us about Corporations getting too powerful.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 17, 2008)

Turboswede said:


> Its all a continuum with pure Capitalism on one side and pure Socialism on the other, instead of saying Obama is a Socialist, its more appropriate to say he is more of a Socialist than McCain or less of a Capitalist.
> 
> For Obama to really be a full on Socialist he would want to abolish private industry and have the State run industry for the benefit of the people, I dont think he has that in mind.
> 
> On the other hand for McCain to not have and Iota of Socialism in his make up, he would want to abolish Social Security and Medicare and I seriously doubt that those Ideas go through McCains head.



One more thing.  Your post reminded me of the argument over regulations.  It isn't an argument of regulations vs. zero regulations.  It's too many vs. not enough.


----------



## Turboswede (Oct 17, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Read that link I provided to Allie.  In it, Thom talks about how back in the day you could be a waiter and put yourself through college.  I did it too in the 80's.  Today, you have to take out loans and when you leave college, you already have what amounts to a small house payment.  So all these tax cuts to the rich has drove up our costs, or we haven't updated our infrastructure because we just don't have the money.  So maybe we should start taxing corporations again.  They won't mind.  They don't have hearts or souls.  They are not living.  They don't cry, hurt, bleed.  This country is for We the People, not the corporations.  Our founding fathers even warned us about Corporations getting too powerful.


I paid my way through school in the mid 90s without taking any loans, and tuition costs at state schools here in Washington havent gone up that much so I would wager that you could still pay for school yourself working full time.

I dont think I ever argued against taxing corporations, did I?

My point was that if you have attended a State College or University 50-80% of your costs were subsidized by the government.  Even though I paid $950/quarter for school the states tab was an additional $2,500.  So, for 5 years I received a welfare benefit of $7,500 per year.  At the time that was considerably more than a single mother of 3 would receive from the government through AFDC.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 17, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Allie, you need to read this:
> 
> ThomHartmann.com - Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts
> 
> And then get back to me and tell me if you get it.  *The rich don't pay taxes.  And if you haven't noticed, it's starting to affect the economy and our infrastructure.*





This person has glimpsed the big picture on this planet!



-Joe


----------



## Charles_Main (Oct 17, 2008)

Chris said:


> I don't make assumptions about the single mothers raising children while working full time who are helped by the tax credit, my friend.
> 
> I see it every day.
> 
> You can stand up for your rich friends if you want to. That is what Republicans do.



Thanks for proving my point. You are a typical Liberal who assumes anyone who holds Conservative values, or Votes Republican is Rich.

I am no where near rich, I would barely qualify as lower middle class.

Reeves is also not rich.

Keep making mindless assumptions like the brainwashed liberal automoton you are.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 17, 2008)

AVG-JOE said:


> This person has glimpsed the big picture on this planet!
> 
> 
> 
> -Joe


yet he, and you, will vote for someone that will raise taxes on those that dont pay them, and never will
they will always pass those taxes onto YOU


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 17, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> yet he, and you, will vote for someone that will raise taxes on those that dont pay them, and never will
> they will always pass those taxes onto YOU



Until a better option comes along...  Yes.

-Joe


----------



## jreeves (Oct 17, 2008)

Turboswede said:


> Yes, this is the familiar argument against a graduated income tax and is yelled from the mountain tops by almost every high net worth individual (but not super HNWs, they are smarter than that).  The reason the top 1% income individuals pay 40% of the income tax is because that is (proportionately) how much they benefit from government spending.
> 
> You may be thinking What that doesnt make any sense, rich folks dont collect welfare, they dont use food stamps, so what gives!?!!
> 
> ...



1.5 divided by 12 doesn't equal 99 k....It equals 125K a month, you are talking about monthly income on 1.5 million right?


----------



## Turboswede (Oct 17, 2008)

jreeves said:


> 1.5 divided by 12 doesn't equal 99 k....It equals 125K a month, you are talking about monthly income on 1.5 million right?



If your income is passive then its not lock step with the calendar and tends vary quarter to quarter and month to month.  Sam average income may be $125,000 but the month in question was at the lower ebb of Sams year.


----------



## jreeves (Oct 17, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> No... kirky boy... a little over 1/3 of Americans pay no federal tax... any additional money coming back to them, moron, would indeed be a disguised form of welfare....
> 
> And as for what they 'count on'... start counting on yourself and the efforts you put toward EARNING for your family... not what can be sapped from or redistributed by the government



40% currently...


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 17, 2008)

AVG-JOE said:


> Until a better option comes along...  Yes.
> 
> -Joe


the better option is to vote for someone that will raise taxes less
and that isnt Obama


----------



## elvis (Oct 17, 2008)

Chris said:


> Now you are just being silly.



silly minor details.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 17, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> the better option is to vote for someone that will raise taxes less
> and that isnt Obama



Obamas tax plan looks more fair to me...

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one DC... some folks agree with me - some agree with you... Until Nov. 4, then!

-Joe


----------



## elvis (Oct 17, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> I would think that jobs have been outsourced because of cheaper labour elsewhere - happens to us in Aus and it's not because of any free trade agreement, the businesses just offshore them to increase profit.



It was more difficult before NAFTA to move jobs to Mexico and Canada.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 17, 2008)

elvis3577 said:


> It was more difficult before NAFTA to move jobs to Mexico and Canada.



Okay, wasn't aware of that.


----------



## elvis (Oct 17, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> Okay, wasn't aware of that.



It's just been made difficult here in Michigan because so many people have lost their jobs and they'll never make what they once did.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 17, 2008)

elvis3577 said:


> It's just been made difficult here in Michigan because so many people have lost their jobs and they'll never make what they once did.



I didn't realise you were there - yes, I'm reading about what happened - it's been gutted.  No wonder people are feeling pissed off, can't blame them.


----------



## jreeves (Oct 17, 2008)

AVG-JOE said:


> Yes.  At least the problem with taxes can.
> 
> Unfair and complex tax codes that_ both_ the republicans and the democrats have used to manipulate the marketplace to dole out favors in exchange for campaign money.
> 
> ...



Taxes are only one factor in an economy's health. If the Bush supply side tax policies are to blame then why are other countries that have progressive tax structures in worse shape than the US economy?


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 17, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Taxes are only one factor in an economy's health. If the Bush supply side tax policies are to blame then why are other countries that have progressive tax structures in worse shape than the US economy?


its all Bush's fault


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 17, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Taxes are only one factor in an economy's health. If the Bush supply side tax policies are to blame then why are other countries that have progressive tax structures in worse shape than the US economy?



Which ones are in worse shape?


----------



## N4mddissent (Oct 17, 2008)

> why are other countries that have progressive tax structures in worse shape than the US economy?


Evidence not assumptions.

One of the best simplified progressive arguments I heard was Jerry Springer on Sean Hannity's radio show about oh, five or six years ago maybe.  He made the point that he made 100 million dollars that year.  (His show was still very popular.) Some readers may not be aware that he was Mayor of Cincinnati prior to hosting a sleazy talk show.  He stated that even at a 50% tax rate, he was going to manage to get by on the other 50 million dollars he made.  He was going to live pretty well.  But a family making 30,000 a year paying a 10% tax rate will feel the pinch of that 3,000 dollars a lot harder.  In other words, their standard of living will in very real terms decrease because of that missing 3000.  Whereas his standard of living would still be very high.  He said he had no grudge about paying a large amount in taxes because he knows that even after taxes he will still be far above the financial concerns of most Americans and felt he owed it to the nation that provides him with the opportunity to live so comfortably.


----------



## pegwinn (Oct 17, 2008)

Notwithstanding Mr. Springers willingness to pay more in taxes, it still is not a fair system.

It still punishes you for success.
It still has the most ruthless collection agency going.
It still is anti-constitutional thanks to the dossier built up every year.
It still requires a hugely bloated bureaucracy.
It is still so complicated that five experts will give five answers to the same question. And all will be right.


----------



## N4mddissent (Oct 18, 2008)

> a fair system



it definitely has problems.  However I think the concept is sound enough.  People who become wealthy in capitalist societies do not do so in a vacuum.  If there are not some that choose to become teachers- a path that rarely if ever leads to wealth, then there is no educated workforce to draw from.  The commercial traffic that drives the enterprise would not be possible without the roads.  International treaties and trade acts may benefit an expanding business.  Law enforcement may have extra work in protecting and recovering valuables from a business.  Not to mention that the greatest single variable in determining one's opportunities for success is the status of your family.  Let's be honest, how far would W have gotten without his family connections?  Certainly not the presidency.  Yet someone more insightful or thoughtful may not even get a chance to exhibit their abilities due to their family circumstances.  It certainly isn't their fault, since they had no choice about the family situation they were born into.  None of this seems fair to me either.  I think we have to find a balance between encouraging innovation through the market while also leveling the playing field to a degree to make sure that our best and brightest have opportunities, not only those with a boost by accident of birth.  

And whether you get to live on 50 million dollars or complain about an extra 300 dollars out of 260,000 that you would pay in obama's plan: calling it a "punishment" is a very "let them eat cake" type attitude.  You know, the person who would discover the cure for breast cancer may not get to go to college because you didn't want to give up an extra 15 dollars a month when you are already making 6 times the median income.  Or a kid may go hungry.  Or maybe scale back research and unknowingly put off an important cure.  Or we have to cut back on military spending.  It goes on and on.  No one would suggest we all live at an equal standard.  I just think you have to be a real ass to be so greedy that when you make more than 90% of America you aren't willing to share an extra 3%.


----------



## jreeves (Oct 18, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> Which ones are in worse shape?


A global recession looms | Bad, or worse | The Economist
In Europe the outlook is equally grim. The British economy, which stalled in the second quarter, is now unmistakably falling into recession. The IMFs forecasts suggest that Britain will see the worst performance of any big economy in the year to the fourth quarter of 2008. The economies of the euro area, too, are struggling badly. Figures released on Wednesday showed that output in the euro area fell at an annualised rate of 0.8% in the second quarter. GDP shrank in the currency zones three largest countriesGermany, France and Italy. The fourth largest, Spain, barely grew.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 18, 2008)

jreeves said:


> A global recession looms | Bad, or worse | The Economist
> In Europe the outlook is equally grim. The British economy, which stalled in the second quarter, is now unmistakably falling into recession. The IMF&#8217;s forecasts suggest that Britain will see the worst performance of any big economy in the year to the fourth quarter of 2008. The economies of the euro area, too, are struggling badly. Figures released on Wednesday showed that output in the euro area fell at an annualised rate of 0.8% in the second quarter. GDP shrank in the currency zone&#8217;s three largest countries&#8212;Germany, France and Italy. The fourth largest, Spain, barely grew.



