Obama’s Defense of His Tax Redistribution Scheme
Democrat Barack Obama on Wednesday brushed aside Republican charges that his tax plan amounts to socialism, but he acknowledged it involves “spreading around opportunity” so that wealthier Americans - like himself - pay a little more to help lower-rung workers.
The core of Obama’s plan would reverse tax cuts for Americans at the high end of the income scale that were passed during the Bush era. He noted that when those Bush-backed cuts were first proposed, his opponent for the White House, Republican John McCain, opposed them as irresponsibly targeted.
“Was John McCain a socialist back in 2000?” Obama asked at a news conference.
The socialism charge isn’t about the tax increase at the top end of the spectrum. It’s about the tax handout at the bottom end to people who didn’t pay any income taxes. If you read aaaaaaaaaaall the way to the end of the story, the reporter addresses this.
On taxes, McCain launched a new attack over the weekend, saying Obama’s plan to provide a $500 tax credit would include even those who pay no taxes and “convert the IRS into a giant welfare agency, redistributing massive amounts of wealth at the direction of politicians in Washington.” McCain has accused Obama of favoring socialistic tax redistribution policies.
Obama’s response at the news conference did not address the $500 tax break.
It isn’t that hard to understand…
By definition, the only people offering socialist programs right now are the Bush Administration and the Republican VP candidate.
Seriously, and I don’t mean to belittle anyone’s political leanings, but if your basing your vote on tax policy, government expansion and fiscal responsibility Obama is far and away the candidate you want. If you are voting for McCain/Palin based on this issue you are voting on rhetoric, not record.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2008 at 1723 hrsOh, fuck it. I’m sick of paying, Owen. Were do I sign up to get free shit from these lefty clowns?
Posted by Mike Gallo on October 22, 2008 at 1743 hrsCool lefty.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2008 at 1756 hrs
i hope obama wins, i can quit my job. i make good money here in lacrosse.
I can live on welfare, and make about the same money.
i will get free health care. I will call you every day lefty to get your ass out of bed, to make money so i can live at home and reap the rewards of your working hard.
I GET IT.
so go obama go, i cant wait to retire at 40I still have doubts on whatever both McCain and Obama are saying. Whoever wins this election, they would probably not do 50 percent of what they promise.
Posted by che of teak furniture on October 23, 2008 at 0428 hrsChe,
I agree, which means the only real issue in this election is making sure an idiot who thinks that as aVP she’ll be serving on committees and debating on the Senate floor isn’t a heartbeat away from being President of the United States.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 0650 hrsSo Bush is socializing our banks so it’s OK that BHO wants to turn the IRS into a welfare program. That’s the ticket!
And Biden is just sooo much smarter than Palin? Aha, but he looks presidential. Looks are everything to the easily led…
I look forward to BHOas President. When I get laid off I won’t even bother to look for another job. I’ll live off my land, and the taxpayers.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 0722 hrsIf you quit your job, you won’t get a tax cut. If you go from working 40 hours a week or more at a decent job where you make $30K to part-time making $18K, it certainly won’t cover the difference, not even close. And of course, you’ll still be paying federal taxes.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 0743 hrsI find it hilarious that McCain thinks a $500 tax credit to working people means a massive redistribution of wealth. I mean, if we’ve had a massive redistribution of wealth in the last 8 years, it’s been toward the wealthiest.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 0744 hrsSo are you guys saying that if the government, say a state, taxes one entity and then cuts all the citizens a big check (redistribution) at the end of the year, that’s socialism? Because that sure sounds like ALASKA to me.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008103 325_alaskatax07.html“Palin’s administration last week gained legislative approval for a special $1,200 payment to every Alaskan to help cope with gas prices, which are among the highest in the country.”
Posted by Dave Reid on October 23, 2008 at 0858 hrsOn the radio I heard a great story about explaining Obama’s tax plan to, in this case to youth.
Daughter works at fast food restaurant and proudly brings home her first check. “Now,” says mom, “give $20 to your brother.
Why?” daughter asks.
“Because he doesn’t have a job and needs the money”.
Daughter protests “But I earned it, why should I give him the money because he doesn’t want to work?”
Mom replies, “Now you understand the Obama tax plan”.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 0900 hrsActually, no, bajaskier. That doesn’t even come close to describing the Obama tax plan. For starters, you have to actually have a job to receive any benefit from the Obama tax plan. But don’t let reality stop you. It rarely does for Republicans.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 0927 hrsSo are you guys saying that if the government, say a state, taxes one entity and then cuts all the citizens a big check (redistribution) at the end of the year, that’s socialism? Because that sure sounds like ALASKA to me.
Dave… You might look beyond an elementary description of someone getting a check and ask yourself where the money comes from?
Giving money to the citizens that is the result of royalty payments paid by companies that remove a resource from state-owned land is not redistribution.
Giving money back to the people who paid it in is not redistritubution.
Taking money from those who EARNED IT and paying it to those who DID NOT is redistribution.
JFC I’m dejected that someone as uninformed on these issues gets to cast equal to mine.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 0955 hrsAgain, those who are receiving the refundable tax credit still pay federal taxes. And again, McCain’s tax policy also relies on refundable tax credits.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 1001 hrsxxpilot, by your definition, any form of government is redistributionist.
As for your last comment, there are voters who overestimate by a factor of 100 the amount of money we spend on foreign aid, who literally believe Obama is a Muslim terrorist, and/or who couldn’t locate their own state on a map of the US.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 1005 hrsBTW, calling Obama’s tax policy “socialist” is stupid long term strategy. The attacks are obviously not working, and by watering down a term that means something else, he’s giving socialism a better name than it deserves.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 1009 hrsThe “he” in my second sentence refers to McCain.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 1010 hrsFor starters, you have to actually have a job to receive any benefit from the Obama tax plan.
Which was just added to his “plan” within the last week or so, after he was criticized for it being a thinly veiled welfare program.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 1014 hrsxxpilot> In Palin’s own words http://dwb.adn.com/opinion/compass/story/9424111p-93364 00c.html
“Keep in mind that the original oil tax rate recommendation was 25 percent. That’s the same rate we are recommending in ACES. It has been reviewed by numerous economists with worldwide oil and gas experience. There is no dissension—25 percent is the right number.” - Sarah Palin
Further the fact that the government is “investing” in business, well is pretty socialistic as well. “The state of Alaska is currently the largest investor on the North Slope, having paid for 50 percent of all investments in 2007.”
