(Jake Turcotte)
Obama’s tax plan and the redistribution of wealth
By Jimmy Orr | 10.14.08
Want to set a conservative’s hair on fire? Just mention redistribution of wealth and watch the fireworks. It happened Sunday when Barack Obama was canvassing a neighborhood in Toledo, Ohio.
Fox News cameras were there and captured the conversation (which is now all over the Web) between a self-employed plumber named Joe Wurzelbacher and Obama.
More taxes?
Wurzelbacher explained that by working hard (10-12 hours a day) he was in a position to buy a business. If he bought a truck and expanded the business, he wondered if his success would be greeted by a penalty in the form of higher taxes.
“Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?” Wurzlebacher asked.
“It’s not that I want to punish your success,” Obama explained. “I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success too. My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody … I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
The common good
Spread the wealth around. That can mean many things. It could mean a rising tide lifts all boats. But it could also mean government taking from one group of people (the people who earned it) and giving it to those who did not.
This is what Obama detractors are saying his tax plan is all about. And many are wondering why the McCain campaign isn’t being more vocal about this. They contend Obama’s policy proposals are damning enough. Forget Bill Ayers, they say, go after his policy.
The Journal
In the context of the Democratic nominee’s conversation with the plumber (video below), many blogs are linking to a Wall Street Journal column yesterday that charges that Obama’s tax plan isn’t what it sounds. They say it’s a big gimmick:
One of Barack Obama’s most potent campaign claims is that he’ll cut taxes for no less than 95% of “working families.” He’s even promising to cut taxes enough that the government’s tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% — which is lower than it is today.
It’s a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he’s also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of “tax cut.”
For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase “tax credit.” Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals.
No preconditions
Not surprisingly, the McCain campaign agrees with that assessment in a sarcastically toned statement:
“If Barack Obama’s goal as President is to ’spread the wealth around,’ perhaps his unconditional meetings with Hugo Chavez, Raul Castro, and Kim Jong-Il aren’t so crazy — if nothing else they can advise an Obama administration on economic policy,” a McCain spokesman told Fox News.
Agreed
Investors Business Daily calls Obama’s tax proposals straight up “socialism.”
John McCain is reportedly considering a broad, simple capital gains tax cut. An across-the-board cut would be a real middle-class rescue, focused on generating new private sector employment — the proven way of “spreading the wealth around,” a concept which Obama, with his deftly disguised socialism, cannot grasp.
Blogosphere erupts
They aren’t the only ones calling it socialism. The conservative blogosphere regards the Fox video as manna from heaven. This is something they say empirically shows Obama is in favor of redistribution of wealth.
There’s the blunt and simplistic approach from McNorman’s weblog: “Obama is a socialist. I have said it before.”
Michelle Malkin doesn’t have a lot to say about it, but we’re assuming that she isn’t a fan of the Obama tax proposal, which she denigrates.
Over at the American Sentinel this is the view:
Welcome to Barack Obama’s new America, it’s called redistribution of wealth and his tax cuts for 95% of America is nothing more than Government welfare for people that don’t pay taxes at all. Haven’t we already been down this path ? This was done in the 70’s and the Democrats are bent on bringing it back. Only can today’s “progressive” see fit to cater to the ”parasite class” and bury the American worker further. Mission almost accomplished.
RightPundits.com goes right to the author of The Communist Manifesto:
Ahhhh - income redistribution. Take from those that have and give it to those who don’t. Make sure everyone has an equal piece of the pie. In the words of Karl Marx, ‘From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.’
One of our readers commenting on another story writes:
Obama has stated today that ‘he wants to spread the wealth around’. At least now he is honest about his redistribution of wealth ideology.
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” - Winston Churchill
T minus 21
As for the traditional media, there’s not a lot out there. But Obama’s comments — far from JFK’s “a rising tide lifts all boats” statement — have started a buzz in blogland. Whether it catches on and McCain latches on to it, we’ll have to wait. There’s not a lot of time left.
<< McCain campaign strategy: Go nu-cular or go nice? | MainComments
2. Greg | 10.14.08
But they did not see any problems with the fascist did they. When they were destroying the middle class did you hear a word from these supporters of the current policy? NO. I love hearing people who suffer from group thought without answers for their failures but more failure.
3. Patrick Henry | 10.14.08
Wow, yeah that one, Obama, spreading socialism. How dare he use our tax paying money to spread the wealth among lower class. That kind of socialism should be left to spreading our tax paying money to banks and corporations, so they can have nice weekends. You see I make over $250,000 and do not want to pay more taxes so someone in the lower ranks can have the purchasing power to buy my products. It makes sense, the more I make, the more I keep. They less they make, the more they should be tax, so they can afford less and buy more of my products. With what money? who cares, I’m making money. We live in a Christian country, I believe what Jesus said, keep more of your wealth and dont share. That’s the Christian way.
