Obama's plan is to redistribute the wealth.

[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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!?!!

Say you have HNW guy, let’s call him Sam and Sam as an annual income of around $1,500,000 (that’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’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’t cover these costs, Sam’s business (Sam mart?) my need to provide retiree health insurance, and that cuts down on Sam’s investment income.

$209 billion Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program
If the Federal government didn’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’t like unions), that would cut down Sam’s investment income.

$324 billion Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending
Without Unemployment benefits people who are without work wouldn’t be able to buy stuff and the sale of stuff is what pays Sam’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’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’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’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’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’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’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’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’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’s dividends.

$10.6 billion - United States Department of Labor
Sam doesn’t like the DOL but knows that if it didn’t exist more workers may organize.

$51.8 billion (+9.7%) - Other On-budget Discretionary Spending
Don’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’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’s CAPITAL income.

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]

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]

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]

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]

Now you are just being silly.

silly minor details.

 

[AVG-JOE]

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]

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]

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

Okay, wasn't aware of that.

 

[elvis]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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.