WWTBAM Bored

It takes real art to make things worse for yourself than to call your tax proposal "spreading the wealth" but Obama has done it. I'm just sorry it took him until so late in the campaign to come up with this one:

"John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic," Obama continued. "You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness."

And this comes from ABC, not a random blog:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch ... -atta.html

This is what happens when someone who really doesn't understand the words that his speechwriters are putting into his mouth tries to explain them.

gotribego26 wrote:It's all the government's money - their job is to decide how much we get to keep.

I'm trying to remember your political leaning so I can know if this was a joke or not...

Jeemie wrote:

gotribego26 wrote:It's all the government's money - their job is to decide how much we get to keep.

I'm trying to remember your political leaning so I can know if this was a joke or not...

I hope it is clearer now

I'm not from the school that says taking less money (a tax cut) is a giveaway.

gotribego26 wrote:

Jeemie wrote:

gotribego26 wrote:It's all the government's money - their job is to decide how much we get to keep.

I'm trying to remember your political leaning so I can know if this was a joke or not...

I hope it is clearer now

I'm not from the school that says taking less money (a tax cut) is a giveaway.

I'm glad that I read this thread so that I could give a big REC! to gtb here.

My problem isn't with the proposal; it's with how Obama keeps trying to sell it. A progressive tax structure is a fundamental part of a well run government, since by any means of calculating, the wealthy receive far more proportionally in government services than those earning less. And the Bush tax cuts both added to the inherent inequities and put us hugely in debt. It stands to reason that those who benefitted from these ill-timed tax cuts that got us into debt should bear the brunt of helping us reduce the debt.

In any event, raising taxes for anyone at a time of crisis is something that Hoover showed was the height of folly.

The problem is that Obama apparently doesn't understand this since his attempts to explain himself flail all over the place. I'm far more concerned with a candidate who continually shows he has no grasp on economic principles and instead falls back on any catch phrase he can think of when he gets in trouble on the campaign trail. What will someone like this do when he actually has to make economic descisions?

My taxes would go up under Obama's plan. I'm still voting for him.

I could tell you but I'd like to hear it from someone like you BobJuch. Do some research and tell me what percentage of income tax revenue currently comes from the top 5% of taxpayers right now and what percent the bottom 40% of taxpayers pay and explain to me how that's either fair or progressive. Explain to me how increasing the tax burden on the people who produce the wealth (and jobs) is going to help the 'middle class'. And tell me how it is a good thing to take money and incentive from those who work to produce it and giving it to the government, which did nothing to earn it, to redistribute it (after they take their cut) to those who also did nothing to earn it.

silverscreenselect wrote:A progressive tax structure is a fundamental part of a well run government, since by any means of calculating, the wealthy receive far more proportionally in government services than those earning less.

I would love to understand how SSS thinks that this is true, especially the proportionally part [wealthiest 5% who pay most of the income taxes versus lowest 40-50% who pay minimal state and local income taxes].

The wealthy do not use Medicare or Medicaid, get no real benefit from Social Security, require fewer services from police and fire department than in lower-income areas, and a vast majority do not use the public school system, just to name the major areas of government services. They get the same benefits from national defense, roads, and other infrastructure as everyone else.

I am not arguing that the wealthier citizens should not pay their share and some of others shares, to a point, but I will not buy the malrkey that they need to pay a considerably greater percentage becuase they get more from the Government (national, state, and local).

Appa23 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:A progressive tax structure is a fundamental part of a well run government, since by any means of calculating, the wealthy receive far more proportionally in government services than those earning less.

I would love to understand how SSS thinks that this is true, especially the proportionally part [wealthiest 5% who pay most of the income taxes versus lowest 40-50% who pay minimal state and local income taxes].

The wealthy do not use Medicare or Medicaid, get no real benefit from Social Security, require fewer services from police and fire department than in lower-income areas, and a vast majority do not use the public school system, just to name the major areas of government services. They get the same benefits from national defense, roads, and other infrastructure as everyone else.

I am not arguing that the wealthier citizens should not pay their share and some of others shares, to a point, but I will not buy the malrkey that they need to pay a considerably greater percentage becuase they get more from the Government (national, state, and local).

The wealthiest, through the use of their money, control the types of laws that get passed that can help them accrue more wealth under our current system.

The wealthiest also control far more of the nation's wealth per capita than they pay in taxes per capita. Whereas the midle and lower classes pay a HIGHER proportion in taxes per capita than the amount of wealth they control per capita.

So it is clear by these measures that the wealthiest benefit more from government services than the lower and middle classes do, and therefore should pay more in taxes.

