Obama's plan is to redistribute the wealth.

[Chris]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Then why won't either candidate propose one ?

 

[Navy1960]

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]

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

 

[DiamondDave]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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.