Thanks please drive thru…
Posted by Dave Reid on October 23, 2008 at 1016 hrsNo, cynical. It was always part of Obama’s plan. You can’t have a refundable tax credit for income unless you have income to begin with.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 1024 hrsGiving money to the citizens that is the result of royalty payments paid by companies that remove a resource from state-owned land is not redistribution.
I’m sorry xx, but that is a line of bull. I’m not going to try and blow smoke up your arse and tell you the oil company assessment Doyle proposed wasn’t a tax on oil companies. If an individual, business, industry is required to pay money to a local, state or federal government it is a tax. If you only pay money to the government in order to use a specific service or gain the ability to engage in an activity you choose it is a fee.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 1134 hrsxxpilot, by your definition, any form of government is redistributionist.
How you pull that from my previous post is beyond me.
As for your last comment, there are voters who overestimate by a factor of 100 the amount of money we spend on foreign aid, who literally believe Obama is a Muslim terrorist, and/or who couldn’t locate their own state on a map of the US.
Exactly…
And there are also people who pay NOTHING in tax but get to vote the same as I. Equally disturbing.
I think everyone should pay the same percent of their income in tax. That way all the freeloaders who now can vote for candidates to do ALL kinds of things with other peoples money will have a vested interest in the efficacy of these proposals.
Its an easy decision to spend money when its not you paying the bill. And you care less how well something works when someone else pays the bill.
Everyone shops harder, everyone buys more critically and looks for more value when its THEIR money on the line.
We’ve got way too many people in this country paying no tax, that therefore have NO financial stake in these big government proposals. That should change.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 1155 hrsLefty - a “Royalty” is a “Fee”. Potato, Potahto.
Sussex does the same thing with the quarries that Alaska does with the oil companies. There is a royalty/fee for every truckload of stone taken out of the village for use of the natural resources.
Steve-O - you do NOT have to have a job for the tax credit, you just have to file a tax return to get it. The work part was added recently to the Obama plan when Joe exposed him.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 1159 hrsWell, any form of government relies on taxation to fund its functions. But there’s basically no way that you can structure it so that payments or benefits or whatever will equally reach each taxpaying citizen.
I also see that you’re fond of the flat tax, which is nonsense as far as policy goes and even more nonsensical politically speaking. I’m really sure that most Americans will want a tax increase so that rich people can get another tax cut.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 1204 hrsNo, JJ, that’s not true. One of the refundable tax credits, the universal mortgage tax credit, was recently explicitly tied to work to make sure there was no confusion. The job tax credit, child care credit, saving tax credit and college tax credit are all explicitly tied to work already.
And if you have a mortgage but no job, you’re in enough trouble that a $500 tax credit isn’t going to help you all that much.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 1219 hrssteveo:
So who is it that is supposed to determine “wealth” (income in Obama’s case) and who is it that determines who the confiscated income gets “spread” to? The messiah himself?
And is there a limit to which he can confiscate my money? I did not hear of him setting a limit.
What incentive is there for me to work (or strive to earn more) when I can sit back and get someone else’s confiscated “wealth”? You never seem to answer that.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 1220 hrsWell, any form of government relies on taxation to fund its functions. But there’s basically no way that you can structure it so that payments or benefits or whatever will equally reach each taxpaying citizen.
True.
But as it stands now no one is even TRYING to make sure benefits or “whatever” equally reach taxpaing citizens. In fact, its the exact opposite.
Its funny… With the huge percent of the population that pay no federal or state tax at all, I have to laugh when I hear people talk about the bailout for example and say “they are paying for it” No they aren’t.
I laugh when I hear Gwen Moore say that a bad economy hurts the poor the most. No it doesn’t. Welfare checks flow whether the economy is good or bad just the same.
We’ve got a whole lot of people in this country that are delusional when it comes to their sense of entitlement and who’s really paying the price here.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 1231 hrsNobody thinks Obama is a messiah, least of all, Obama himself. Budget bills will have to pass Congress, which will face re-election in a couple of years, so if Obama’s plans pass and voters don’t kick their representatives out, we can say with some degree of accuracy that the American people approve of his proposals.
I don’t know what you mean by Obama not setting a limit. Obama proposes raising income taxes to Clinton levels for those making over $250K a year. I haven’t heard him proposing Eisenhower levels of income taxation, nor do I think he would. If he does, we’ll debate it then.
Look, under Obama’s proposals, you’re not going to do to well if you don’t want to work for it. If you work hard and smart and catch a few breaks, you’ll make more money. Even if you jump up several tax brackets, you’ll still be much better off than you would be if you don’t have a job, or if you got by on a minimum wage job. You’ll pay more in taxes, but you’ll also earn a lot more.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 1240 hrsCan you name one person in America who doesn’t pay taxes? Are they living in a commune in Northern California or something?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 1241 hrsCan you name one person in America who doesn’t pay taxes? Are they living in a commune in Northern California or something?
4 years ago through an odd confluence of paying property taxes twice in the same year, having an additional child, a high interest rate construction load, and my continuing education, I received a federal tax return that was larger than my federal income tax paid in. Even though I built a house valued at $225,000 and worked full time at a job for over $70K that year, I received what I call welfare. I received more back than I paid in.
I exclude Medicare and Social Security because there is no refund from those amounts as far as I know, for anyone. Also since I live in a tax hell state, my effective state income tax rate was around 2% or so.
For the past few years my effective federal income tax rate is extremely low as well, far below 5%. Are you saying that Obama is going to give me more back? I don’t see how our country can afford that.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 1325 hrsI’m sure everybody is going to love this.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=901401218&play;=1
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 1327 hrsI hate to break it to you all but the next administration and congress are about to have their economic and fiscal policies dictated to them, not vice versa.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 1330 hrsCan you name one person in America who doesn’t pay taxes?
I guess Federal and State taxes wasn’t specific for you Steve-O.
Sometimes I assume that on a board of this topic and participates of this nature that “federal and state taxes” would be logically assumed to be federal and state income taxes.