Uh-oh, I'm going to pull the blankets up over my head now...jeez I tell ya, if China goes tits up we're in trouble, China is the only thing keeping us afloat I think.  We're not in recession though and as I say, we may be able to avoid it as long as the domestic demand in China stays high and we can supply what she needs.  But if China is hit by a lack of demand from its trading partners and there's insufficient growth in the Chinese domestic economy it could hurt us.

But does any of this make you feel better J?


----------



## jreeves (Oct 18, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> Uh-oh, I'm going to pull the blankets up over my head now...jeez I tell ya, if China goes tits up we're in trouble, China is the only thing keeping us afloat I think.  We're not in recession though and as I say, we may be able to avoid it as long as the domestic demand in China stays high and we can supply what she needs.  But if China is hit by a lack of demand from its trading partners and there's insufficient growth in the Chinese domestic economy it could hurt us.
> 
> But does any of this make you feel better J?



Our country is completely dependent on other countries, that's a fact. That's the reason when a global credit crisis hit, it's hurt pratically the whole world. But you can't isolate supply side tax policies and say that was the cause of the global recession. There are way too many complex issues involved with the global economy to say that.


----------



## editec (Oct 18, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> I didn't realise you were there - yes, I'm reading about what happened - it's been gutted. No wonder people are feeling pissed off, can't blame them.


 
FYI, in terms of percentages of jobs lost going offshore?

No state has been more damaged by this foolish policy of rewarding corporations for offshoring industry than MAINE.

YOu don't normally think of Maine as a heavily industrialized state, but that's the problem.

What little industry it had, (shoes, garments wood products) moved offshore to take advantage of the tax breaks and cheaper labor, and complete lack of environmental protections available to those industries in the third world.

Now don't tell me that in all of Congress, not one person understood that shipping industry off shore wouldn't be detremental to this nation's economy.

I just don't believe that.

Not when factory workers I knew back in PA in the late 60s, people who didn't have 8th grade educations, correctly predicted the state of affairs we're finding ourselves in now.

Yeah that's right, folks, those people that so many of you have expressed such contempt for (those uneducated factory workers who you imagine have no skills) were smarter than CONGRESS and MOST of the ECONOMISTS in America.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 18, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Our country is completely dependent on other countries, that's a fact. That's the reason when a global credit crisis hit, it's hurt pratically the whole world. But you can't isolate supply side tax policies and say that was the cause of the global recession. There are way too many complex issues involved with the global economy to say that.



Can I ask what "supply side tax policies" are?  I'm not being a smartarse, I don't know.  I've seen the phrase used but just driven on by.  I also have to look up definitions such as "fiscal policy" and "monetary policy" because I don't know what they mean.  So, if you wouldn't mind enlightening me.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 18, 2008)

editec said:


> FYI, in terms of percentages of jobs lost going offshore?
> 
> No state has been more damaged by this foolish policy of rewarding corporations for offshoring industry than MAINE.
> 
> ...



When I started reading your post I was a bit startled.  I have never been to Maine but yes, I thought of tourism, fishing, agriculture, forestry and what we call primary production.  I had no idea about any other industries.  Shoes and garments?  Yep here in Aus they were the first jobs to go years ago.  And still it's happening.  

A Tasmanian (a state here with some similarities to Maine I think) company called Blundstone's secured a toe-hold for its boots (I'm sorry, that was a dreadful pun but I refuse to take it back) in North America.  

It sells them at a bloody exorbitant price there.  I can get them at a reasonable price here but there you're paying double what I am.  

But what did the bludgers do?  

Took the damn production to Vietnam where they can make even more money selling North Americans an overpriced boot.  Bastards should be ashamed of themselves.  I won't buy their footwear there ever again, I'll save up and buy local. Luckily where I live a company makes fine boots, very expensive but they last for years, I still have a pair of their riding boots I bought 25 years ago and they're in good nick today.


----------



## editec (Oct 18, 2008)

The thing is the shoe industries went off shore, but I don't really see any massive decrease in prices of shoes today, compared to when most shoes were made in the USA.

So the difference between per unit cost and sales price is pure profit for the owners of the factories.

And to be honest, I don't find that shoes are a well made now, as they were when they were made here, either.

In fact, I can say that about most thing we import now that we used to make here

Small engines, lawn mowers, appliances all of them seem to be crap now.

And none of them are made here, now.

The American people have been sold out by the monied interests of this nation, folks.

If that isn't obvious to you now, you either aren't old enough to remember what it used to be like when industry was here, or you're simply not paying attention.

We have been sold out, folks.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 18, 2008)

True enough.  Same here by the way.  The issue is that there is cheaper but similarly skilled labour elsewhere.  So offshore the company goes.

We've all been sold out.

Horrible isn't it?


----------



## Turboswede (Oct 18, 2008)

pegwinn said:


> It still is anti-constitutional thanks to the dossier built up every year.  It is still so complicated that five experts will give five answers to the same question. And all will be right.



No,

Once again, the 16th Amendment made it part of the Constitution so by definition it can not be anti or unconstitutional.  You can argue that the 16th Amendment should be repealed, but you cant argue that income taxes are unconstitutional.

No,

In my experience experts will at most have 2 opinions on a tax issue, and they can reach a compromise solution through reasoned argument.  I know the concept of reasoned argument may be difficult for many of you to grasp, its what allows democracy to flourish.  There is a reason our founding fathers were all professional debaters.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 18, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Taxes are only one factor in an economy's health. If the Bush supply side tax policies are to blame then why are other countries that have progressive tax structures in worse shape than the US economy?



True enough.  It is because there are other factors in their economies as well.  Ours needs to be tweaked...  Where should we start?

-Joe


----------



## jreeves (Oct 18, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> Can I ask what "supply side tax policies" are?  I'm not being a smartarse, I don't know.  I've seen the phrase used but just driven on by.  I also have to look up definitions such as "fiscal policy" and "monetary policy" because I don't know what they mean.  So, if you wouldn't mind enlightening me.



Supply side economics....
Supply-side economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Supply-side economics is an arguably heterodox school of macroeconomic thought that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created using incentives for people to produce (supply) goods and services, such as adjusting income tax and capital gains tax rates. Supply-side economics is often conflated with trickle-down economics, now a term given to right-leaning economists' views.[1] The term supply-side economics was coined by journalist Jude Wanniski in 1975, and popularized the ideas of economists Robert Mundell and Arthur Laffer.


----------



## jreeves (Oct 18, 2008)

AVG-JOE said:


> True enough.  It is because there are other factors in their economies as well.  Ours needs to be tweaked...  Where should we start?
> 
> -Joe



By cutting federal income taxes on everyone that pays taxes. Negotiate new trade deals around the world. Drill offshore....Build new nuclear power plants, new refineries to be sold to oil companies

Provide incentatives to the private sector to develop new wind, solar, tide technologies and etc......

Thats a start..


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 18, 2008)

jreeves said:


> By cutting federal income taxes on everyone that pays taxes. Negotiate new trade deals around the world. Drill offshore....Build new nuclear power plants, new refineries to be sold to oil companies
> 
> Provide incentatives to the private sector to develop new wind, solar, tide technologies and etc......
> 
> Thats a start..


exactly
that is a good start
now, to find the candidate that supports all of that and elect a congress that will as well


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 18, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Supply side economics....
> Supply-side economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Supply-side economics is an arguably heterodox school of macroeconomic thought that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created using incentives for people to produce (supply) goods and services, such as adjusting income tax and capital gains tax rates. Supply-side economics is often conflated with trickle-down economics, now a term given to right-leaning economists' views.[1] The term supply-side economics was coined by journalist Jude Wanniski in 1975, and popularized the ideas of economists Robert Mundell and Arthur Laffer.



Thanks for that, I can see myself working hard to understand it but I'll give it a go.


----------



## pegwinn (Oct 19, 2008)

Turboswede said:


> No, Yes
> 
> Once again, the 16th Amendment made it part of the Constitution so by definition it can not be anti or unconstitutional.  You can argue that the 16th Amendment should be repealed, but you cant argue that income taxes are unconstitutional.
> 
> ...



Taxation, like abortion, is almost equal parts emotion and logic. Logically taxation is needed to support the .gov. Emotionally, taxation is theft unless it is willingly given. Elimination of the Income Tax and replacement with either a national sales tax or a national property tax satisfies both logic and emotion.


----------



## pegwinn (Oct 19, 2008)

N4mddissent said:


> it definitely has problems.  However I think the concept is sound enough.  It was sound enough until it became a bloated pig without benifit of lipstick.
> 
> People who become wealthy in capitalist societies do not do so in a vacuum.  If there are not some that choose to become teachers- a path that rarely if ever leads to wealth, then there is no educated workforce to draw from.  The commercial traffic that drives the enterprise would not be possible without the roads.  International treaties and trade acts may benefit an expanding business.  Law enforcement may have extra work in protecting and recovering valuables from a business.  Not to mention that the greatest single variable in determining one's opportunities for success is the status of your family.  Let's be honest, how far would W have gotten without his family connections?  Certainly not the presidency.  Yet someone more insightful or thoughtful may not even get a chance to exhibit their abilities due to their family circumstances.  No one ever said that life itself was fair or unfair. It simply is what it is. Taxation is a systematic method of raising revenue for specific purposes, in this case to support the .gov operation.
> 
> ...



It is not the governments job to level the playing field. In my copy of the Constitution there is a thing called enumerated powers. But, if you really did want to raise government revenues without singling out any group (discrimination is still discrimination by the way whether based on race, sex, or money in the bank) you would set up a national sales tax.


----------



## Chris (Oct 19, 2008)

jreeves said:


> By cutting federal income taxes on everyone that pays taxes. Negotiate new trade deals around the world. Drill offshore....Build new nuclear power plants, new refineries to be sold to oil companies
> 
> Provide incentatives to the private sector to develop new wind, solar, tide technologies and etc......
> 
> Thats a start..