I would even argue that things such as Social Security and Medicare provide many indirect benefits to the wealthiest in our society.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:I could tell you but I'd like to hear it from someone like you BobJuch. Do some research and tell me what percentage of income tax revenue currently comes from the top 5% of taxpayers right now and what percent the bottom 40% of taxpayers pay and explain to me how that's either fair or progressive. Explain to me how increasing the tax burden on the people who produce the wealth (and jobs) is going to help the 'middle class'. And tell me how it is a good thing to take money and incentive from those who work to produce it and giving it to the government, which did nothing to earn it, to redistribute it (after they take their cut) to those who also did nothing to earn it.

It is not entirely true that the government "did nothing to earn it"...they provided the stable society that is the framework from which this "stable society" is created.

And unless the taxes become completely confiscatory (which in this country, no matter how much we complain, they are not), a study of economics shows that there is little long-term "disincentive to work" created by small marginal increases in the tax rate. The Laffer Curve is just that- a "laugher" that holds in very specific circumstances and is not to be over-generalized.

And progressive taxation, as I have stated, provides many indirect benefits to the "wealthiest" who "produce all that wealth"- we have seen in our history how having a stable middle class is conducive to having a stable and thriving economy.

No- a progressive tax system is not "anti-conservative". It's how those tax dollars are being used that is.

People who are truly conservative recognize this...the rest are spouting talking points.

silverscreenselect wrote:My problem isn't with the proposal; it's with how Obama keeps trying to sell it. A progressive tax structure is a fundamental part of a well run government, since by any means of calculating, the wealthy receive far more proportionally in government services than those earning less. And the Bush tax cuts both added to the inherent inequities and put us hugely in debt. It stands to reason that those who benefitted from these ill-timed tax cuts that got us into debt should bear the brunt of helping us reduce the debt.

Actually, that's not true, in fact, it is likely the opposite. When you think about what 'the government provides,' where do do really rich people benefit? At the local level, the biggest expenditure is on public schools, but rich people (who pay the most property taxes toward those schools) are just about the least likely ones to send their kids to those schools (statistically, the group that is actually least likely to send their children to public schools is public school teachers; go figure). Rich people do not generally rely upon 'public' police and fire protection, preferring to buy their own protection (in gated communities, for example), and owning houses that typically are not firetraps. You could argue, perhaps, that they get certain benefits from things like the US military-- which protects everyone, but theoretically protects the wealthy 'more' since the wealthy have 'more' to lose-- but that is not an argument in favor of higher tax rates for rich people, it is an argument for flat rates for all people (if everyone pays the same percentage, then the ratio of taxes paid to property protected is constant, at least, as to income).

On the other hand, something like 40% of all people in the US pay no income taxes at all, and most pay no direct property or similar taxes at all, but get an absolutely free ride for any public services that they receive-- most of which do, in fact, go to those very people.

Actually, the group that benefits the most is the 'middle class.' When you get right down to it, most of the tax dollars that we pay out go to 'administrative' costs of government, which means salaries and things like that, and the people who get those salaries are 'the middle class.' Go to your typical government office, and the people who receive the most money (salaries) are not rich people, nor are they the impoverished people, they are the middle class.

wintergreen48 wrote: Actually, the group that benefits the most is the 'middle class.' When you get right down to it, most of the tax dollars that we pay out go to 'administrative' costs of government, which means salaries and things like that, and the people who get those salaries are 'the middle class.' Go to your typical government office, and the people who receive the most money (salaries) are not rich people, nor are they the impoverished people, they are the middle class.

Halliburton benefitted from Bush's largesse far more than any $70,000 bureaucrat.

Some idiot said in this thread:

I could tell you but I'd like to hear it from someone like you BobJuch. Do some research and tell me what percentage of income tax revenue currently comes from the top 5% of taxpayers right now and what percent the bottom 40% of taxpayers pay and explain to me how that's either fair or progressive..

These numbers have nothing whatsoever to do with any analysis of whether a tax is progressive, proportional or regressive. (Or "fair," for that matter.)

Let's say there are 100 people, and 99 of them make $50,000 and are taxed at a rate of 80% -- (i.e., they each pay $40,000 in taxes). The other person is taxed at a rate of 10% of his or her income. That person makes $40,000,000. So, that person pays $4 million in taxes, and the other 99 pay a total of 3.96 million. So, the top 1% of that group is paying more than 50% of the taxes collected. (Oh my God!!!) That person has, after taxes, 36 million (90% of his or her income) and the other 99, after taxes, have $10,000 (20% of their income).

Let them eat cake.