I know that was probably a lot to expect. I offer my sincere apologies for such an ambiguous statement that was so easily mis-understood.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 1333 hrsRemember when the “income tax” was a “temporary” tax to pay for WWII? I believe the rate was 2%. Macy (of Macy’s Department Store) suggested to FDR that hitting everybody with one lump sum at the end of the year would cause a revolt. He suggested the government just spread it out over a long period of time, not unlike Macy’s then novel revolving credit plan. Problem is, the “temporary” tax never went away. And there never was a revolt. And taxes went up & up & up and we just stand and take it. Well that time is coming to an end. We are stretched to the limit and “spreading the wealth (income)” will not become a blindly, widely accepted practice. Notice hpw the messiah himself evades his statement(s) and the MSM does not report on the upheaval over same.
p.s.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 1357 hrs
Remember too, the Illinois tollway was “only temporary” and the stadium tax is “only temporary”? We all see how that works. So when the messiah wants steal, yes that’s STEAL even more money out of my wallet and give it to someone else, yes, I am offended and object to it. It’s not a difficult concept.“withholding” was a great scheme.
Take the peoples money before they have a chance at it. It eases the pain. Kinda creates a perception that it doesn’t even exist.
I agree with you baja… Its already happening. Our tax structure in this country drives business and capital elsewhere. Sure, not all of it, but a significant part of the standard of living that we could be enjoying in this country has been driven off-shore by our tax policies. Millions of jobs lost because of it. Big-shots who have the money and capital have the ability to move it around. Its nothing for them to move a plant to china.
Big companies, large corporations… they aren’t revolting… they are moving things offshore. As I’ve said before. Its the working rich that are getting fucked in this country. Intelligent and motivated enogh to have done really well for themselves, but not uber-rich enough to make their money from capital gains and don’t have the portability of their capital to up and move it as the tax policies change. As the squeeze gets put on these people maybe we’ll see a real revolt. I can’t wait.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 1409 hrsxxpilot, it’s important to be specific in this case, because it’s the central to the argument. Somehow, all state and federal taxes get boiled down to income taxes just for the sake of whining about Obama’s tax plan.
Sometimes I feel like I’m in an alternate universe. I mean, given that conservatives have long preferred tax credits to welfare, why would you now define them as welfare? It seems to me that McCain, Republicans, and conservatives in general would have been far better served in the short and the long run by saying, “Senator Obama, thank you for finally coming around to the position that our citizens need tax relief.” Instead, refundable tax credits (which McCain makes use of in his own tax plan) suddenly equal socialism!
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 1410 hrsUm, bajaskier, the federal income tax wasn’t a temporary tax for WWII.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 1413 hrsTax “credits” are fine. But when the “credits” exceed the amount paid in, it is welfare.
Posted by Owen on October 23, 2008 at 1415 hrsNot entirely a rhetorical question: What in the hell is the fixation on income tax? Why don’t any of the other taxes enter into the equation for the sake of this argument? Surely social security taxes and sales taxes and all the rest are no less onerous a burden than the income tax. Could it be Obama is somehow less a “socialist” in any other scenario?
Obama’s a center-left Democrat. All this socialist talk is idiotic.
Oh, and baja—the 16th Amendment allowed for the income tax in 1913, 28 years before Pearl Harbor.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 1428 hrsRE 36:
I stand corrected. That was what I was taught TBPH. It’s still incremental however. If everyone were to receive a lump-sum tax bill at the end of the year, there would be a revolution. I believe it’s coming….eventually…may be too late.xxpilot: I wish I could write as eloquently as you!
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 1428 hrsbajaskier - it was income tax withholding that started in 1943.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 1444 hrsSo Owen, you’re against refundable tax credits?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 1447 hrsSure, not all of it, but a significant part of the standard of living that we could be enjoying in this country has been driven off-shore by our tax policies.
Oh right xxp, obscenely cheap labor, nonexistent environmental regulations and relatively cheap transportation costs have nothing to do with it.
working rich
I can’t decide if that is an oxymoron or just moronic.
Exactly who is “rich” in your fun house mirror view of demographics.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 1451 hrsThanx all for the info. It was WITHHOLDING that I was thinking/writing about.
RE 38: Left-center Democrat? He has the most liberal voting record in the Senate. All we hear is how McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time. How ‘bout Obama voting with the libs 100% of the time?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 1452 hrsTax “credits” are fine. But when the “credits” exceed the amount paid in, it is welfare.
Does it naturally follow, then, that nobody should pay IN more than they receive in government services?
Posted by scott on October 23, 2008 at 1513 hrsHere is a good editorial about the financial bailout & who will actually pay for it. It makes some of the points being discussed in this thread.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=309 565507242706
Many Americans probably won’t pay a cent of the cost of this bailout. That’s because a rapidly increasing percentage of U.S. households legally pay no income taxes, and many others pay so little in taxes that they already get back more from the federal government in services than they send to Washington.
The number of taxpayers who generate a surplus for the federal government — that is, pay more in taxes than they receive in services — is small and shrinking, which is why the only way that the folks on Main Street will pay for this bailout will be if Main Street is where the mansions are in your town.
Both presidential candidates would vastly accelerate the trend. Barack Obama’s tax cut proposals, if enacted, would boost the proportion of those paying no income tax by one-third to a whopping 44% of all households, according to the Tax Foundation. John McCain’s proposal is not much different. Under his plan, 43% of households would pay no federal income taxes.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 1601 hrsThe larger point is that if McCain or Obama follow through with their tax plans, we’ll continue a trend that makes us look more and more like some European social welfare state, where many people have a stake in growing government entitlements, which fewer and fewer taxpayers finance.
At some point along that road, change becomes impossible because too many citizens benefit from the system in place, while those who pay the freight for this system try whatever they can, including starting businesses elsewhere, or reducing their output, to avoid the disproportionate tax bite.
You guys make it sound like increasing the taxes on the wealthy by 1% and “redistributing” it to the middle class would push us into abject communism. Take a look around the world for some perspective. Who on this big blue planet has a less progressive tax system than we do? While we’re at it, which developed nation pays less taxes than we do (collectively)?
Look, I’m not after big increases in taxes (with the exception of tax funded health insurance). But I’d like a notch or two more progressivity. Yeah, I know you like to point out how progressive federal income tax is, but when you look at all taxes, it’s not that progressive. The spread is like 19% to 32%. When you consider the vast, vast differential in income, that’s not too progressive.
Posted by scott on October 23, 2008 at 1618 hrsThe spread is like 19% to 32%.
Try 10% to 35%
When you consider the vast, vast differential in income, that’s not too progressive.
Hmmm lets see.
15% of 50,000 is $7,500
15% of 200,000 is $30,000I don’t know about you scott, but even at the same percentage, $22,500 extra in taxes is a lot of money.