Cutting taxes with a record deficit.

Great idea....

ReaganBushDebt.org


----------



## editec (Oct 19, 2008)

Skull Pilot said:


> Personally, I'd much rather have 20% of my tax money paid locally and send only 7-10% to the feds.
> 
> As you say, most of the services I use are provided by my local government.
> 
> The federal government should be reduced to its original functions of national defense and diplomacy. Everything else should be the responsibility of each individual state. At least then we could see where our money is going.


 

Some of the most blatently corrupt goverments on earth have been very local goverments.

Also wouldn't the argument be that the rich still pay too high a share of local taxes?

You and I both know it would.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 19, 2008)

editec said:


> Some of the most blatently corrupt goverments on earth have been very local goverments.
> 
> Also wouldn't the argument be that the rich still pay too high a share of local taxes?
> 
> You and I both know it would.


yeah, like in Chicago


----------



## editec (Oct 19, 2008)

I have no problem with supply side economics.

Sadly, our society seems to have forgotten that the working class is an important feature of the supply side.

Our industrial masters *bought permission* (from our pols) to fire American workers and import foreign made products into our society.

Likewise the usary masters *bought permission* at very nearly the same time to charge very high rates of interest on debts.

This nation was under no obligation to allow that. That policy ran counter to over 200 years of trade and usuary policies which made this nation, and its people, the wealthiest nation and people on earth. 

The American people and the nation itself has effectively and subtley been sold out, folks.

Sold out for a higher profit margin by the very class that was originally made wealthy working behind the protection this nation provided for them, and still provides for them to this day.

We are on a path to becoming a third world nation.

You know that a third world nation really is, don't you?

Its a nation with essantially no middle class.

The whole FREE TRADE and USARY  insanity was a fundamental rewrite of our social contract and this nation is going down because of it.

This latest economic meltdown, at it roots, isn't a problem of too much liquidity, it was a problem whose roots are a poorly paid working class forced to borrow money from the money lenders_ at absurdly high rates of interest._

This *predatory* *usary problem* actually causes great empires to fall as it enslaves the populations.

It damned near destroyed the Greek civilization until the Greeks changed their laws regarding debts obligations,

And after they changed those predatory usary laws, you know what happened?

The GOLDEN AGE of GREECE happened.

But hey, what do I know?

I still don't even know that _greed is good_, right?

Some of you might find this interesting. It's from an 1911 edition of the_ Encyclopaedia Britannica_.



> In Athens about the time of Solon's legislation (594 B.C.) the bulk of the population, who had originally been small proprietors or metayers, became gradually indebted to the rich to such an extent that they were practically slaves.
> 
> Those who still kept their property nominally were in the position of Irish cottiers: they owed more than they could pay, and stone pillars erected on their land showed the amount of the debts and the names of the lenders.
> Usury had given all the power of the state to a small plutocracy.
> ...


----------



## jreeves (Oct 19, 2008)

Chris said:


> Cutting taxes with a record deficit.
> 
> Great idea....
> 
> ReaganBushDebt.org



Here is the board spamster, as long as you are below the Laffer's curve. A reduction in taxes will produce increased revenues, much like what happened with the Bush tax cuts. Of course, the increased revenues were spent......


----------



## Chris (Oct 19, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Here is the board spamster, as long as you are below the Laffer's curve. A reduction in taxes will produce increased revenues, much like what happened with the Bush tax cuts. Of course, the increased revenues were spent......



I suggest you read "Our real national security disaster" in the politics section.


----------



## jreeves (Oct 19, 2008)

Chris said:


> I suggest you read "Our real national security disaster" in the politics section.



I suggest you look at the following graph....


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 19, 2008)

pegwinn said:


> Taxation, like abortion, is almost equal parts emotion and logic. Logically taxation is needed to support the .gov. Emotionally, taxation is theft unless it is willingly given. Elimination of the Income Tax and replacement with either a national sales tax or a national property tax satisfies both logic and emotion.



The only reason taxes aren't voluntary is that rich assholes and poor assholes alike wouldn't pay them if they were.

We have two and only two choices - Mandate taxes by threat of force or kill off all of the assholes.

I suppose a third option is to forgo working together to build public infrastructure to share and defend ourselves, but that kind of pure capitalism seems like a stupid way for us humans to share this world.

-Joe


----------



## pegwinn (Oct 19, 2008)

AVG-JOE said:


> The only reason taxes aren't voluntary is that rich assholes and poor assholes alike wouldn't pay them if they were. I didn't say voluntary, I said willingly given. A sales tax is not voluntary, but by making a purchase you are willingly forking over the money.
> 
> We have two and only two choices - Mandate taxes by threat of force or kill off all of the assholes. Taxes are already mandated by threats and coercion. And the assholes are smart enough to know the loopholes not available to your or I. Instead, a National Sales Tax or a National Property Tax can close the loopholes, preserve your privacy, and still fund the .gov. Simple really is better in most cases.
> 
> ...



It's just as immoral to soak the rich as it is to pillage the poor.


----------



## N4mddissent (Oct 20, 2008)

> It's just as immoral to soak the rich as it is to pillage the poor.



Seriously.

you're saying that taking 10% of the money out of someone's pocket who is struggling to make ends meet, perhaps causing them to have to move to a smaller apartment or can't by healthier food for their kids or maybe have to reduce their medical coverage if not drop it altogether is morally equivalent to a multi-millionaire paying 40% in taxes and the effect being he has to settle for 6 houses rather than buy that 7th.


----------



## pegwinn (Oct 21, 2008)

N4mddissent said:


> Seriously. Yep, Seriously.
> 
> you're saying that taking 10% of the money out of someone's pocket who is struggling to make ends meet, perhaps causing them to have to move to a smaller apartment or can't by healthier food for their kids or maybe have to reduce their medical coverage if not drop it altogether is morally equivalent to a multi-millionaire paying 40% in taxes and the effect being he has to settle for 6 houses rather than buy that 7th. Robin Hood was a crook who has been romanticized. The rich are not the enemy, the system is the enemy. It's not hard.



The following bears repeating:

Theft is theft whether it is done by a thug or a congress critter.
Soaking the rich is nothing more than class warfare.
The *tax system* is the enemy and the rich are the scapegoat.

On this thread alone I have proposed a national sales or property tax as a solution to the class warfare and the encroachment of the .gov on your civil liberties. Yet, you insist on demonizing the successful and attempting to impose by force your vision of what is moral and just without addressing solutions that allow everyone to win except the politicians.

It isn't my fault that someone is poor. Nor is it bill gates fault that I and my wife work two jobs each, and collect a retirement pension, and still fall in under 100K. Trust me I know exactly what the working middle class is all about. And yet, I don't begrudge Mr Gates his success.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 21, 2008)

N4mddissent said:


> Seriously.
> 
> you're saying that taking 10% of the money out of someone's pocket who is struggling to make ends meet, perhaps causing them to have to move to a smaller apartment or can't by healthier food for their kids or maybe have to reduce their medical coverage if not drop it altogether is morally equivalent to a multi-millionaire paying 40% in taxes and the effect being he has to settle for 6 houses rather than buy that 7th.


seriously, you CANT soak the rich
they pass those taxes onto everyone else


----------



## Walkabout Jones (Oct 21, 2008)

What I find confusing is the equivocation of socialism and communism being the same thing. If socialism was communism, we'd call it communism, wouldn't we? Socialism is an entirely more moderate political philosophy--really a middle-road between the scourages of communism and the excesses of capitalism.

When we look at our friends in Scandanavia, with their good health, high literacy rates, excellent standards of living, where exactly is the problem? I don't hear a lot of pissed off Scandanavians complaining about taxes. Their society runs smoother, their crime rates are lower, people are happier.

Nobody wants communism, or any authoritarian rule for that matter. But an efficiently run government that attends to the needs of its citizens? Hells yeah! And if private enterprise isn't capable or willing to do a good job of it, somebody has to fill that void. If not government, then who?


----------



## elvis (Oct 21, 2008)

Walkabout Jones said:


> What I find confusing is the equivocation of socialism and communism being the same thing. If socialism was communism, we'd call it communism, wouldn't we? Socialism is an entirely more moderate political philosophy--really a middle-road between the scourages of communism and the excesses of capitalism.
> 
> When we look at our friends in Scandanavia, with their good health, high literacy rates, excellent standards of living, where exactly is the problem? I don't hear a lot of pissed off Scandanavians complaining about taxes. Their society runs smoother, their crime rates are lower, people are happier.
> 
> Nobody wants communism, or any authoritarian rule for that matter. But an efficiently run government that attends to the needs of its citizens? Hells yeah! And if private enterprise isn't capable or willing to do a good job of it, somebody has to fill that void. If not government, then who?



I wonder if you could back up the correlation between socialism and low crime rates.  
Also, communism and authoritarianism do not necessarily go hand in hand, I don't believe. 

Look forward to more dialogue.


----------



## DavidS (Oct 21, 2008)

There is no debate. While communism and socialism are intriguing to study, neither economic theory allows for freedom. The only free economic theory in existence is capitalism. Everyone is free to do as they wish. America was founded upon the idea of freedom.


----------



## Richard-H (Oct 21, 2008)

pegwinn said:


> The following bears repeating:
> 
> Theft is theft whether it is done by a thug or a congress critter.
> Soaking the rich is nothing more than class warfare.
> The *tax system* is the enemy and the rich are the scapegoat.




Nonsense. If everyone's justifyable wealth is equal to the economic contribution that each of them have made to society, then the 'wealthy' are a bunch of thieves. They have universally accummulated their wealth by depriving working people of the wealth which they deserve.

Underpaying people is THIEVERY.


----------



## Walkabout Jones (Oct 21, 2008)

I hear people falling into "either/or" thinking. European countries are hybrids. Capitalism does just fine in Europe--as the Euro's current exchange rate proves.

And America is ALREADY a hybrid----our police, firefighters, mail carriers, public schools, none of these are private enterprises. The question isn't whether we should be socialist in some respects (because we already are) but the extend to which it should go?

I vote for a higher standard of living.


