Share the wealth poll

[frogman042]

Curious how to see how different people view the same phrase - my bias is probably showing but after viewing the actual video with 'Joe the Plumber' I can't seem to find where Barack even hints that he wants to confiscate Joe's 'wealth'. Also, please explain how increasing the tax rate by 3% for income above the $250,000 somehow is a disensetive for someone who makes $150,000 (say) not to try to make over $250,000?

---Jay

[gotribego26]

Can I cast half a vote for choice 2? - tax policy has only a small effect on the concentration of wealth. Very small, IMHO.

Clinton passed a small increase in income tax and wealth concentration grew throughout his term - it has been growing for 35 years (with a very small blip in 2000-2001.

The major causes of wealth concentration IMHO are:

-An economy that has increased increased rewards drastically for the "cognitive elite".

-The movement of manufacturing jobs to overseas low-cost locations, replaced by service jobs for lower skilled workers.

-Less collective bargaining/worker leverage/ union representation.

-The elimination/reduction of defined benefit pension plans (elderly poverty has decreased greatly in the last 80 years - I think soon we will see it start increasing as many try to live on 401(k) plans that were too small before the recent problems).

The spreading of wealth in America up until the 1960's was not created by tax policy. The recent implosion on Wall Street should do a great deal to reduce wealth distribution.

I happen to agree that Obama plans to restore the higher tax brackets won't end the world - if he stops there. The dividend/capital gains increase would be more harmful to the economy (even if limited).

[gotribego26]

I would also add the the recent events have caused the terms "wealth" and "income" to be used interchangeably - which is not correct . They are different and tax policy can deal with income inequality better than wealth inequality.

[kusch]

I voted in your poll but I really did not like the way you framed the two choices. No biggie.

When will the "wealth and income" talk turn to sports, movie and music people?

I make far less (really far less) than $250,000 and I really doubt that I will get a tax cut.

[Jeemie]

Can I cast half a vote for choice 2? - tax policy has only a small effect on the concentration of wealth. Very small, IMHO.

Clinton passed a small increase in income tax and wealth concentration grew throughout his term - it has been growing for 35 years (with a very small blip in 2000-2001.

The major causes of wealth concentration IMHO are:

-An economy that has increased increased rewards drastically for the "cognitive elite".

-The movement of manufacturing jobs to overseas low-cost locations, replaced by service jobs for lower skilled workers.

-Less collective bargaining/worker leverage/ union representation.

-The elimination/reduction of defined benefit pension plans (elderly poverty has decreased greatly in the last 80 years - I think soon we will see it start increasing as many try to live on 401(k) plans that were too small before the recent problems).

The spreading of wealth in America up until the 1960's was not created by tax policy. The recent implosion on Wall Street should do a great deal to reduce wealth distribution.

I happen to agree that Obama plans to restore the higher tax brackets won't end the world - if he stops there. The dividend/capital gains increase would be more harmful to the economy (even if limited).

This is a good description of the problem.

I vote "2" though because Obama seemed like he was simply showing support for the progressive tax system.

[Flybrick]

The possible choices are phrased inaccurately:

What he meant is one thing, what he can realistically do is another.

I believe he believes that the government should be able to do 'wealth redistribution.' There is enough material of his around to support this opinion.

What he can realistically do as President is quite another and he will eventually raise taxes and I believe that will hit those making less than $250K as well (and harder proprotionally).

Remember, if elected, he's going to let the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010. He's not calling that a tax raise, but it is.

[BackInTex]

He meant neither, but I do GAS, so I'm not taking your poll.

Obama's comments were two fold (and I paraphrase)

'I want to make sure that those behind you have an opportunity to succeed' - Good point, and I agree with it.

'When you share the wealth, everyone benefits' - A lie. Neither those whose wealth you are sharing or those getting a portion of the wealth they did not participate in the creation of, benefit. Johnson's Great Society is a perfect example. Give people something you think they need, they think they want, but they did nothing to earn, and you create a lazy and perpetual welfare class.

You don't reward people for just being. The government shouldn't even reward people for trying. The market should not reward people for trying. The market should reward people for success. Failure should not be rewarded or subsidized.