Then consider that 33% of 200,000 is 66,000. and 880 PERCENT higher tax paid??? I’d say thats PRETTY damn progressive no???????
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 1636 hrsWhat is the income definition of “middle class” and what is the income definition of “rich”.
Since the liberals on the thread enjoy using the terms, please let us know.
On a side note, I would still like to recommend the Fair Tax. Our tax code is written to benefit the George Soros’ and Warren Buffett’s so they end up paying in Buffett’s words less than his secretary. Take away the complexity and put it on consumption instead of income or wealth creation. What do we lose? The IRS, Tax Accountants, Tax Attorneys, tax returns, obfuscation over who pays what and to whom, a good chunk of the lobbying for financial gain and candidates being bought by them. I calculated out that with all the cumulative taxes I pay: FICA, Medicare, property, State & Federal Income, Sales, interest, etc. Even though I am no where near the top 5%, I am paying 47% of my earnings in taxes. A 23% tax on consumption sounds pretty damn good compared to that. As a bonus we get the Hollywood crowd, the Hiltons and the Kennedy’s finally paying their “fair” share as well.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 1639 hrsTry 10% to 35%
No, I don’t think I will try that. The data I’ve seen is as I previously stated. That’s figuring in federal income, state income, FICA, sales—taxes at all levels. Everything that we pay to fund government. It is simply not true to say that a large portion of America is “freeloading” off someone else.
Our tax code is written to benefit the George Soros’ and Warren Buffett’s so they end up paying in Buffett’s words less than his secretary.
I agree.
Take away the complexity and put it on consumption instead of income or wealth creation.
I don’t agree. A consumption tax would fall shift the burden toward the lower and middle income people. After all, they spend nearly 100% of their income—“consume” it. Meanwhile, the really wealthy may spend only a small portion of their income and invest the rest of it. Fair? I don’t think so.
I am paying 47% of my earnings in taxes.
That’s not even close. Come on. As I said, the spread is more like 18-32% of income spent on government at all levels.
Posted by scott on October 23, 2008 at 1654 hrsGee Scott - I didn’t know you were clairvoyant. How silly of me, there is no way possible that I could know my budget and see how much of it I pay to the various levels of government. PUH-LEEZE! Just because it doesn’t fit your world view, doesn’t make it untrue.
We make just under 6 figures, live in a modest home, aren’t in debt up to our eyeballs, save for the kids for college, save for retirement. You know - make the good decisions. The problem is that we don’t make enough (does that make us the working rich?) to be able to take advantage of the Soros breaks. When I add up the taxes - again…. Federal income, FICA, Medicare, State income, State Sales, county sales, State gas, Federal gas, interest, property, et al - we are paying 47% of our income in taxes.
Here is the part that will blow your mind. I don’t WANT to take more from the guy that makes $250K. I didn’t work for it - they did. I want to MAKE $250K myself - and I don’t want to be penalized for getting there. I also don’t believe for one second that Obama and his buds like Barney Frank (“There are plenty of rich people we can go after later”) won’t come looking for more of my money either. After all - since we are still in the top 10% per the IRS, that would make us the next targeted to be “fair”. And since everyone refuses to define “rich”....
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 1734 hrs
And before you get all “you heartless SOB, how can you not care for your fellow man” on me, I’ll let you know that we have given more to charity in the past 10 years than Joe Biden has.On a side note, I would still like to recommend the Fair Tax. Our tax code is written to benefit the George Soros’ and Warren Buffett’s so they end up paying in Buffett’s words less than his secretary. Take away the complexity and put it on consumption instead of income or wealth creation.
One has nothing to do with the other. It’s easy enough to make it so that Buffett pays the same as his secretary without making the tax system more regressives. Take away the tax breaks that allow people as wealthy as Buffett to avoid paying taxes. That’s what Buffett himself proposes.
If you think that a federal consumption tax of 30% (it’s not 23% unless you do math differently than everyone else on the planet) is a tax cut for most Americans, you’re crazy.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 1756 hrsTake a look around the world for some perspective. Who on this big blue planet has a less progressive tax system than we do?
Since you asked…
Posted by David on October 23, 2008 at 1809 hrs
Brazil 15-27.5%
Bulgaria 10% (flat)
Czech Republic 15% (flat)
Canada 15-29% (at the Federal level, not including provincial)
Egypt 10-20%
Estionia 22% (flat)
Finland 8.5-31.5%
Hong Kong 2-17%
Hungary 18% and 36%
India 10-30%
Indonesia 5-35%
Latvia 25% (flat)
Lithuania 15% for self employed and 24% workin’ for “the man”
Romania 16% (flat)
Russia 13% (flat - although Russia is a ‘Mafiacracy’ so one has to factor in the vig to the mob. Maybe not the best example. But I digress…)
Serbia 10%-20%
Slovakia 19% (flat)That’s some pretty fine company, David.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 1812 hrsI wonder why Owen won’t answer my question. Is it because it will hurt his argument or hurt McCain. Strange, really. Owen has no problem criticizing politicians of every political stripe when he disagrees with them. So why carry water for McCain right now?
And scott, I wonder why he won’t answer your question, either. That actually gets at the heart of an interesting philosophical argument. Maybe he’s taking his time to compose a longer response.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 1819 hrsOne thing not to forget about the Obama tax plan, the $250k limit only applies to married couples. If you’re single, widowed, or cannot legally marry (thus his plan discriminates against gays across 48 states), the income limit is shaved in half to $125k.
As to the issue of the taxes on the super-wealthy like Buffet, the reason they’re taxes less is because most of their income is derived from capital gains and dividends which are taxed at only 15%. Obama proposes to raise the capital gains taxes only on those (married couples) making >$250k. One has to be verrrryyyy crafty when their income and investments are in the range of $250k. If you do it wrong - say by reporting an income of exactly $250,000.00 - you could pay thousands more in taxes than someone who reports only $249,999.99 because of the capital gains and dividend penalties (er “progressive” increase).
Disclaimer: I’m not voting for McCain, nor do I think he and his plans for taxes and the economy are better or worse than Obama’s. Just joining the discussion of Obama’s tax proposals and trying to shed light on the real effect they’ll have. FWIW, I highly doubt the Democrats in Congress will approve of his tax plan anyway. I think they’ll go for a much more aggressive tax increase at all income levels (as they did in 1993) and if Obama vetoes it, they’ll override him.
