Obama's plan is to redistribute the 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?

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 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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
No.

thank you! :) No worries. You're welcome.

Are services also taxed as a sale? Yes, Services are taxed

Can the wealthiest get around this by making their big purchases in another country? Yes, but they can do that right now as well.

is food, a necessity, included in the fair tax? Yes, but there is a prebate to cover neccessities. Check out the website.

Does the fair tax incorporate SS taxes in to it and will it pay for SS as well? Yes and Yes. The fairtax is designed to abolish the income tax and fund social security

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.... I'm not sure about undeveloped real estate. The fairness is that all new construction is taxed. If you buy the house don't the street, not taxed. The transition is easy since most all states already have a sales tax in place.

Care

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

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
 
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.
 
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.... :(
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.

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? I don't know. I bet if you read the link and the FAQ section.... or even do like I did and read the original fairtax books (1stbook, 2ndbook) by boortz and linder. I got them from my local library. Your results may vary...

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... Only NEW Houses. Used goods don't get taxed.

but i will try to read your link before the day's end! Good. If you investigate it with an open mind you will see that it is a far better plan than the current system. It isn't a cure all. But, there is no such thing as a single magic cure.

Care Phil

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

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

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

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
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? :eusa_whistle:
 
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

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?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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
 
Last edited:
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!
 

Forum List

Back
Top