Not everyone can succeed.

[Jeemie]

The possible choices are phrased inaccurately:

What he meant is one thing, what he can realistically do is another.

I believe he believes that the government should be able to do 'wealth redistribution.' There is enough material of his around to support this opinion.

What he can realistically do as President is quite another and he will eventually raise taxes and I believe that will hit those making less than $250K as well (and harder proprotionally).

Remember, if elected, he's going to let the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010. He's not calling that a tax raise, but it is.

Both Obama and McCain are going to raise taxes.

Fiscal conditions will force them to do so.

[Flybrick]

The possible choices are phrased inaccurately:

What he meant is one thing, what he can realistically do is another.

I believe he believes that the government should be able to do 'wealth redistribution.' There is enough material of his around to support this opinion.

What he can realistically do as President is quite another and he will eventually raise taxes and I believe that will hit those making less than $250K as well (and harder proprotionally).

Remember, if elected, he's going to let the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010. He's not calling that a tax raise, but it is.

Both Obama and McCain are going to raise taxes.

Fiscal conditions will force them to do so.

But that wasn't the poll to which I was responding.

[BigDrawMan]

Can I cast half a vote for choice 2? - tax policy has only a small effect on the concentration of wealth. Very small, IMHO.

Clinton passed a small increase in income tax and wealth concentration grew throughout his term - it has been growing for 35 years (with a very small blip in 2000-2001.

The major causes of wealth concentration IMHO are:

-An economy that has increased increased rewards drastically for the "cognitive elite".

-The movement of manufacturing jobs to overseas low-cost locations, replaced by service jobs for lower skilled workers.

-Less collective bargaining/worker leverage/ union representation.

-The elimination/reduction of defined benefit pension plans (elderly poverty has decreased greatly in the last 80 years - I think soon we will see it start increasing as many try to live on 401(k) plans that were too small before the recent problems).

The spreading of wealth in America up until the 1960's was not created by tax policy. The recent implosion on Wall Street should do a great deal to reduce wealth distribution.

I happen to agree that Obama plans to restore the higher tax brackets won't end the world - if he stops there. The dividend/capital gains increase would be more harmful to the economy (even if limited).

-------------

I heard an economist talk about the effects of the capital gains tax on tax collection.HE made some good points.
If the spread between the cap gains tax and the top marginal rate is too high, it gives those in the top bracket a strong incentive to have their income be decalred a cap gain instead of regular income.For any effort to increase the tax collected from these people to be effective, this loophole must be closed.
A large industry has arisen to take advantage of this.Though I read in Friday's WSJ that a few dozen KPMG employees are on trial because they were a little too aggressive in widening this loophole.

Hedge fund managers got this distinction enshrined into law, where the money they received from their employer is considered to be a cap gain, though none of their money is at risk.The GOP filibustered an attempt by the Dems to repeal this exemption in July.
Bush also took advantage of this when he sold the share of the Texas Rangers which was given to him.


I dont think it is good policy to tax income received from work at a higher rate than income received from nonwork.

[Rexer25]

Can I cast half a vote for choice 2? - tax policy has only a small effect on the concentration of wealth. Very small, IMHO.

Clinton passed a small increase in income tax and wealth concentration grew throughout his term - it has been growing for 35 years (with a very small blip in 2000-2001.

The major causes of wealth concentration IMHO are:

-An economy that has increased increased rewards drastically for the "cognitive elite".

-The movement of manufacturing jobs to overseas low-cost locations, replaced by service jobs for lower skilled workers.

-Less collective bargaining/worker leverage/ union representation.

-The elimination/reduction of defined benefit pension plans (elderly poverty has decreased greatly in the last 80 years - I think soon we will see it start increasing as many try to live on 401(k) plans that were too small before the recent problems).

The spreading of wealth in America up until the 1960's was not created by tax policy. The recent implosion on Wall Street should do a great deal to reduce wealth distribution.

I happen to agree that Obama plans to restore the higher tax brackets won't end the world - if he stops there. The dividend/capital gains increase would be more harmful to the economy (even if limited).