Posted by David on October 23, 2008 at 1828 hrsScott - Steve O - Lefty,
Please do not use the word fair. You do not know what it means. It is not fair to tax someone more that lives under the same system on the sole criteria that they make more money. Call it progressive, call it what you want. Just don’t call it fair.
The country was founded on a fair tax policy but it upsets our sensibilities. Why did America do the census? Oh that’s right - so we could assign the tax burden. That was fair and just.
Tad
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 1959 hrsJJ - Amen!
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 2110 hrsAsking those that achieve the largest rewards, by capitalizing in a market operating under the economic and physical infrastructure that supports the very system that makes it possible for them to accumulate their wealth, to shoulder a larger percentage of the burden to maintain that infrastructure is the definition of fair.
Economic success doesn’t happen in a vacum.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 2313 hrsbajaskier quote:
Remember when the “income tax” was a “temporary” tax to pay for WWII?
GetYourHandsOffMyWallet reply:
http://getyourhandsoffmywallet.blogspot.com/2008/10/ history-lesson-is-in-order.html
Income Tax - Re-proposed in 1894, Sixteenth Amendment ratified on February 12, 1913. Initially, only one-half of 1 percent of taxpayers paid any income taxes (ironically applied only to those making about $250,000 in today’s dollars). To ensure passage of the constitutional amendment, Democrats waged an extensive public relations campaign contending that it would only apply to the rich.
scott quote:
You guys make it sound like increasing the taxes on the wealthy by 1% and “redistributing” it to the middle class would push us into abject communism.
GetYourHandsOffMyWallet reply:
http://getyourhandsoffmywallet.blogspot.com/2008/10/ history-lesson-is-in-order.html
Many taxes in the U.S. - initially started out only applying to the wealthy. This allows greedy politicians to get their grubby feet in the door.
But once inside, the unquenchable thirst that politicians have for more and more of your money - leads to a slippery slope where soon the bar gets lower and lower (and applies to more and more taxpayers).
History is repeating itself yet again:
1. Income Tax - Re-proposed in 1894, Sixteenth Amendment ratified on February 12, 1913. Initially, only one-half of 1 percent of taxpayers paid any income taxes (ironically applied only to those making about $250,000 in today’s dollars). To ensure passage of the constitutional amendment, Democrats waged an extensive public relations campaign contending that it would only apply to the rich.
2. Alternative Minimum Tax - Proposed in 1969, implemented in 1970. Was intended to ensure that highest of high-income families paid taxes (and did not avoid paying taxes).
3. Death Tax -Implemented in 1916. Was implemented to make sure the wealthy were paying for the cost of military protection and because of concerns about “concentrations of wealth.”As Joe the Plumber adeptly noted, there’s nothing stopping an Obama administration from deciding that $150,000 is “pretty rich too” and lowering the bar to raise the taxes on yet more hard-working Americans.
Every time Obama & Biden claim that most American families won’t see their taxes raised - conservatives and libertarians need to cite the history of taxes in the U.S. - for it is only a matter of time before the tax applies to you too.
As the Pastor Martin Niemoller “First they came…” poem demonstrates (with a simple search and replace)...
First they came for (those making $250,000),
- but I was not (making $250,000) so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the (those making $200,000 & $150,000),
- but I was neither, so I did not speak out.
Then they came for (those making $100,000),
- but I was not (making $100,000) so I did not speak out.
And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.As an immensely respected and extremely wise man once remarked, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
JJ quote:
On a side note, I would still like to recommend the Fair Tax. ...(sic)... Take away the complexity and put it on consumption instead of income or wealth creation. What do we lose? The IRS, Tax Accountants, Tax Attorneys, tax returns, obfuscation over who pays what and to whom, a good chunk of the lobbying for financial gain and candidates being bought by them.
GetYourHandsOffMyWallet reply: The Fair Tax works for me!
The thought of receiving your full paycheck, no April tax return to fill out, plus a monthly pre-bate check to refund the cost of the fair tax for necessities - I like the sound of that.
Companies can focus on “core competencies” again, instead of having to spend so much time on the “tax implications” of breathing and sleeping. Off-shore companies would have incentives to bring operations back to the U.S. shores. Sign me up!
Posted by GetYourHandsOffMyWallet on October 24, 2008 at 0225 hrsFor those of you who like accumulated wealth through power or inheritance not only is the current system for you but so is the idea that dollars but not percentages matter.
I always thought, however, that the notion behind this country was against aristocracy. You got get one of these strictly through lineage, but what it comes down to is power. In this country in the 21st century that power is based on multibillion fortunes that dwarf the earl of this or the lord of that. Money buys power and there is a lot of it in the hands of a few.
So what does it get us? Stagnant wages and a health care system with substandard delivery. An economy where the only decent job for poor kids is to put on a uniform.
The baffling thing is that we keep hearing on this and other rightie blogs about what being an American is. Further baffling is that none of you are making the $250,000 income on which Obama would raise taxes, otherwise why would you be wasting your time here?
And what is the most head-blowing is that what you guys advocate—tax cuts for the wealthiest—has been a dud in terms of growing the economy.
While fairness is a nice idea, so is what works. Making ourselves vassals to a monied aristocracy does not. Do we have to fight the revolutionary war all over again?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2008 at 0634 hrsDo we have to fight the revolutionary war over again? Probably not unless statists such as yourself take over, keith.
People happily support the infrastructure needed, Lefty. It’s when you ask them to support the non-productive elements of that system to the detriment of the productive parts that they get angry.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2008 at 0811 hrsI would like an answer to the question posed in comment 44. Anybody?
Posted by scott on October 24, 2008 at 0837 hrsre 50:
Had to run the numbers after your comments. 46.2% of my income goes to taxes. Your calculations are dead-on.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2008 at 0857 hrsYes, it is necessary that some people will pay in more than they receive, scott.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2008 at 0906 hrsDon’t forget the taxes that are included in the price of the products you buy.
Posted by Owen on October 24, 2008 at 0910 hrsIn #64, what exactly are those non-productive sectors and what do they cost us?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2008 at 0911 hrsAnything that does not generate an economic return greater than its’ cost is non-productive, Keith, including military spending.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2008 at 0915 hrsFurther baffling is that none of you are making the $250,000 income on which Obama would raise taxes, otherwise why would you be wasting your time here?