----------



## elvis (Oct 21, 2008)

Richard-H said:


> Nonsense. If everyone's justifyable wealth is equal to the economic contribution that each of them have made to society, then the 'wealthy' are a bunch of thieves. They have universally accummulated their wealth by depriving working people of the wealth which they deserve.
> 
> Underpaying people is THIEVERY.



didn't carnegie give all his money away?  underpaying?  you don't believe in whatever the market bears?  how, then, should wages be determined?


----------



## Richard-H (Oct 21, 2008)

DavidS said:


> There is no debate. While communism and socialism are intriguing to study, neither economic theory allows for freedom. The only free economic theory in existence is capitalism. Everyone is free to do as they wish. America was founded upon the idea of freedom.



Nothing in the Constitution or Declaration of Independance cites a right to total economic freedom. It is not a inalienable right. 

America was founded on the idea of equality, democracy and personal rights, not economic rights. It doesn't take much to realize that one person's economic freedom means another person's slavery.


----------



## elvis (Oct 21, 2008)

Richard-H said:


> Nothing in the Constitution or Declaration of Independance cites a right to total economic freedom. It is not a inalienable right.
> 
> America was founded on the idea of equality, democracy and personal rights, not economic rights. It doesn't take much to realize that one person's economic freedom means another person's slavery.



don't take this the wrong way, but that resembles Karl Marx.  Do you advocate Karl Marx?


----------



## Toro (Oct 21, 2008)

The Bush administration is already re-distributing the wealth of taxpayers to the bondholders of banks, investment companies, Freddie and Fannie, AIG, and so on.

So what's the difference?


----------



## Care4all (Oct 21, 2008)

pegwinn said:


> The following bears repeating:
> 
> Theft is theft whether it is done by a thug or a congress critter.
> Soaking the rich is nothing more than class warfare.
> ...



can you name a rich person that is being soaked?  Do you personally know one?

care


----------



## editec (Oct 21, 2008)

This continuous ongoing debate about capitalism V socialism reminds me of the debate:

*Who would win: superman or batman?*​ 

_Laisse fair_ capitalism is impossible since in order to have markets, one must have rules (and a legal tender) to see to it that markets can even exist.​ 
There is one bedrock foundation in the constitution which assures us that we live in a capitalist society...​ 
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, *nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."*​


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 21, 2008)

Turboswede said:


> I paid my way through school in the mid 90s without taking any loans, and tuition costs at state schools here in Washington havent gone up that much so I would wager that you could still pay for school yourself working full time.
> 
> I dont think I ever argued against taxing corporations, did I?
> 
> My point was that if you have attended a State College or University 50-80% of your costs were subsidized by the government.  Even though I paid $950/quarter for school the states tab was an additional $2,500.  So, for 5 years I received a welfare benefit of $7,500 per year.  At the time that was considerably more than a single mother of 3 would receive from the government through AFDC.



Me too.  My dad helped, but for the most, I paid.  Trust me Turbo, it isn't that easy today.  If it's now $10k a year, that's hard to do.  Keep inflation in mind.  So you can do it, but you'll probably need to take out loans where we didn't have to.  But I'll agree there is no excuse for financing the entire thing, which a lot of people do.  Dumbasses.  They'd rather relax over the summers instead of work and save like we did.  They want to live up at school too where I had to move back home each summer to live free at my parents so I could save the max possible.  My dad didn't let me spend my checks because then he would have to contribute more of HIS money.  So I signed my checks, made about $4000 in the summer, and my dad kicked in the extra $1k.  And my brother was going to school too, so $2k he had to kick in each year.  At $40K a year, that was a lot of money.  I love him for it.  But man was he CHEAP!! LOL.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 21, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> yet he, and you, will vote for someone that will raise taxes on those that dont pay them, and never will
> they will always pass those taxes onto YOU



And you will vote for the people who always pass them on to you.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 21, 2008)

pegwinn said:


> It's just as immoral to soak the rich as it is to pillage the poor.





pegwinn said:


> The following bears repeating:
> 
> Theft is theft whether it is done by a thug or a congress critter.
> Soaking the rich is nothing more than class warfare.
> ...



Phil,

Do you like having roads and bridges?  Do you appreciate the ability of your neighbors to read, write and cipher?  I am assuming by your posts that you have a _private_ education, but most of the rest of us are thankful for _public_ education.  Do you like sleeping peacefully at night, knowing that the US military is on the job?

Dude - if you can appreciate any of the above, you appreciate government.  _Someone_ has to pay taxes for it.  I don't mind paying my fair share, do you?

If Mr. Gates and Mr. Buffett need to trim their personal budgets by 10% of their income they will still have _billions_ in personal assets.

If my father has to trim his budget by 10% he has to eat Alpo twice a week.

Doesn't it make sense in these tough economic times to leave my dad alone and ask Bill and Warren to 'hitch up their belts' and buy the Mercedes instead of the Ferrari?

Obviously this is an analogy of extremes... 

-Joe


----------



## Navy1960 (Oct 21, 2008)

Richard-H said:


> Nothing in the Constitution or Declaration of Independance cites a right to total economic freedom. It is not a inalienable right.
> 
> America was founded on the idea of equality, democracy and personal rights, not economic rights. It doesn't take much to realize that one person's economic freedom means another person's slavery.



The Tenth Amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, *or to the people*.  

Economic freedom is freedom to produce, trade and consume any goods and services acquired without the use of force, fraud or theft. Economic freedom is embodied in the rule of law, property rights and freedom of contract.

Economic freedom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Fifth Amendment - Rights of Persons 


Amendment Text | Annotations   
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,* nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. *

The constitution has many instances of "economic and property rights" . All it takes is the time to look it up. 

 "The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management." --Thomas Jefferson 

"[We in America entertain] a due sense of our equal right to... the acquisitions of our own industry." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural


----------



## Turboswede (Oct 21, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Me too.  My dad helped, but for the most, I paid.  Trust me Turbo, it isn't that easy today.  If it's now $10k a year, that's hard to do.  Keep inflation in mind.  So you can do it, but you'll probably need to take out loans where we didn't have to.QUOTE]
> 
> It was tough back then and I am sure it would be tough today, but if you are determined you can still make it work.  Back in school I lived in a house with 5 other guys and all of us were paying our way through school.  There were months where one of us would pick up the others share of rent because the guy just couldnt make ends meet that month.  I think I ended up being the house bank because I always had cash (I got tips).
> 
> ...


----------



## N4mddissent (Oct 21, 2008)

First, I hate hearing about "class warfare" from either side.  The rich are greedy and often look upon those with less as undeserving, the poor see the rich as greedy and undeserving.  There are conflicts, but it isn't class warfare yet.  Ask Louis XVI to describe "class warfare".

2nd,

Purpose of the Constitution
1. Form a more perfect union
2. Establish Justice
3. Ensure domestic tranquility
4. provide for our common defense
5. promote the general welfare
6. secure the blessings of liberty.

I'm pretty sure high economic disparity threatens 1 and 3.  Numbers 2 and 4 require taxes.  Programs that provide food, shelter, and healthcare are definitely within the domain of 5.


----------



## DiamondDave (Oct 21, 2008)

N4mddissent said:


> First, I hate hearing about "class warfare" from either side.  The rich are greedy and often look upon those with less as undeserving, the poor see the rich as greedy and undeserving.  There are conflicts, but it isn't class warfare yet.  Ask Louis XVI to describe "class warfare".
> 
> 2nd,
> 
> ...



Promoting the general welfare is not PROVIDING the general welfare...

Forming a more perfect union did not entail a socialist system... rather a system of freedom and liberty, which were/are the founding fathers' ideas of a more perfect union

Domestic tranquility is not appeasement and confiscation for others, while violating the rights of the earners and those who have had success

To run government, taxes and/or tariffs are indeed a necessity... it takes money to run a country... but this does not empower the government o act as an allowance giver or to act as Robin Hood


----------



## N4mddissent (Oct 21, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> Promoting the general welfare is not PROVIDING the general welfare...
> 
> Forming a more perfect union did not entail a socialist system... rather a system of freedom and liberty, which were/are the founding fathers' ideas of a more perfect union
> 
> ...



So you're saying that social programs do not promote the general welfare?

And the founding fathers were just being redundant when they said "a more perfect union" and then later said "securing the blessings of liberty"

Keep in mind that I did not mention these in support of a specific solution.  I was simply stating how they might be applicable, but it is still reasonable to debate how they might be achieved.  Take for example that income disparity threatens domestic tranquility does it not?  If so, how would you propose to ensure domestic tranquility within that context?


----------



## DiamondDave (Oct 21, 2008)

N4mddissent said:


> So you're saying that social programs do not promote the general welfare?
> 
> And the founding fathers were just being redundant when they said "a more perfect union" and then later said "securing the blessings of liberty"
> 
> Keep in mind that I did not mention these in support of a specific solution.  I was simply stating how they might be applicable, but it is still reasonable to debate how they might be achieved.  Take for example that income disparity threatens domestic tranquility does it not?  If so, how would you propose to ensure domestic tranquility within that context?



They were VERY careful in their choice of words... promoting the general welfare is not the same as providing the general welfare or even providing for the general welfare....

Plus you should also understand that welfare as the word is used today was not how it was used back then....

_Welfare
welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [<ME wel faren, to fare well] Source: AHD

Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution._

Not having enough sex could threaten domestic tranquility as well.. ain't the job of the government to ensure you get enough of that either

How would I propose ensuring domestic tranquility? Simple.. ensure our freedoms are upheld.. Ensure that we can still live by the consequences of our decisions and choices made from those freedoms, both good AND bad... ensure equal rights for opportunity... but also that you cannot make all of the people happy as a government.. but as long as you ensure that the political groundwork is there for those to derive their own happiness thru any legal efforts they wish to use


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 21, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> Promoting the general welfare is not PROVIDING the general welfare...
> 
> Forming a more perfect union did not entail a socialist system... rather a system of freedom and liberty, which were/are the founding fathers' ideas of a more perfect union
> 
> ...



Dave, you seem to have this idea that somehow people are going to start drawing a monthly paycheck from Uncle Sam just for being here...  Can you back this belief up?

-Joe


----------



## DiamondDave (Oct 21, 2008)

AVG-JOE said:


> Dave, you seem to have this idea that somehow people are going to start drawing a monthly paycheck from Uncle Sam just for being here...  Can you back this belief up?
> 
> -Joe




Hmmm... starting with people who don't pay any taxes, that suddenly start getting tax money back under Obama's plan??? Hmmm.. people gaining entitlements at the expense of others, such as universal healthcare... hmmm....