-------------

I heard an economist talk about the effects of the capital gains tax on tax collection.HE made some good points.
If the spread between the cap gains tax and the top marginal rate is too high, it gives those in the top bracket a strong incentive to have their income be decalred a cap gain instead of regular income.For any effort to increase the tax collected from these people to be effective, this loophole must be closed.
A large industry has arisen to take advantage of this.Though I read in Friday's WSJ that a few dozen KPMG employees are on trial because they were a little too aggressive in widening this loophole.

Hedge fund managers got this distinction enshrined into law, where the money they received from their employer is considered to be a cap gain, though none of their money is at risk.The GOP filibustered an attempt by the Dems to repeal this exemption in July.
Bush also took advantage of this when he sold the share of the Texas Rangers which was given to him.


I dont think it is good policy to tax income received from work at a higher rate than income received from nonwork.

But isn't some incentive for investment a good thing?

[Jeemie]

Can I cast half a vote for choice 2? - tax policy has only a small effect on the concentration of wealth. Very small, IMHO.

Clinton passed a small increase in income tax and wealth concentration grew throughout his term - it has been growing for 35 years (with a very small blip in 2000-2001.

The major causes of wealth concentration IMHO are:

-An economy that has increased increased rewards drastically for the "cognitive elite".

-The movement of manufacturing jobs to overseas low-cost locations, replaced by service jobs for lower skilled workers.

-Less collective bargaining/worker leverage/ union representation.

-The elimination/reduction of defined benefit pension plans (elderly poverty has decreased greatly in the last 80 years - I think soon we will see it start increasing as many try to live on 401(k) plans that were too small before the recent problems).

The spreading of wealth in America up until the 1960's was not created by tax policy. The recent implosion on Wall Street should do a great deal to reduce wealth distribution.

I happen to agree that Obama plans to restore the higher tax brackets won't end the world - if he stops there. The dividend/capital gains increase would be more harmful to the economy (even if limited).

-------------

I heard an economist talk about the effects of the capital gains tax on tax collection.HE made some good points.
If the spread between the cap gains tax and the top marginal rate is too high, it gives those in the top bracket a strong incentive to have their income be decalred a cap gain instead of regular income.For any effort to increase the tax collected from these people to be effective, this loophole must be closed.
A large industry has arisen to take advantage of this.Though I read in Friday's WSJ that a few dozen KPMG employees are on trial because they were a little too aggressive in widening this loophole.

Hedge fund managers got this distinction enshrined into law, where the money they received from their employer is considered to be a cap gain, though none of their money is at risk.The GOP filibustered an attempt by the Dems to repeal this exemption in July.
Bush also took advantage of this when he sold the share of the Texas Rangers which was given to him.


I dont think it is good policy to tax income received from work at a higher rate than income received from nonwork.

All of the above is true, but what's also needed are clear distinctions for what's capital gains and what's income.

Your distinction is the most common-sense distinction to make- if you are doing work, and someone gives you money, it's income.

If you provide capital for an enterprise, any return is a capital gain (or loss).

Over-complication is what you get when you have lawyers making all the laws!

PS Dems help their rich benefactors too- it's why most very wealthy people/organizations contribute to BOTH campaigns.

After all, Clinton signed Gramm-Leach-Bliley.

[BigDrawMan]

Can I cast half a vote for choice 2? - tax policy has only a small effect on the concentration of wealth. Very small, IMHO.

Clinton passed a small increase in income tax and wealth concentration grew throughout his term - it has been growing for 35 years (with a very small blip in 2000-2001.

The major causes of wealth concentration IMHO are:

-An economy that has increased increased rewards drastically for the "cognitive elite".

-The movement of manufacturing jobs to overseas low-cost locations, replaced by service jobs for lower skilled workers.

-Less collective bargaining/worker leverage/ union representation.

-The elimination/reduction of defined benefit pension plans (elderly poverty has decreased greatly in the last 80 years - I think soon we will see it start increasing as many try to live on 401(k) plans that were too small before the recent problems).

The spreading of wealth in America up until the 1960's was not created by tax policy. The recent implosion on Wall Street should do a great deal to reduce wealth distribution.