Further baffling is your capacity to make statements you have absolutely no knowledge of. Your willingness to talk out of your ass gives you no credibility keith
And what is the most head-blowing is that what you guys advocate—tax cuts for the wealthiest—has been a dud in terms of growing the economy.
Again, you have no evidence of this keith. There are so many things that have affected the economy in the past 8 years. Terrorist attacks that sent shockwaves thru the market, rising energy prices that had nothing to do with tax cuts, a housing crisis that had nothign to do with tax cuts.
Keith, sit down, you are making a fool of yourself.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2008 at 0954 hrsAlright show of hands. How many here are pulling $250,000 a year.
Rising energy costs in part was due to our weak dollar, brought to you by record fed deficits and outsourcing, pretty much what has happened during the past 25 years wit the exception of the deficit cuts under Clinton.
The shock wave from from 9/11 that cost us money was the Bush/Cheney invasion of Iraq. In the meantime we had an economy based on the basis of a housing bubble.
In the meantime we have the way overpaid geniuses at the big automakers marketing SUV’s that led to their current collapse.
The evidence is clear. Maybe after the election some of you might want to make the move to Argentina.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2008 at 1021 hrsAnything that does not generate an economic return greater than its’ cost is non-productive, Keith, including military spending.
Exactly.
I use this example a lot, and maybe the lefties will understand just how economic growth is siphoned off by taxes and entitlements, and how the the non-productive aspect of government, and entitlements hurt our economy.
A man goes to work and he is paid a $1000 for a unit of output. Lets say he built a garage.
So someone has a garage, which increases their standard of living. The man has $1,000 which he can go buy things that will increase his standard of living.
In that very basic economic cycle we still have the $1000 sitting out there, but we also have a garage that was built. That is output.
Now lets add taxes to that scenario.
A man builds a garage for a guy. He is paid $1,000 and taxed $333 in income tax. One guy has a garage, and another guy now has $667. The $333 goes to someone who didn’t earn it. And by not earn it, I don’t mean “didn’t deserve” cause surely the lefties will claim that the poor man deserves the money of the man with money… Fine… So what.
But now someone gets paid $333 in entitlement for doing NOTHING. Now sure, that man who gets the entitlement can go spend it… But the loss in that entire equation is the OUTPUT. Because the man who received the $333 in entilement didn’t have to produce anything for that $333.
The first guy had to produce a garage for his $1000. That increased the standard of living for the guy he built the garage for and then he had $1000 to spend.
Now the purchasing power of the guy who built the garage was reduced by taxes. And those taxes went to someone who didn’t produce ANY units of output for them. That is the essence of how taxes and entitlements siphon productivity and economic growth off of our economy.
Liberals in their ignorant understanding of basic economics seem to think “Money spent is money spent”.
I believe it was scott who made the clintonian comment “I’ve never had anyone explain why money spent by a rich man is better than money spent by a poor man”
Well my above example illustrates it perfectly. Money that is given without being earned produces NO output!
And of course as the very very basic economic scenario I describe above works its way through there are many other standard of living siphoning affects of tax.
The guy who builds garages decides he’s not going to build them for $1,000 cause he as to pay taxes. So he raises his prices. Now people have to spend more money to have a garage built. In addition, the government doesn’t distribute money efficiently. So before that $333 gets sent back out in entitlements. Huge percentages of it are lost paying NON-PRODUCTIVE government employees just to move the money around and administer these programs. These NON-PRODUCTIVE programs do not produce output. The money that they receive in pay does not result in any output. The economic growth is diminished. Standard of living is diminished.
The essence of the economic cycles is the exchange of money for output. Some taxes are essential. Some drag on the economic cycle by taxes has to happen. But all the entitlements and non-productive aspects of people who receive ‘something for nothing’ and people who produce NOTHING administering the distribution of that money stifle growth, siphon the benefit of working and productivity off of peoples purchasing power.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2008 at 1027 hrsOn the contrary, Keith, the Clinton years steamed along exactly like the years before and after them in spite of the Republican congress. You began to pay for those years with the 2000 stock market downturn and you will pay for them now with the new recession. The clinton years featured precisely the same expansive monetary policy. Taxing a bubble is no more sustainable than the bubble itself.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2008 at 1031 hrsKeith, you’re an idiot. Most people aren’t going to want to talk about how much they make.
I don’t make 250,000 but damn close to it, and I’m SURE that being a single person with no kids, regardless of Obama being on TV saying to me “if you make less than 250,000 you won’t see your taxes go up in an obama administration” I’ll bet YOU Keith… I’ll bet they do.” Tell me you’ll take that bet. I dare you.
Second, you said that tax cuts didn’t produce any economic growth. (which is pure conjecture on your part)
I list things that have held our economy back, and you play the blame game for all those things. Fine… I don’t agree with your conjecture but that proves NOTHING about tax cuts not producing growth. IN fact, many economists were talking about the bush tax cuts WORKING and producing growth and that was only changed when these other events took place. Again. NOTHING to do with tax cuts.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2008 at 1036 hrsAlright show of hands. How many here are pulling $250,000 a year.
Oh, and also Keith, I know your simplistic understanding of economics doesn’t afford you this revelation, but people who make more than $250k a year tend to be able to set the prices and mark-ups on their services. So you put a squeeze on them, do you think they’ll just “settle for less” or raise their prices to compensate for the tax burden. And who’s going to pay those higher prices Keith. EVERYONE.
So do us all a favor. Stop trying to fuck the rich cause you’re just screwing everyone else in the end.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2008 at 1042 hrsWhat, $250,00 from your father? How do you manage to fit in all you posting on B&S;and apparently non-stop beer drinking?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2008 at 1104 hrsAlright show of hands. How many here are pulling $250,000 a year.
Raising my hand. (combined marital income, that is - so we fall into the “rich” category under Obama’s tax plan). And you can totally tell! Our 1800 sq. ft. condo, Toyota Camry, scratched up Suzuki XL-7, and clothes from the clearance rack at Macy’s just scream excess & privilege to everyone we encounter.
But your implication Keith is invalid anyway. Just because someone isn’t a pro football coach doesn’t mean they cannot scrutinize or theorize on matters related to the topic. Those whose families earn below the $250k level most certainly can, and ought to, speak out on the topic. Because they either strive to make that much money, or someone who already does make that much money will most likely be in a position to determine whether the person has a job or not in the next 10 years.