Yep indeed... drawing something from the government, that the government controls thru confiscation and redistribution

Truly the American way dreamed up by our founding fathers


----------



## Care4all (Oct 21, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> Hmmm... starting with people who don't pay any taxes, that suddenly start getting tax money back under Obama's plan??? Hmmm.. people gaining entitlements at the expense of others, such as universal healthcare... hmmm....
> 
> 
> Yep indeed... drawing something from the government, that the government controls thru confiscation and redistribution
> ...



that happens right now with bush as president with the earned income credit....so what is new with obama?


----------



## SwingVoter (Oct 21, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> Yep indeed... drawing something from the government, that the government controls thru confiscation and redistribution
> 
> Truly the American way dreamed up by our founding fathers



Then why doesn't the GOP repeal the massive expansion to Socialized Medicine it created with the $40 Billion a year Medicare Drug plan?


----------



## pegwinn (Oct 22, 2008)

Richard-H said:


> Nonsense. If everyone's justifyable wealth is equal to the economic contribution that each of them have made to society, then the 'wealthy' are a bunch of thieves. They have universally accummulated their wealth by depriving working people of the wealth which they deserve.
> 
> Underpaying people is THIEVERY.



You are free to hold that opinion. I am not rich yet I don't feel I have been stolen from. And, how do you support your assertion of deprivation and that anyone "deserves" to be wealthy. As to economic contribution; I would say the creative spark that envisioned McDonalds and guided its' expansion and success is at least as valuable as the mass of people who say "Would you like to supersize that?" Last note: What would happen due to a massive shift upward in wages....?



Richard-H said:


> Nothing in the Constitution or Declaration of Independance cites a right to total economic freedom. It is not a inalienable right. First, the Declaration is not a legal document. Second, see the 9th Amendment.
> 
> America was founded on the idea of equality, democracy and personal rights, not economic rights. It doesn't take much to realize that one person's economic freedom means another person's slavery.



Slavery? Come now. Show me a slave.



Care4all said:


> can you name a rich person that is being soaked?  Do you personally know one?
> 
> care



No, I don't know a "rich" person getting soaked. I do know a well off person getting soaked, my boss at work. My disdain for the folks who want to scapegoat the rich is simply the numbers and stats showing who pays the most. I simply believe in fairness. If everyone paid 10% I would have less of a beef. My issue is with the tax system, not the tax payer. 



AVG-JOE said:


> Phil,
> 
> Do you like having roads and bridges?  Do you appreciate the ability of your neighbors to read, write and cipher?  I am assuming by your posts that you have a _private_ education, but most of the rest of us are thankful for _public_ education.  Do you like sleeping peacefully at night, knowing that the US military is on the job? Public HS, No college except for the occasional night course while in the service for my own purposes. I have no beef with public education excepting the feds involvement. I believe it should be managed totally at the local and state level since there is no enumerated power in the Constitution to authorise the feds involvement. I sleep great because I spent 22 years on active duty. So I know the quality of the young Americans on the job, I trained a lot of them.
> 
> ...



How about this for extremes.... Substitute the word Gay, Lesbian, Black, Hispanic, or Woman in place of Rich. AS in, "Let's make all the Blacks and Women pay ten percent more in taxes." Wrong is wrong no matter how you label the scapegoat. What is needed is a system that normally guarantees the anonymity of the payer. A sales tax does that. 

Nice talking to you Joe.

-Phil



N4mddissent said:


> First, I hate hearing about "class warfare" from either side.  The rich are greedy and often look upon those with less as undeserving, the poor see the rich as greedy and undeserving.  There are conflicts, but it isn't class warfare yet.  Ask Louis XVI to describe "class warfare".
> 
> 2nd,
> 
> ...



Let's try this again from a different angle. Why is income based taxation best in your view? I understand the need for taxes. 

What I cannot condone is a systemic focus for special attention of the government towards a minority segment of the population.

Did you notice how the preceding can be applied to any case of substantiated discrimination? Rich, poor, women, blacks, hispanics, race, creed, color, sex, national origin, income, personal success.......


----------



## Care4all (Oct 22, 2008)

pegwinn said:


> You are free to hold that opinion. I am not rich yet I don't feel I have been stolen from. And, how do you support your assertion of deprivation and that anyone "deserves" to be wealthy. As to economic contribution; I would say the creative spark that envisioned McDonalds and guided its' expansion and success is at least as valuable as the mass of people who say "Would you like to supersize that?" Last note: What would happen due to a massive shift upward in wages....?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



ahhhhhhhhhhhhh, you don't believe in a progressive income tax system?  Is this your argument?

Care


----------



## Care4all (Oct 22, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> seriously, you CANT soak the rich
> they pass those taxes onto everyone else



bullcrap divecon...

we are NOT TALKING ABOUT A BUSINESS, we are talking about an INDIVIDUAL'S income aren't we....?

care


----------



## editec (Oct 22, 2008)

pegwinn said:


> It's just as immoral to soak the rich as it is to pillage the poor.


 
Yes it is. Except nobody's calling for anyone to "soak the rich"

After  over thirty years of pillaging the middle class, it is hardly immoral to return some of the booty which the superwealthy have bleed from this economy's middle class via foolish taxation and trade policies.

In fact, to continue with these policies is the immoral act.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 22, 2008)

pegwinn said:


> ...How about this for extremes.... Substitute the word Gay, Lesbian, Black, Hispanic, or Woman in place of Rich. AS in, "Let's make all the Blacks and Women pay ten percent more in taxes." Wrong is wrong no matter how you label the scapegoat. What is needed is a system that normally guarantees the anonymity of the payer. A sales tax does that.
> 
> Nice talking to you Joe.
> 
> ...



I think you are being silly suggesting anyone would support taxation based on sexuality, race or gender - and I believe that you know that. 

As far as fair tax policy goes, I believe that you and I are pretty much on the same page here Phil...  

Check this link:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...he-consequences-in-the-future.html#post840798

-Joe


----------



## DavidS (Oct 22, 2008)

Do you guys pay zero taxes?

I certainly don't. Do you guys get money taken out of your paychecks every week?

Here's what the media (left wing included) isn't telling you guys.

You know when you go to a job and you fill out the W2 forms and you declare yourself head of household, or a dependent, etc.? That basically determines the amount of "witholding", i.e. payroll tax which is a form of income tax, that someone pays. So when you get your paycheck at the end of the week, and you see the amount deducted for taxes, that's what every single working American pays. At the end of the year, you take your W2 to the accountant and show him what you've earned and what you've paid in payroll taxes. After all of the deductions and tax credits you get, most of us get a tax refund check or don't have any income tax liability. That's what Sean Hannity means about not paying any taxes.

EVERYONE pays payroll tax.

Under Obama, the amount of money you pay in payroll taxes stays the same. You earn $769.23 a week, you get 14.5% of that taken out in payroll taxes. Then you have your FICA (social security and medicare) deducted. Your net pay is $598.39 per week. Then let's say you get health insurance that costs $100 per week. So your net pay is $498.39 per week.

At the end of the year, your gross income of $40,000 goes up against tax credits and deductions. If you're single, you automatically get a $5,450 deduction and let's say you have $2000 in extra credits and deductions from using your car to drive to and from work to having a child, your new gross salary is $32,550. Under Obama, your new income tax bracket is 11.4%. So your final tax bill due to the government is $3710.70. But you've already paid $5800 in taxes to the government, so you get a tax refund of $2,089.30.

Under McCain, your tax bracket is 14.5%. So your tax bill due to the government is $4719.75. But you've already paid $5800 in taxes, so you get a tax refund of $1080.25.

Currently, under Bush, your tax bracket is 15%. So your tax bill due to the government is $4882.50. You get a tax refund under Bush of $917.50.

Many people already get a check from the IRS from the government. So all Obama is doing is increasing that check that someone in the middle class gets. This is with an average income of $40,000 a year.

Now the trickle-up theory states that the extra $2089.90 that you have in your pocket is money that you're going to spend. Under Obama you have $1172.40 than you would have under Bush. So the trickle up theory says with that $1172.40, you go out and buy new clothes. You go out and take your wife out for dinner. You go out and buy things and you spend that money on the economy. Now multiply the $2089.90 by 100 million people who earn around $40,000 a year. You're talking about over $2 trillion that people are going to spend on the economy. That's more jobs that corporations have to create, that's more supplies from other corporations that businesses have to order... that's increased demand because people have more money.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 22, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> Hmmm... starting with people who don't pay any taxes, that suddenly start getting tax money back under Obama's plan??? Hmmm.. people gaining entitlements at the expense of others, such as universal healthcare... hmmm....
> 
> 
> Yep indeed... drawing something from the government, that the government controls thru confiscation and redistribution
> ...



Please provide a link to a document that shows Obama's tax plan will provide a regular government check to poor folks just for being poor...

-Joe


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 22, 2008)

editec said:


> Yes it is. Except nobody's calling for anyone to "soak the rich"
> 
> After  over thirty years of pillaging the middle class, it is hardly immoral to return some of the booty which the superwealthy have bleed from this economy's middle class via foolish taxation and trade policies.
> 
> In fact, to continue with these policies is the immoral act.



Exactly!  What is fair about keeping things 'unfair'?

I do NOT subscribe to the idea that the middle class should somehow get reparations from the wealthy, but the first rule of accounting is to 'stop the bleeding'.  

It is time for a fair and simple tax code in America.

-Joe


----------



## pegwinn (Oct 22, 2008)

Care4all said:


> ahhhhhhhhhhhhh, you don't believe in a progressive income tax system?  Is this your argument?
> 
> Care



I don't believe in taxation based on income. The argument against it boils down to privacy, a bloated government agency, a maze of rules no one can comprehend well, comprehensibly, and fairness for everyone.



editec said:


> Yes it is. Except nobody's calling for anyone to "soak the rich" My term. You may call it whatever you like.
> 
> After  over thirty years of pillaging the middle class, it is hardly immoral to return some of the booty which the superwealthy have bleed from this economy's middle class via foolish taxation and trade policies.
> 
> In fact, to continue with these policies is the immoral act.



