Obama's plan is to redistribute the wealth.

[pegwinn]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

I thought I already took the time to explain the difference betwenn "anti" and "un" Constitutional. Go back and re-read it. It really isn't that tough.

No, Yes again.

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. That is your experience. My experience was to actually consult a tax attorney, a paid preparer, and three CPA's in 1999 wtih a specific question on how to handle a real estate transaction per 1031. I got five correct answers.

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]

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 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. Again, your fairness argument is apples and oranges. You cannot control life. You can control taxes. Application of a system designed to reward one group based on their lack and punish another based on success is not only unfair, it is not logical.

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. No, it is an honest assessment of a bad plan. Why not scrap the income tax altogether and replace it with a system that is neutral in regard to who pays?


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%. I think you would be an equally real ass to insist on punishing someone for his or her success.

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]

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]

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.