So will my wife and I starve under Obama’s plan? Of course not. But it was never a matter of whether “we” can afford the tax increase. It’s a matter of whether the people we buy things from can afford it. Tips for restaurant servers & hairdressers, donations to charities, and investments in companies (buying stocks) - all will be affected on likely a dollar-for-dollar basis after the tax increase.
People with incomes between the mid-100’s and $357k (the second tier tax bracket that Obama will raise - he says so in his plan: “the top two tax brackets” returned to Clinton-era levels) don’t necessarily go blowing it all on boats, cars, and designer clothes. They instead tend to save and invest a great deal of that money. A small business owner/parent with a bunch of money in “cash” (savings accounts, CD’s, money markets) and investments (stocks, bonds, options) will get punished under the Obama plan if they have a good year and their business grows. A married small business owner who earns exactly $250, plus another $25k in capital gains/dividend income will pay $2563.50 more in taxes that year right off the bat. If they make $250,000.01, they pay an additional $1250 on top of that for a total of $3813.50.
Doesn’t seem like mcuh for them, right? After all someone earning $250k has money to spare. They should try living on only $30k and see what it’s like, right?
Well that $3813 is now money that is being taken out of the economy. And as I pointed out, the person in that income range will most certainly survive and can afford the hit. But think about where the money might have gone if the government didn’t take it. Assume the guy likes to save a lot of money and puts away 15% of it. We’re left with $3241. That’s about $270/month - taken out of the economy. That’s $270/month now gone from waitresses, hair stylists, and other one-off expenditures that go DIRECTLY to the middle and working class (meaning there is no “vig” to pay to the government when they cycle it through their inefficient bureaucracies). And spread that out now to about a million people (in reality there are more) who fall into this income range and situation. That’s over $3 BILLION per year, at a minimum, stripped from the economy & small businesses. In reality it will be much higher when you start getting into the incomes above 300k, 400k, an on over $1 mil.
Then there is Social Security. How Obama will do that is still a real mystery because the plan is so devoid of details. Right now FICA withholding stops for dollars earned above $102k (2008). Somehow Obama wants to “skip” FICA withholding on dollars between $102k and $250k, and then re-start it again after that. But since FICA is an individual withholding and not part of combined marital income, is it “really” re-starting at $250k, or at $125k? The plan doesn’t say. And he says the tax would be “2%-4% more” - more than what? More than the 12.4% now, or just a flat 2%-4%? And not stated in there is ANY income limit at all. Assuming he means a flat 4% (and not the 16.4% I predict it will be). Someone earning $1.25 mil will have up to $40,000 more siphoned off. That’s a whole year’s salary for a housekeeper (or gardeners, or a concierge, the list goes on). Time to kick Mrs. Doubtfire out onto the street!
You’re looking at billions upon billions more for social security every year at the direct expense of those kinds of jobs. See how raising taxes on the wealthy really does directly cost the non-wealthy?Some feel that the money, flowing into the government with some siphoned off for administrative costs, and then doled back out to the public via government contracts or plain old welfare will make the country a better place. I disagree.
Posted by David on October 24, 2008 at 1111 hrsNicely done David except this bit;
Well that $3813 is now money that is being taken out of the economy.
Now you somewhat redeem yourself in the last paragraph but the simple fact remains that the money is not taken out of the economy it is just redirected.
Actually there is a pretty good argument that the excess money available for private investing encourages the high risk/leveraging that we are now suffering from.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2008 at 1137 hrsNow you somewhat redeem yourself in the last paragraph but the simple fact remains that the money is not taken out of the economy it is just redirected.
Then why redirect it in the first place? And if, as xxpilot pointed out, the recipients are not actually producing much (if anything) in exchange for the money, doesn’t that suggest a stifling of economic growth?
Actually there is a pretty good argument that the excess money available for private investing encourages the high risk/leveraging that we are now suffering from.
I don’t know if I would say “encourage” as much as it is people who were just plain greedy, excessive, and stupid all at once- - with nothing there to stop them. This is an area where I think there should have been more regulation [horror of horrors!] The credit default swaps and re-packaging of mortgages into CDO’s never had any limits on their leverage. By contrast, I as an individual investor can only borrow on margin up to 50% of the value of my equity holdings in my brokerage account. This protects both me and the brokerage from out of control obligations (losses) if all my securities were to dump to zero. The CDS’s never had any limits whatsoever, and never showed up on the banks balance sheets & risk assessments. Big time problem and one that should have been fixed as part of the bailout bill (but wasn’t).
Lest we forget, however, the government is no saint when it comes to “high risk/leveraging” either. How much is our debt now? It works both ways. Without policies in place (a constitutional amendment if necessary) to keep government from budgeting based on pretend money or loosely predicted income, they fall into the same pattern as the guys on the private side.
Posted by David on October 24, 2008 at 1208 hrsNow you somewhat redeem yourself in the last paragraph but the simple fact remains that the money is not taken out of the economy it is just redirected.
redirected and for no additional output. No widget was created for the money that is “redirected” standard of living is decreased.
See pjr its ALL about productivity. NOT just the money shuffle like many want to believe. We can all shuffle money back and forth ALL day long, but that does NOTHING if we have nothing to show for it. Money sent to the government produces NO output. Not from the government, not from the recipient of the “wealth distribution”
Oh… and all the while the guy you took the money from raised the prices we ALL pay for all the things we buy.
Great job on that one. Screwed coming and screwed going. When are you guys going to realize you CANNOT tax your way to prosperity. And you can’t even entitle people out of the lower middle class. (they are just going to end up paying more for goods and services) because those at the top DON’T just ‘take the hit’
http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/6955/gamblet20081 024kg8.jpg
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2008 at 1227 hrsThen why redirect it in the first place?
Come on David, it may not have played the role or remained in the economy the way xxp, you or I would have desired but it did not leave the economy. That is what you declared.
Now If you want to have a conversation about whether or not govt expenditures are productive or nonproductive, we are first have to going establish what we want govt to provide and then try to establish a metric to measure it.
Lest we forget, however, the government is no saint when it comes to “high risk/leveraging” either.
I certainly don’t think the govt is faultless.
Where did you get that idea?
And xxp if you really believe that it is just,
ALL about productivity.
Then we really are,
Screwed coming and screwed going.
Unless you know a lot of people who are willing to work for $1-2 dollars an hour?