I agree with your last statement and note that your term "pillaging" is as much hyperbole as my term "soak". Fair enough? It still sounds like class envy at least to me.


----------



## pegwinn (Oct 22, 2008)

AVG-JOE said:


> I think you are being silly suggesting anyone would support taxation based on sexuality, race or gender - and I believe that you know that.  Just like alpo, and I did stipulate "extreme" to make what should have been a self evident point. I think you got the point right?
> 
> As far as fair tax policy goes, I believe that you and I are pretty much on the same page here Phil...
> 
> ...



I read your post and agree that it would be far better than what we have today. However, today's code started simple enough and grew, and grew, and grew, yadablahetc.

For all the reasons I mentioned in my post to Care, try this one on for size.
Fairtax.org

The travesty is that it has been introduced for like nine years I think. It always dies in committee no matter the party in charge.

It aint perfect, but then again, nothing is.

-Phil


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 22, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Hey, but he's no socialist.
> 
> Breitbart.tv  Obama Tells Tax-Burdened Plumber the Plan is to Spread the Wealth Around



Yes, Reagan & Bush both distributed the countries wealth to the top 1% and Obama is here to RE distribute it.  Got a problem with getting some money back Allie?  I didn't think so.

And meanwhile, the rich bankers get to enjoy socialism, Palin up in Alaska is using socialism with her oil taxes and GW Bush used socialism to build the new texas rangers stadium, then sold it for a profit.  So he is a socialist too.

The GOP uses buzz words like socialist to appeal to ignorant voters.


----------



## del (Oct 22, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> The GOP uses buzz words like socialist to appeal to ignorant voters.



and yet, so far you've resisted.
bravo


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 22, 2008)

del said:


> and yet, so far you've resisted.
> bravo



So far Dellila.


----------



## editec (Oct 22, 2008)

Fans, the consumer economy is 70% of the GNP.

Guess what happens when the consumers stop buying stuff?

The economy we're having right now is what happens.

As far as Maine street is concerned we've been in a recession/depression for the last eight years.

Time to fix that disconnect we've had from reality,  or we'll continue to watch the deficit go up and this nation go down.

If you're super rich and you don't want to pay US taxes, please leave.

We'll get by.

The numero uno problem this nation is facing is the dwindling purchasing power of the working folks.

It is surely not that the wealthy don't have enough money to supply the supply side, rather it is the fact that the conumsers don't have enough to dough to keep up the demand side.


----------



## Turboswede (Oct 22, 2008)

DavidS said:


> Do you guys pay zero taxes?
> 
> I certainly don't. Do you guys get money taken out of your paychecks every week?
> 
> ...



Nice job David, I have been bringing up FICA and Medicare but all people seem to want to talk about is FIT.  Remember the federal gas tax too, that hits working Americans too.

Not to detract from your argument but there are some folks who dont pay payroll taxes.  I would be very surprised if Paris Hilton has or ever will pay payroll taxes.  Only folks who work for a living get the opportunity to pay payroll taxes.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 22, 2008)

pegwinn said:


> I read your post and agree that it would be far better than what we have today. However, today's code started simple enough and grew, and grew, and grew, yadablahetc.
> 
> For all the reasons I mentioned in my post to Care, try this one on for size.
> Fairtax.org
> ...



Thanks for the link... it is a bit more complicated and therefore subject to abuse than I would like to see, but I understand baby steps and it is definitely going in the right direction.

-Joe


----------



## Care4all (Oct 22, 2008)

pegwinn said:


> I don't believe in taxation based on income. The argument against it boils down to privacy, a bloated government agency, a maze of rules no one can comprehend well, comprehensibly, and fairness for everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with your last statement and note that your term "pillaging" is as much hyperbole as my term "soak". Fair enough? It still sounds like class envy at least to me.



ok pegwinn, now i know where you stand....at least i think i do? 

you think the Fair tax is the way to go which is a consumption tax...

My concerns with such is how real estate taxes would be paid and who would get these taxes, the feds or the local state gvt for schools?

Another concern would be whether companies would really price their goods lower since their own indirect tax reductions would lower their own cost of goods so to say, so that when we do have to pay 25% more in taxes it would not necessarily be 25% more for the product....this is hard to explain...i know i am not doing a good job of it....  

But my main concern, is that i do not see how this really helps us reign in congressional deficit spending which IS the real problem...even with the financial crunch we are in, this IS the real problem with the credit crunch, along with a kazillion other things that stemmed from the housing boom and creative so to say, financial tools...

Here is why...

-Congress already IGNORES what revenues we bring in tax revenues, continues to spend big, and continues to borrow this money from foreigners...  

-And, congress at any time can just raise the fair tax to a higher and higher and higher percentage of purchases....nothing stopping that...

There is no doubt that we have a problem with our taxes...all of them -not just our income taxes and not just federal, but state and local as well and reform needs to be considered imo, however there is no plan that does not have it's own problems that would need addressing....

The main one is none of them prevents congress from taxing us more and none of them stops congress from deficit spending, which i believe is the MAIN problem....more important than who gets taxed at what percent for whatever portion of their income...

The progressive tax does not penalize the wealthy and give more to the poor...it goes by the income one makes for that portion of their income...ooooo tongue twister...  

what i mean is that IF the lowest tax bracket  up to 8 k is taxed at 10%, then the poor man making only 8k is taxed at 10% for that, the guy in the middle for his first 8k is taxed at that rate and for the wealthiest among us, for his first 8k he is also taxed the 10%...NO ONE gets MORE than the other, same with the next bracket up, if the poor person makes it there, he will pay 15% on what he makes over the 8 k up to the next bracket hike, same with the wealthiest and same with the guy in the next tax bracket up.... and so on and so forth.....no one gets any more of a break on taxes than the next guy making more for every segment of income in the tax rate brackets....

This is not as progressive as one would think...if those in higher tax brackets were taxed for their entire income at the rate of their bracket then this would be MUCH MORE progressive, but the way it is done, is not....again, in my opinion.

Care


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 22, 2008)

Care4all said:


> bullcrap divecon...
> 
> we are NOT TALKING ABOUT A BUSINESS, we are talking about an INDIVIDUAL'S income aren't we....?
> 
> care


if you dont think that plays a part in the bottom line of a business, then you are extremely naive


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 22, 2008)

editec said:


> Fans, the consumer economy is 70% of the GNP.
> 
> Guess what happens when the consumers stop buying stuff?
> 
> ...


yeah, so lets raise taxes on those with the ability to consume so they have less to spend
yeah, THAT will do wonders for the economy


Hint: the boat luxury tax in 1992
what happened?
they raised taxes on boats, the people that would normally buy them couldnt afford them, so they stayed with their older boats, the boat builders couldnt sell what they had built, they then had to lay off the workers, and some even went out of business

yeah, in a poor economic time the best thing to do is tax people more


----------



## Care4all (Oct 22, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> yeah, so lets raise taxes on those with the ability to consume so they have less to spend
> yeah, THAT will do wonders for the economy
> 
> 
> ...



no, the best thing to do is to give the poor paying taxes or middle class paying taxes some of their taxes back, they will spend near every dime in the american economy, in less time than any of the other tax groups and immediately spur sales, which then will spur the hiring of more people and will increase tax revenues from the increased business growth....  

care


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 22, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> if you dont think that plays a part in the bottom line of a business, then you are extremely naive



Nobles need not pay taxes. 

Or Leona Helmsley's quote that the rich do not pay taxes.

I can't wait to get me some of Dive's $.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 22, 2008)

Care4all said:


> no, the best thing to do is to give the poor paying taxes or middle class paying taxes some of their taxes back, they will spend near every dime in the american economy, in less time than any of the other tax groups and immediately spur sales, which then will spur the hiring of more people and will increase tax revenues from the increased business growth....
> 
> care


so, you are disagreing with Obama, he wants to raise taxes
and btw, about 40% dont pay taxes now
so you can forget about giving them "their taxes back"


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 22, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> so, you are disagreing with Obama, he wants to raise taxes
> and btw, about 40% dont pay taxes now
> so you can forget about giving them "their taxes back"



Yea, the top 10%


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 22, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> so, you are disagreing with Obama, he wants to raise taxes
> and btw, about 40% dont pay taxes now
> so you can forget about giving them "their taxes back"



What is this '40%' that don't pay taxes you and a couple of other people keep bringing up?  

I am about as low on the income scale as one can be and still enjoy a brew or ten during the debates, and _I_ pay taxes... between $5,000 and $10,000 each and every year.

I know I make more than some in this country but it will take some serious evidence from more than one source to convince me I am among the top 60% of wage earners in America.

*Let's see some stats to show that 40% of Americans don't pay taxes!*

I'm assuming that if the 40% are the ones who have accountants and lawyers on staff you would be as miffed as me regarding the unfairness of that scenario...

-Joe


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 22, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Yea, the top 10%


keep believing that


----------



## WillowTree (Oct 22, 2008)

It's like Huckabee says. The fair tax is the way to go. If we had a fair tax we would need no congress. Congress exists to figure out who they are gonna levy taxes on. Who is to be punished.. How true, and the Dems clearly want to punish success. How strange.


----------



## Turboswede (Oct 22, 2008)

AVG-JOE said:


> I'm assuming that if the 40% are the ones who have accountants and lawyers on staff you would be as miffed as me regarding the unfairness of that scenario...
> 
> -Joe



Someone paying 0% tax is either:

A CPA with a family of 4 earning less than $14,000 per year

or...

I think that would be about it.


----------



## Care4all (Oct 22, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> so, you are disagreing with Obama, he wants to raise taxes
> and btw, about 40% dont pay taxes now
> so you can forget about giving them "their taxes back"




no, the poor pay their FICA taxes, and we are using FICA's money in the federal budget spending for things other than SS retirements etc....IN WHICH INCOME tax revenues SHOULD BE PAYING....


----------



## Larkinn (Oct 22, 2008)

WillowTree said:


> It's like Huckabee says. The fair tax is the way to go. If we had a fair tax we would need no congress. Congress exists to figure out who they are gonna levy taxes on. Who is to be punished.. How true, and the Dems clearly want to punish success. How strange.



Right, we would need no Congress.   Except for Congress is the only one who gets to spend money...so there would be a 10% tax that would never get spent...