Some idiot said in this thread:

Idiot, thy name is travis...

back on my soapbox:

All this talk about progressive taxes just window dressing, if the Obama administration has its way with energy taxes it will crush the economy for no good reason and be horribly regressive to boot.

Yeah its all about global warming with us cranks

Flybrick wrote:

Some idiot said in this thread:

Idiot, thy name is travis...

Maybe I shouldn't have concluded that the person who posted that is an idiot. I should consider that it's possible that the poster actually knows better and was just deliberately trying to compare apples to oranges in an effort to mislead people who don't.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Explain to me how increasing the tax burden on the people who produce the wealth (and jobs) is going to help the 'middle class'.

But on the other hand, explain to me how giving corporate tax cuts is creating new jobs. That may not directly address the sentence I quoted above, but I've also listened to this "trickle down" nonsense for almost 3 decades and I still don't buy it. In fact, hearing Sen. McCain (who I think is a decent and honorable man) go back to that tired old warhorse during a debate was part of what helped push me over the fence into the other camp. It's a terrific idea IN THEORY, but it requires faith in the good-hearted generosity of Corporate America. To steal a phrase from Fanny, Ha! There was an interview with some fatcat on "60 Minutes" (my brother told me about it, I didn't see it) where the answer to just about every question was "My responsibility is to the stockholders". The bottom line is king, and the corporate mindset will ALWAYS be to get the most amount of work out of the fewest amount of workers for the biggest profits. Outsourcing, closing plants, hey, whatever works. Any extra money they get will line their pockets, not open the door to new employees they "don't need". You don't have to look any further back than AIG and their "party hearty" antics while getting their bailout to see what the big guys do with some extra cash.

I dunno. I can't exactly advocate taxing the wealthy into oblivion either, but I'm tired of the pie-in-the-sky notion that giving big business lots of breaks will result in unprecedented generosity and a new era of jobs for everyone (maybe in the good old days when more had a "let's do what's best for America" attitude, but not in these "I'm gonna do what's best for ME ME ME" days). That seems every bit as naive and idealistic as the liberals are always accused of being. And if you could somehow FORCE corporations to create new jobs with the tax breaks, (I'm only using this as an "if"), it would be the very sort of invasive government that the conservative loathes.

Don't usually post in the political threads (heck,I don't even READ 'em most of the time!), because so many of them take folks down some pretty nasty roads. I just guess that 2 cents was burning a hole in my pocket. .

Maybe I shouldn't have concluded that the person who posted that is an idiot.

Or you could consider that just because one disagrees with you on an issue, it doesn't make them an idiot.

BTW, here's my new address for you to send my leotard portrait:

1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, DC 20500

... after Jan. 21, '09


t.

silverscreenselect wrote:

wintergreen48 wrote: Actually, the group that benefits the most is the 'middle class.' When you get right down to it, most of the tax dollars that we pay out go to 'administrative' costs of government, which means salaries and things like that, and the people who get those salaries are 'the middle class.' Go to your typical government office, and the people who receive the most money (salaries) are not rich people, nor are they the impoverished people, they are the middle class.

Halliburton benefitted from Bush's largesse far more than any $70,000 bureaucrat.

Well, we were talking about tax-funded government services, which is different. But assuming that Halliburton has in fact 'benefitted from Bush's largesse' (that is, to the extent that they did better because of this than they would have done outside of this), well, that is not an argument in favor of a progressive tax structure, it is an argument against empowering 'the goverment' to do a lot of things that it should not be doing. The bigger and more powerful the government, the more it can throw of 'largesse' to those whom it favors (which, of course, is why the bigger and more powerful the government, the bigger and more powerful the lobbyists, the more 'political contributions' that make their way into political coffers, the more potential for corruption, etc.)

tlynn78 wrote:

Maybe I shouldn't have concluded that the person who posted that is an idiot.

Or you could consider that just because one disagrees with you on an issue, it doesn't make them an idiot.

BTW, here's my new address for you to send my leotard portrait:

1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, DC 20500

... after Jan. 21, '09


t.

Too late! We've already sent them out to current addresses. We just can't seem to keep them in stock. Besides, "somebody" already ordered one from the address you gave. (Can't say who.)

I guess I could have gone into an explanation about why the patronizing attitude that I detected -- I'm not looking at it now, but I'll paraphrase here: the "I already know the answer but you can look it up and then get back to me with your explanation as to (then he posed the dumbass question)" -- rubbed me the wrong way. It just seemed easier to refer lo that person as an idiot than to go into all of that.

To address your point directly, I don't very often consider people who disagree with me to be idiots, but when people say something really dumb, in that tone, then I consider that they either are having at the very least an "idiot moment" or are trying to mislead someone.