By the way, how many widgets did you guys in sales create today?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2008 at 1658 hrsI honestly don’t know what industry that Keith and Lefty and pjr and the other Obama supporters here are in, but from having been in management in the private sector I can guarantee this much… Businesses do not pay taxes. Its all about margin. There is a certain amount of margin that must be made to make the whole deal worthwhile - you need the cash flow for payroll and purchasing needed inventory, office supplies or new capital equipment.
Increasing business taxes requires one or more of the following: 1) raise prices 2) reduce spending 3) don’t hire 4) reduce or don’t give raises 5) reduce benefits 6) lay off or fire people. It’s really that simple. Raise taxes and one or all of the above occur and we all lose. I suppose, if we all lose, that makes it “fair”. I have never been hired by someone making less than $250K - I doubt many of you have either.
One of the reasons that Soros and Kennedy and Buffett and the other gazillionaires pay less in taxes than their secretaries do is because they don’t have any INCOME. Maybe a few, like Kennedy continue to suck off the public teat even if they don’t need it, but most of them get their income from investments and such. They also can afford an army of Tax Accountants and Attorneys to find (or lobby for) and exploit every possible loophole to get them out of paying. They would have a lot more street cred with asking for me to pay more if they fired their tax people and donated a little more to the kitty voluntarily. The Fair Tax would catch them in their Spending - like cars, boats, planes, homes, clothes, cocktail parties, jewelry - you know all the stuff that the “rich” like to have around them. We would get more out of them than they pay now.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2008 at 1712 hrs JJ,
Its all about margin. There is a certain amount of margin that must be made to make the whole deal worthwhile
And what is that certain amount a business should assume is the appropriate margin?
And before you get to full of yourself and your assumptions check out comment #24’
http://www.bootsandsabers.com/index.php/weblog/perma link/5_or_250000/
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2008 at 1736 hrsMy apologies on the Barr thing. There are many things about the Libertarian party and candidates that I admire, but they generally lose me on their national security policies.
Margin rates are largely based on what the market bears in a particular industry. The more common the product or service, the lower the margin. I’ve worked in Sourcing for a couple of decades and I’ve seen margins run anywhere from 4-5% to 25% and higher. Differentiate yourself and your margin goes up. High technology requiring high R&D;or investment your margin must go up. High liability risk, again the margin must go up. Common “widgets” need more cash flow than margin.
Regardless, the business will not just “absorb” higher taxes. One of the 6 scenarios I described above will happen. I’ve seen it at the Fortune 500’s I’ve worked at, I’ve seen it in the sole proprietorship my father had, I’ve seen it at the $500M company I worked at, and I certainly saw it when I got laid off because of low margins at the $19M company I worked at.
You cannot forcefully take money from the hard work and output from individuals and businesses and give it to those that have had no part in that hard work or output. Everything contracts. Everybody loses.
The total 47% in total tax that is taken from me and most everyone else should be enough. And I didn’t even include fees in my calculations. We have gone WAAAAYYY past providing a safety net for those truly in need to giving handouts to the ever-growing population of high school drop-outs who either can’t find a job for unskilled labor or can’t figure out why they don’t deserve $50K or more per year for unskilled labor.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2008 at 1807 hrsMargin rates are largely based on what the market bears in a particular industry.
Yep there pretty fluid. Especially right now.
My point here is that margins are not fixed, they are something that can and do change w/the biz environment.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2008 at 1831 hrsYes - and my point here is that increasing expenses due to tax increases is not known to help w/ the biz environment. Especially for those struggling or in low margin industries. It will certainly facilitate more business failures, not as many start-ups, and fewer jobs.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2008 at 1837 hrsWhen are you guys going to realize you CANNOT tax your way to prosperity. And you can’t even entitle people out of the lower middle class. (they are just going to end up paying more for goods and services) because those at the top DON’T just ‘take the hit’
When are you going to realize you are arguing a straw man. Go a watch the entire discussion between Obama and Joe, and if you are honest with it you will realize this is a debate of degrees, not wholesale disagreements over the scope and style of government. It is called the Laffer Curve for a reason. At 0% you generate no tax revenue. At 100% you generate no tax revenue. Somewhere in between you generate tax revenue without harming the economy. You can’t just cut your way to prosperity. Even Arthur Laffer himself has indicated the Bush tax cuts during a time of slow economic growth were counter productive.
Obama is making a distribution argument over who pays how much. It is fair to disagree with him, and argue for a different formula, but his argument is well within the historical debate over income tax levels for different incomes over the last two decades.
When this incrimental difference is derided as socialism it removes any credibility from the person making the argument against his proposal. It becomes impossible to take that position seriously as you know it is either an intentional gross misrepresentation of Obama’s position or a demonstration of a complete lack of understanding over what the word socialist means.
I actually think there are a lot of arguments by conservatives made in this thread over tax policy that have merit. Unfortunately those salient arguments are lost in the Obama is a socialist argument that is being flung around by the right.
One more thing, before anyone posts another comment about the tax credit portion of his plan, and how it will go to some people who don’t pay income tax, you might want to tax a look at McCain’s health care tax credit and how that system would work.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2008 at 1943 hrsThe position impossible to take seriously is the notion that taxes are going to be raised. We are in a recession. In addition the federal reserve has increased the money supply beyond all reason. The federal government is about to find out it cannot raise taxes. It may raise tax rates. It may fiddle with the tax code to no end. It will no doubt try to raise taxes. It will fail. It will either find out that revenue will decrease with the tax rate increases, that subsequent inflation/dollar devaluation renders any real tax income negative, or both. It will find out that fiscal policy matters and that the monetary policy is broken.
Listening to Obama and Joe is like listening to a discussion from Hitler’s bunker in 1945 discussing whether to accept the allied surrender in Berlin or Nuremburg. They are totally divorced from reality. Reality is coming and reality will shortly be dictating terms, not bending to their will.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2008 at 2004 hrsThe position impossible to take seriously is the notion that taxes are going to be raised. We are in a recession.
BVBB -
The Revenue Act of 1932
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2008 at 2145 hrs
The Wealth Tax Act of 1935
Social Security ActNote the money supply, Lefty. You will not raise real revues.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2008 at 2158 hrsI meant revenues.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2008 at 2203 hrs
Total Entries: 15520
Total Comments: 86235
Total Trackbacks: 1036
Most Recent Entry: 07/04/2009 01:07 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 07/04/2009 08:48 pm
Total Members: 631
Total Logged in members: 2
Total guests: 54
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 07/04/2009 09:02 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Current Logged-in Members: Calvin Cornroaster
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).