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 22, 2008)

Care4all said:


> no, the poor pay their FICA taxes, and we are using FICA's money in the federal budget spending for things other than SS retirements etc....IN WHICH INCOME tax revenues SHOULD BE PAYING....


their FICA goes towards their social security
unless you want to take that away from them too


----------



## Care4all (Oct 22, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> their FICA goes towards their social security
> unless you want to take that away from them too


no, the ss surplusses that they pay are going towards funding general expenses, with an iou in its place that may never be paid back...

And I, with others, are waiting for your PROOF that 40% of Americans do not or will not pay any taxes or income taxes.

you can't keep repeating something that no proof of such has been shown.

dole out the link that you got this info from, if i haven't missed it?  If i have missed it, can you lead me in the right direction as to the post number you put the evidence link on.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 22, 2008)

Care4all said:


> no, the ss surplusses that they pay are going towards funding general expenses, with an iou in its place that may never be paid back...
> 
> And I, with others, are waiting for your PROOF that 40% of Americans do not or will not pay any taxes or income taxes.
> 
> ...


income taxes
i never said ALL taxes
man you guys will twist anything


----------



## pegwinn (Oct 22, 2008)

Turboswede said:


> Nice job David, I have been bringing up FICA and Medicare but all people seem to want to talk about is FIT.  Remember the federal gas tax too, that hits working Americans too.
> 
> Not to detract from your argument but there are some folks who dont pay payroll taxes.  I would be very surprised if Paris Hilton has or ever will pay payroll taxes.  Only folks who work for a living get the opportunity to pay payroll taxes.



Paris Hilton would pay taxes if it was a national sales tax. So would drug dealers, billionaires, illegal immigrants, tourists, charlie rangel, yadablahetc.



Care4all said:


> ok pegwinn, now i know where you stand....at least i think i do?
> 
> you think the Fair tax is the way to go which is a consumption tax... Yes
> 
> ...



Nice to talk to someone who has an opposing opinion without resorting to become an ass in order to get a point across. Thanks.


----------



## Care4all (Oct 22, 2008)

pegwinn said:


> Paris Hilton would pay taxes if it was a national sales tax. So would drug dealers, billionaires, illegal immigrants, tourists, charlie rangel, yadablahetc.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice to talk to someone who has an opposing opinion without resorting to become an ass in order to get a point across. Thanks.



No. 

thank you!  

Are services also taxed as a sale?

Can the wealthiest get around this by making their big purchases in another country?

is food, a necessity, included in the fair tax?

Does the fair tax incorporate SS taxes in to it and will it pay for SS as well?

Real estate is already hurting and i don't think that part is a good idea....especially if local property taxes are also going to hit them and i do not understand how this kind of tax transition would or could take place....

Care


----------



## jreeves (Oct 22, 2008)

Care4all said:


> no, the poor pay their FICA taxes, and we are using FICA's money in the federal budget spending for things other than SS retirements etc....IN WHICH INCOME tax revenues SHOULD BE PAYING....



The EIC was designed to help offset SS taxes and other payroll taxes for the poor. Now Obama wants to *expand EIC and give tax credits*(welfare) to the low income. 

The expansion of EIC and more free money in the form tax credits is directly a redistribution of wealth since SS taxes and other payroll taxes were already accounted for with the Earned income credit.


----------



## Chris (Oct 22, 2008)

jreeves said:


> The EIC was designed to help offset SS taxes and other payroll taxes for the poor. Now Obama wants to *expand EIC and give tax credits*(welfare) to the low income.
> 
> The expansion of EIC and more free money in the form tax credits is directly a redistribution of wealth since SS taxes and other payroll taxes were already accounted for with the Earned income credit.



As opposed to giving money to the oil companies and the wealthy?


----------



## Red Dawn (Oct 22, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Hey, but he's no socialist.
> 
> Breitbart.tv  Obama Tells Tax-Burdened Plumber the Plan is to Spread the Wealth Around





> Fox News:  Obama Tells Tax-Burdened Plumber the Plan is to Spread the Wealth Around




LOL, Classic.   WTF, did somebody grave dig this thread?

Joe the Plumber lied.  He wasn't a plumber, he didn't have any real plans to buy a company, his name's not joe, the company he worked for was only worth 100k and would have been under the 250k cap Obama has proposed.   

And Joe's not "burdened" by taxes.   He's a tax dodger who owes back taxes.


----------



## jreeves (Oct 22, 2008)

Chris said:


> As opposed to giving money to the oil companies and the wealthy?



Yes those damn oil companies aren't paying any taxes....
The Tax Foundation - Oil Company Profits and Tax Collections: Does the U.S. Need a New Windfall Profits Tax?
The answer to the first question is that over the past 25 years, *oil companies directly paid or remitted more than $2.2 trillion in taxes*, after adjusting for inflation, to federal and state governmentsincluding excise taxes, royalty payments and state and federal corporate income taxes. That amounts to more than three times what they earned in profits during the same period, according to the latest numbers from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and U.S. Department of Energy. 

These figures do not include local property taxes, state sales and severance taxes and on-shore royalty payments. 

Neither are the wealthy...


----------



## elvis (Oct 22, 2008)

Red Dawn said:


> LOL, Classic.   WTF, did somebody grave dig this thread?
> 
> Joe the Plumber lied.  He wasn't a plumber, he didn't have any real plans to buy a company, his name's not joe, the company he worked for was only worth 100k and would have been under the 250k cap Obama has proposed.
> 
> And Joe's not "burdened" by taxes.   He's a tax dodger who owes back taxes.



that doesn't erase the fact that Obama said he's going to spread the wealth around.  whether joe lied or not, there are plenty of prospective business owners out there that obama will soak.


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 22, 2008)

elvis3577 said:


> that doesn't erase the fact that Obama said he's going to spread the wealth around.  whether joe lied or not, there are plenty of prospective business owners out there that obama will soak.



shhhhhhh  that's the part that they are trying to deflect from.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 23, 2008)

elvis3577 said:


> that doesn't erase the fact that Obama said he's going to spread the wealth around. whether joe lied or not, there are plenty of prospective business owners out there that obama will soak.


 


dilloduck said:


> shhhhhhh that's the part that they are trying to deflect from.


 not to mention, he didnt actually lie
but these fucking morons will never understand that simple truth


----------



## Care4all (Oct 23, 2008)

jreeves said:


> The EIC was designed to help offset SS taxes and other payroll taxes for the poor. Now Obama wants to *expand EIC and give tax credits*(welfare) to the low income.
> 
> The expansion of EIC and more free money in the form tax credits is directly a redistribution of wealth since SS taxes and other payroll taxes were already accounted for with the Earned income credit.


good morning reeves!

The EIC has been a Tax Credit program that has been supported by ALL Presidents and all Parties since the program began a generation or two ago.

Mccain does not get rid of the EIC and would NEVER get rid of the EIC.

No one gets handed this money each week, when taxes are filed, if the family makes less than $17 k or so they qualify for EIC....the cutoff for a married couple's total earnings is making less than $14k a year.......

The EIC gives these people a credit for some of what they pay in FICA taxes.

It is the BEST and most EFFICIENT welfare, if this is what you want to call it, program that the USA has and has ever had.

These are the WORKING POOR, these are NOT people on the dole sitting home doing nothing...giving them more of their own tax monies back and letting them make the decision on how to use their own money empowers them as individuals to take care of themselves and their children, as any tax break or credit would empower any of us getting one.

We would be sooooooooooo fortunate as a country if all we needed to do with our poor welfare programs is give the poor a credit for their taxes paid from them WORKING.....

I fully and whole heartedly support expanding the EIC....it encourages the poor to work.

care


----------



## editec (Oct 23, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> yeah, so lets raise taxes on those with the ability to consume so they have less to spend
> yeah, THAT will do wonders for the economy
> 
> 
> ...


 
I don't advocate raising taxces on the rich.

I merely advocate allowing taxes to return to the state they will return to if we dont' change another damned tax law.

What I DO advocate is changing our current trade policies and cutting back on goverment spending.

do that and in twenty years our society would be solvent again.

We cannot keep deindustrializing our society and expect it to thrive.


----------



## Care4all (Oct 23, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> if you dont think that plays a part in the bottom line of a business, then you are extremely naive



fyi....Obama's tax plan doesn't affect small businesses with higher taxes, it gives them a tax BREAK for the most.



> In 2005 (the last year for which there is both data on nonemployers and employers at the U.S. Census Bureau), there were 20,392,068 nonemployers with a total income of $951 billion (Source: Nonemployer Statistics, 2005, Total for all sectors, United States). Small business employers1 numbered 5,878,784 (Source: Statistics of U.S. Businesses, All Industries, 2005). The total number of all employer and nonemployer businesses in 2005 was 26,375,614, of which 26,270,852 (or 99.6%) would qualify as small businesses as Ive defined it above. This would be why people respond when you threaten to increase taxes on small businesses - theres a LOT of small businesses.
> 
> But look closer at those numbers. The average income per nonemployer small business is the total income divided by the number of employers, which in this case is only $46,635. What that means is that the vast majority of nonemployer small businesses (which we can probably fairly say are mostly sole proprietorships) would be unaffected by the Obama tax cut. In fact, since they make so little, theyd get a tax cut, not a tax increase.


----------



## Kit Parker (Oct 23, 2008)

All taxation is a redistribution of wealth.


----------



## editec (Oct 23, 2008)

Kit Parker said:


> All taxation is a redistribution of wealth.


 
True. 

No matter how necessary we might think that government service is, too.

Paying for _anything_ by taxation is wealth redistribution. Government itself is wealth redistribution.

So the questions are: what do we think is needed; who pays for it; and to whom to we redistribute that wealth to take care of those services we think are necessary?

Those are always the questions we are asking ourselves in every one of these debates.

_Unless you are an outright anarchist,_ the issue is ALWAYS: *how much freedom we are willing to give up for how much benefit from that collective system we call government?*


----------



## Kit Parker (Oct 23, 2008)

editec said:


> True.
> 
> No matter how necessary we might think that government service is, too.
> 
> ...



I guess I actually believe the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few,or the one!  I believe this can be achieved without destroying incentive.I may be a romantic and somewhat sentimental but I also believe that the better angels of our nature will prevail when we care about each other.Give people a hand up not a hand out and require them to *meet conditions* on that help!