I happen to agree that Obama plans to restore the higher tax brackets won't end the world - if he stops there. The dividend/capital gains increase would be more harmful to the economy (even if limited).

-------------

I heard an economist talk about the effects of the capital gains tax on tax collection.HE made some good points.
If the spread between the cap gains tax and the top marginal rate is too high, it gives those in the top bracket a strong incentive to have their income be decalred a cap gain instead of regular income.For any effort to increase the tax collected from these people to be effective, this loophole must be closed.
A large industry has arisen to take advantage of this.Though I read in Friday's WSJ that a few dozen KPMG employees are on trial because they were a little too aggressive in widening this loophole.

Hedge fund managers got this distinction enshrined into law, where the money they received from their employer is considered to be a cap gain, though none of their money is at risk.The GOP filibustered an attempt by the Dems to repeal this exemption in July.
Bush also took advantage of this when he sold the share of the Texas Rangers which was given to him.


I dont think it is good policy to tax income received from work at a higher rate than income received from nonwork.

But isn't some incentive for investment a good thing?

indeed

but drawing the line is where trouble starts

it is easy to say that the heirs to the Heinz fortune should be paying taxes at a higher rate than Rexer.

I didnt want ot start talking about sliding scales.

[frogman042]

But isn't some incentive for investment a good thing?

So, lets say I'm a plumber and I work 40 hours cleaning sewage pipes and my efforts earn me $3000 and I'm taxed at 30% (say), in addition I pay FICA, etc as well.

Lets say you have cashed in on some of your investments and have made $3000 that same week, above and beyond your initial investment, other then that you did no actual work. You should only pay 15% tax because you need an incentive to make money otherwise you wouldn't have invested and tried to make money through investment?

Why should someone who draws a salary and earns their money by working be expected to pay higher taxes then someone who earns their money by investing?

What am I missing here?

---Jay

[Rexer25]

But isn't some incentive for investment a good thing?

So, lets say I'm a plumber and I work 40 hours cleaning sewage pipes and my efforts earn me $3000 and I'm taxed at 30% (say), in addition I pay FICA, etc as well.

Lets say you have cashed in on some of your investments and have made $3000 that same week, above and beyond your initial investment, other then that you did no actual work. You should only pay 15% tax because you need an incentive to make money otherwise you wouldn't have invested and tried to make money through investment?

Why should someone who draws a salary and earns their money by working be expected to pay higher taxes then someone who earns their money by investing?

What am I missing here?

---Jay

You ask such a question in times like these?

There needs to be a pool of capital for entreprenuer, um, entreprenure, um, people who want to start their own businesses to draw upon to be able to start businesses, buy equipment, hire workers, etc. If people don't invest, then there is no pool of capital and new businesses don't get started. One of the major financial problems we are currently experiencing is that no one wants to lend money right now, so no one gets credit, or their credit is cut back, so they don't expand, or buy new machinery, or hire new workers, etc. One of the ways to encourage investing and saving is to tell people that any gains they get through risking their money will be worth more to them. The problem comes, as noted above, when people try to get their income classified as capital gains, which kinda poops on the people who have their income treated as income.

[silvercamaro]

But isn't some incentive for investment a good thing?

So, lets say I'm a plumber and I work 40 hours cleaning sewage pipes and my efforts earn me $3000 and I'm taxed at 30% (say), in addition I pay FICA, etc as well.

Lets say you have cashed in on some of your investments and have made $3000 that same week, above and beyond your initial investment, other then that you did no actual work. You should only pay 15% tax because you need an incentive to make money otherwise you wouldn't have invested and tried to make money through investment?

Why should someone who draws a salary and earns their money by working be expected to pay higher taxes then someone who earns their money by investing?

What am I missing here?

---Jay

The difference is that the average investor, at some earlier point in his life, has saved money on which he already had paid income taxes (and perhaps taxes on the interest for a savings account), and done without something on which he otherwise could have spend that money -- a new car, vacations, piano lessons for the kids, whatever -- and decided instead to invest those savings in hopes for a better life for the long run for himself and his family. In the process, although that wasn't his primary goal, he helped create a stronger economy.