----------



## Annie (Oct 23, 2008)

Kit Parker said:


> I guess I actually believe the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few,or the one!  I believe this can be achieved without destroying incentive.I may be a romantic and somewhat sentimental but I also believe that the better angels of our nature will prevail when we care about each other.Give people a hand up not a hand out and require them to *meet conditions* on that help!



I agree, the difference is that I know that the government is not the most effective and certainly not the most efficient way to provide for those in need. On the other hand, it would be really wonderful if they would work on all levels to repair/replace/build the infrastructure they've let go for nearly 50 years.


----------



## editec (Oct 23, 2008)

Kit Parker said:


> I guess I actually believe the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few,or the one! I believe this can be achieved without destroying incentive.I may be a romantic and somewhat sentimental but I also believe that the better angels of our nature will prevail when we care about each other.Give people a hand up not a hand out and require them to *meet conditions* on that help!


 
Good start, but sadly there's a few details to that plan that need to be fleshed out.


----------



## editec (Oct 23, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> I agree, the difference is that *I know that the government is not the most effective and certainly not the most efficient way to provide for those in need.* On the other hand, it would be really wonderful if they would work on all levels to repair/replace/build the infrastructure they've let go for nearly 50 years.


 
How do you* know* that?


----------



## Annie (Oct 23, 2008)

editec said:


> How do you* know* that?



By what they've done before. How they've mishandled social security, affirmative action, Medicare. What they've done regarding procurement and the military. Earmarks. Taking gifts from lobbyists. There is no incentives for politicians to act carefully with our money.


----------



## pegwinn (Oct 23, 2008)

Care4all said:


> No.
> 
> thank you!   No worries. You're welcome.
> 
> ...



Check it out at Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans for Fair Taxation


----------



## editec (Oct 23, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> By what they've done before. How they've mishandled social security, affirmative action, Medicare. What they've done regarding procurement and the military. Earmarks. Taking gifts from lobbyists. There is no incentives for politicians to act carefully with our money.


 
Okay you know that this system is fraught with problems, but you implied that you KNEW government was not the best system for providing those services.

That suggests that you know of a better system, doesn't it?

What system do you have in mind?


----------



## Care4all (Oct 23, 2008)

pegwinn said:


> Check it out at Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans for Fair Taxation



the rich can avoid a state sales tax already, but a consumption tax is in addition to this that would be avoided...i'd like to see this loophole closed, so that the fair tax is TRUELY a fair tax where no one can get around it...

good that SS would be incorporated in to it.

good that services would be taxed as well...

what about buying stocks and other investments here and overseas, would that be taxed when you bought them?

and i still have problems with real estate, primarily your owner occupied homes, being taxed when you buy one....  this would make homes more expensive in a troubling market imo...

but i will try to read your link before the day's end!

Care


----------



## Annie (Oct 23, 2008)

editec said:


> Okay you know that this system is fraught with problems, but you implied that you KNEW government was not the best system for providing those services.
> 
> That suggests that you know of a better system, doesn't it?
> 
> What system do you have in mind?



As local as possible. PADS, shelters, etc. Churches, libraries, local organizations have always had programs such as ESL and tutoring. Many communities have support services for single parents with children. Funny thing about volunteers, they are usually geared at helping those needing help reach above their circumstances, not maintain them.


----------



## Care4all (Oct 23, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> As local as possible. PADS, shelters, etc. Churches, libraries, local organizations have always had programs such as ESL and tutoring. Many communities have support services for single parents with children. Funny thing about volunteers, they are usually geared at helping those needing help reach above their circumstances, not maintain them.



can they at minimum 20 fold their workload if gvt welfare was stopped and they received nothing in tax dollars from the gvt either?

i don't think our charities could handle it....


----------



## Vintij (Oct 23, 2008)

I am tired of this stupid argument. If your going to call Obama a socialist, you might as well call out john mccain when he voted TWICE against the Bush tax cuts....only recently did he switch his opinion on that. You may also call Mccain a socialist for voting in favor of the 700 billion dollar redistribution of wealth from tax payers to banks. Dont forget his 300 billion dollar morgage buyout plan. THank you very much.


----------



## xaxeptance449 (Oct 23, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Hey, but he's no socialist.
> 
> Breitbart.tv  Obama Tells Tax-Burdened Plumber the Plan is to Spread the Wealth Around



Palin is the governor of a state that has no income tax, instead takes the profits of big oil taxes them and shares them with everyone, but Palin is not a Socialist.


----------



## pegwinn (Oct 23, 2008)

Care4all said:


> the rich can avoid a state sales tax already, but a consumption tax is in addition to this that would be avoided...i'd like to see this loophole closed, so that the fair tax is TRUELY a fair tax where no one can get around it... Just because someone can/could avoid it doesn't mean they would/are. As I already said, nothing is perfect. A national sales tax is far more fair than one based on the income paradigm
> 
> good that SS would be incorporated in to it.
> 
> ...



Additionally I have to ask.... How do you feel about religion forcing it's morality on you?


----------



## Care4all (Oct 24, 2008)

pegwinn said:


> Additionally I have to ask.... How do you feel about religion forcing it's morality on you?


i'm a strange but unique  character pegwinn....

i live my religion, or try my best at it...

i would never try to force it on to anyone and do believe in the first amendment, where our gvt shouldn't be doing such either, but also believe in the first amendment in FULL which means the gvt should not be dictating to churches how they should be either. 

as someone who is religious, i do feel very strongly that we were all given individual free will for a reason...our own individual test...but overall this means...to each- his own!

care


----------



## pegwinn (Oct 24, 2008)

Care4all said:


> i'm a strange but unique  character pegwinn....
> 
> i live my religion, or try my best at it...
> 
> ...


I agree. 

And...
You have closely articulated just one of the reasons I oppose the progressive income tax that I have not mentioned yet. It is a case of someone imposing their moral view on me and enforcing it via the courts and cops. Obama feels a moral obligation to be Robin Hood and to heck with those of us that disagree. 

We would not stand for it if it was directed at us from a church pulpit by the Reverend President.

Why do we stand for it when it is wrapped up in the flag, written into the tax code, and called our "patriotic duty" by Mr. Biden?

Bet you thought I was going waaaaaaaaaay off topic huh?


----------



## jreeves (Oct 24, 2008)

Care4all said:


> good morning reeves!
> 
> The EIC has been a Tax Credit program that has been supported by ALL Presidents and all Parties since the program began a generation or two ago.
> 
> ...



Care I was responding to this post by you.


*no, the poor pay their FICA taxes, and we are using FICA's money in the federal budget spending for things other than SS retirements etc....IN WHICH INCOME tax revenues SHOULD BE PAYING....*

If EIC was designed and actually does offset FICA taxes. Then why would Obama want to give an extra approximately $600 in a refundable tax credits(not EIC BTW) to low income wage earners. On top of the current EIC, the expansion of EIC he would spread the wealth by giving them an additional $600. That goes way too far to provide an incentative to work. BTW....Here are the actual thresholds for EIC...

  Next Tax Year 2008
*Earned income and adjusted gross income (AGI) *must each be less than:


*$38,646 ($41,646 married filing jointly) with two or more qualifying children;
$33,995 ($36,995 married filing jointly) with one qualifying child;
$12,880 ($15,880 married filing jointly) with no qualifying children.

Tax Year 2008 maximum credit:


$4,824 with two or more qualifying children;
$2,917 with one qualifying child;
$438 with no qualifying children.*Investment income must be $2,950 or less for the year.

The maximum Advance Earned Income Tax Credit (advance EITC) for TY 2008 the employer is allowed to provide throughout the year with the employee's pay is $1,750.
EITC Thresholds and Tax Law Updates

That's just a tad more than 17K a year....


Also I never claimed that MCcain would get rid of EIC. The contrast between Obama's and Mccain's tax plan can clearly be seen in these two income groups.
MCcain would give the under 19k income earners an additional $19, while Obama would give the same income group $567.

Then if you make, $112-161K you would get a tax cut of $2614 under Mccain's plan. Obama's tax plan would give the same income group $2204. 

So if you look at it objectively Mccain gives larger tax cuts to the taxpayers that pay more. While Obama's plan gives large tax cuts to people who pay no income taxes and actually draw from the tax pool. 

The question to keep in mind when comparing the two plans is this; Do you think the people who draw from the tax pool should get larger tax cuts(welfare) or the people who actually fund the EIC program?


----------



## AllieBaba (Oct 24, 2008)

xaxeptance449 said:


> Palin is the governor of a state that has no income tax, instead takes the profits of big oil taxes them and shares them with everyone, but Palin is not a Socialist.



No, she's not. Because big oil OWES Alaska that money, for the privilege of using the State of Alaska.

It's capitalism pure and simple. And Palin takes those payments, made to the STATE OF ALASKA, and she distributes them among the TAXPAYERS of Alaska, who are the owners.


----------



## Care4all (Oct 24, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> No, she's not. Because big oil OWES Alaska that money, for the privilege of using the State of Alaska.
> 
> It's capitalism pure and simple. And Palin takes those payments, made to the STATE OF ALASKA, and she distributes them among the TAXPAYERS of Alaska, who are the owners.


then why isn't this done with oil companies that drill on federal land, can we charge them more than the pennies for their leases on our land and get a check for it too, and if we did do such, would you really not come to the aid of the oil companies and say to us that if we did this it would just make the price of gasoline and oil higher?  doesn't matter to alaska, they get their share from the oil companies and the rest of america pays the bill with higher oil and gas prices i would suppose....?  after all, all corps put their bills in to the price of the product as many chant....?

EDIT:

btw allie, i am truely not against the deal she worked for alaskans from the oil company, i think it was good and we all should share in the profits of the oil companies that are using our federal land as well and get a check every year from our gvt via the oil companies.

but know, this is what republicans in general, would call socialism....a redistribution of wealth or ''spreading the wealth around'' imo.

care


----------



## editec (Oct 24, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> No, she's not. Because big oil OWES Alaska that money, for the privilege of using the State of Alaska.
> 
> It's capitalism pure and simple. And Palin takes those payments, made to the STATE OF ALASKA, and she distributes them among the TAXPAYERS of Alaska, who are the owners.


 
Yeah...that's basically a form of socialism.

Good for Alaska!


----------