The money to invest came from funds already taxed once. Why should he have to pay the higher tax rate just because he chose his investment well? Why, as a country, would we want to discourage private investments?

[Bob78164]

But isn't some incentive for investment a good thing?

So, lets say I'm a plumber and I work 40 hours cleaning sewage pipes and my efforts earn me $3000 and I'm taxed at 30% (say), in addition I pay FICA, etc as well.

Lets say you have cashed in on some of your investments and have made $3000 that same week, above and beyond your initial investment, other then that you did no actual work. You should only pay 15% tax because you need an incentive to make money otherwise you wouldn't have invested and tried to make money through investment?

Why should someone who draws a salary and earns their money by working be expected to pay higher taxes then someone who earns their money by investing?

What am I missing here?

---Jay

Two things. One, the $3000 investment is at risk, and the tax benefits for a loss of that investment are very limited. Two, as Rexer and shinycar point out, investment is a very good thing for society in general -- that's how the pie gets bigger for everyone.

I don't have a problem with a reasonable differential between capital gains rates and the higher tax brackets. I don't have an informed opinion on whether the current differential is reasonable. --Bob

[gotribego26]

But isn't some incentive for investment a good thing?

So, lets say I'm a plumber and I work 40 hours cleaning sewage pipes and my efforts earn me $3000 and I'm taxed at 30% (say), in addition I pay FICA, etc as well.

Lets say you have cashed in on some of your investments and have made $3000 that same week, above and beyond your initial investment, other then that you did no actual work. You should only pay 15% tax because you need an incentive to make money otherwise you wouldn't have invested and tried to make money through investment?

Why should someone who draws a salary and earns their money by working be expected to pay higher taxes then someone who earns their money by investing?

What am I missing here?

---Jay

Two things. One, the $3000 investment is at risk, and the tax benefits for a loss of that investment are very limited. Two, as Rexer and shinycar point out, investment is a very good thing for society in general -- that's how the pie gets bigger for everyone.

I don't have a problem with a reasonable differential between capital gains rates and the higher tax brackets. I don't have an informed opinion on whether the current differential is reasonable. --Bob

Bob last paragraph is the real key to all of this. There is a great deal of economic literature on optimal tax rates (defined as the point at which the total economic pie is maximized and goivernment is funded) and differentials for different types of incomes. (yes some of these were written by Arthur Laffer)

I also agree that the current lack of clarity between income and captial gains is a problem - which is exacerbated by the difference in rates.

The amount of effort that is spent on deferring and avoiding taxes in our economy is a real drag. The 1986 tax change was really the only time in my life that changes were made that simplified taxes. I suspect that 4 years from now our tax code will be even more complex than it is now.

[wbtravis007]

Any tax redistributes money, whether based on income or wealth or purchases of goods or ownership of real property or estates or license fees or idiocy (Texas lottery). Property bought with after-tax earnings is subject to property taxes to the same extent as any other property. Same with things bought with after-tax earnings -- (sales tax still applies).

All tax policies could be said to encourage or discourage behavior to some extent. Property taxes discourage the purchase of real property, sales taxes discourage consumption, estate taxes encourage gifting, etc..

I think it's really strange that so many people are into this communist/socialist stuff this year, all of a sudden. Of course, it's Rush and Sean and the rest of the echo chamber that have pushed it, and it's no big secret that they know full well that a lot of their listeners either never learned much about history or public policy (or have just forgotten what they once knew), and have very little analytical capacity, but still.

Everybody wants good roads and a formidable military and good law enforcement, but nobody wants to pay for it. So what else is new?

[BackInTex]

Everybody wants good roads and a formidable military and good law enforcement, but nobody wants to pay for it. So what else is new?

Umm, I think most people are willing and want to pay for them. I don't see tax increases as going to defense, roads, and security. I see much more spending on entitlements (welfare, foodstamps, medicare, medicaide, housing assistance, foreign aide, bailouts, etc.). I don't want to pay for most of those, and what I am willing to pay for I want tighter restrictions and better/honest oversight. Yeah, I know that will never happen.

Sort of like all the lottery money going to education. It was a ploy. Sure, $200 million went to education directly from lottery profits, but that was not an additional $200 million going to education. Education got less from the general fund. Political games and all.

[gotribego26]

I think it's really strange that so many people are into this communist/socialist stuff this year, all of a sudden. Of course, it's Rush and Sean and the rest of the echo chamber that have pushed it, and it's no big secret that they know full well that a lot of their listeners either never learned much about history or public policy (or have just forgotten what they once knew), and have very little analytical capacity, but still.

I've struggled with Obama's advertised income tax cut for 95% of working families. Particularly since about 35% of working families pay no income tax, and many of those actually get an EITC which is a "refund" of payroll taxes. As it turns out, what Obama is proposing is a refundable tax credit for working families that would raise the number of non-payers to slightly more than half - and the receiving group to almost 30% of working families.

IMO, this is different than a tax increase to spend for government programs that we all use or have government borrow less. I have little problem with bringing back the CLinton era tax brackets for high earners - but I think we have more pressing needs than refunds for taxes not paid.

The last proposal I saw of this nature came from McGovern.

[wbtravis007]

I think it's really strange that so many people are into this communist/socialist stuff this year, all of a sudden. Of course, it's Rush and Sean and the rest of the echo chamber that have pushed it, and it's no big secret that they know full well that a lot of their listeners either never learned much about history or public policy (or have just forgotten what they once knew), and have very little analytical capacity, but still.

I've struggled with Obama's advertised income tax cut for 95% of working families. Particularly since about 35% of working families pay no income tax, and many of those actually get an EITC which is a "refund" of payroll taxes. As it turns out, what Obama is proposing is a refundable tax credit for working families that would raise the number of non-payers to slightly more than half - and the receiving group to almost 30% of working families.

IMO, this is different than a tax increase to spend for government programs that we all use or have government borrow less. I have little problem with bringing back the CLinton era tax brackets for high earners - but I think we have more pressing needs than refunds for taxes not paid.

The last proposal I saw of this nature came from McGovern.

I share your concerns. I hate deficits. Buffet doesn't seem to agree with me about deficits, though, so I'm trying to keep an open mind.

Yeah, I'm old enough to know all about McGoven's proposal, and am willing to agree that this one is, purely and simply, a stimulus package. (Let's see ... when's the last time that we've talked about one of those?)

I accept the argument that we need to boost up the middle class to prop up demand. If the so-called poor would be involved as well, that's okay with me, too. For now.

I think that this tax package will end up going the way of most stuff, eventually ... away.

For now, I think it's okay.

If we end up selecting our representatives based on Stalin-like hair, though, I'll reconsider.

[BigDrawMan]

I have a ::BRILLIANT IDEA::!!

We should take the Bushian fiscal policy to its conclusion.
National tax holiday next year.No one pays any taxes.
There doesnt seem to be any correlation between receipts and expenditures on the federal level, nor is there any law or rule of thumb describing a relationship.Let's just borrow it all.We're good for it.

[Appa23]

I've struggled with Obama's advertised income tax cut for 95% of working families. Particularly since about 35% of working families pay no income tax, and many of those actually get an EITC which is a "refund" of payroll taxes.

Just to clarify: the last number that I saw was that approximately 45% of taxpayers/families do not have any tax laibility, and the number is climbing.

Also, Obama is claiming that 95% will not pay higher taxes, and a lesser number (I read 90% yesterday in a story about an Obama campaign visit) will actually get a tax cut or increased Government check.

[Bob Juch]

I've struggled with Obama's advertised income tax cut for 95% of working families. Particularly since about 35% of working families pay no income tax, and many of those actually get an EITC which is a "refund" of payroll taxes.

Just to clarify: the last number that I saw was that approximately 45% of taxpayers/families do not have any tax laibility, and the number is climbing.

Also, Obama is claiming that 95% will not pay higher taxes, and a lesser number (I read 90% yesterday in a story about an Obama campaign visit) will actually get a tax cut or increased Government check.

Please point to a reliable citation for that 45%.