4. AC Walker | 10.14.08
So, let me get this straight- when the government puts three-quarters of a TRILLION dollars into financial institutions that have spent the last decade at best being severely incompetent and at worst directly cheating the public, that’s “shoring up the economy.” But when someone talks about raising taxes on the 5% of the American people who already hold an incredibly disproportionate amount of the country’s money (an increase which may be “historically high,” but only because of the historic CUTS pushed through for that same segment of the population a few years ago), that’s “class warfare” or “socialism.” Cutting taxes for %95 percent of the people is “socialism” and moving to nationalize nine of the top US Banks is not?
It’s ALL “redistribution of wealth.” The question is, do we want to keep distributing it UPWARD or do we want to actually have a middle class in ten years? Oh, right- those 5% “earned” every penny of it. Because apparently there are more than 24 hours a day that they are toiling as opposed to the 24 the rest of us mere mortals (who apparently haven’t ‘earned” much) get.
The sad thing is, this sort of thing always works because people don’t realize that money is, fundamentally, a finite thing. As the line in “1776″ goes, “Most men with nothing would rather protect the possibility of becoming rich than face the reality of being poor. ” Sad and pathetic.
5. Aaron | 10.14.08
The problem with conservatives is that they are for socialism when it comes to business (i.e. all these bailouts which have been proposed by the very people who have contributed to all of these financial woes in the first place by way of deregulation), but when it comes to putting the money back in the hands of the people who have been taken advantage of by the system, they are all up in arms. Obama is right. For the whole economy to be stable, the bottom has to be stable. The middle class is like the foundation of our economy. When it begins to crumble, the whole house is at risk. Suck up your greed conservatives, we have to do something to fix this economy, and the only way to do that is by taking the wealth from those who have been given the biggest tax break in the history of the US for the past eight years.
6. mich | 10.14.08
Not exactly schooled in economics, are you? The reason Bush I called Reagan’s tax cuts for the wealthy voodoo economics is that economic principals and PRACTICE prove that when the masses are wealthy, everyone is wealthy. Look at history. If you consolidate the wealth in the hands of the few, the masses suffer. Think of serfdoms. The wealth does not trickle down. What does trickle down is exactly that: a trickle. And it’s not enough to sustain economic growth and prosperity. As we have just seen. Soooo, yes, a rising tide brings everyone up. Of course, some people may go through withdrawal at having to pay their fair share in taxes, but they’ll get over it when everyone is better off.
7. tj 1491 | 10.14.08
So, what your saying is - it’s just fine to see the greatest re-distribution of wealth to the richest Americans during the last 8 years, but it’s not such a good idea to help the majority of Americans with plans for education assistance, jobs in green industries, infrastructure repair and an adjustment to the the tax rates in favor of regular working people?
Personaly, I think everyone should be paying higher taxes until the national debt is reduced to a level where we are no longer paying $0.18 of every tax dollar in interest.
God forbid the rich not being able to buy another $4 million house! If taxing the rich means I’m a Socialist - so be it!
8. Take the a**hats off please… | 10.14.08
Who cares if the top 5% see the largest tax increase ever? The rest of us have been taking the hit for quite some time now. Don’t forget that Bush I passed the largest tax increase in the history of this country about a year after his “read my lips pledge” to not raise taxes. Whether you have the Big ‘O’ or McCain’t as POTUS, your taxes are going to go up. The only difference is that Obama is proposing to hit that 5% of top earners while McCain’t seems bent on continuing to have the middle class absorb and continue to bankroll everything from Iraq to timbuk2. As a middle class tax payor, I don’t so much care about being taxed and my wealth/money ‘redistributed’ so long as my wealth/money doesn’t go toward nation building projects predicated on illegal wars and so long as my wealth/money doesn’t bail out that top 5% that resides so comfortably on Wall Street. I would vote republican if today’s republican party wasn’t controlled by a bunch hypocrits. At least with the democrats, you know exactly what your getting. Please take off the a**hats and get back to your real republican roots.
9. timmy | 10.14.08
This article is another example of fear tactics by the conservatives. I am not a huge fan of the liberals either, but there way has not worked…….and I am starting to beleive does not work. After all, we had the full implementation of the conservative financial policy with a republican congress for 6 years and a republican president for 8. Just look around at the financial crisis and see where that got us. Obama’s plan is not great, but socialism it is not. An unbiased look at history shows that under republicans the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and chalking this up to the poor being lazy and “parasites” shows the conservatives are out of touch, out of their minds, and have abandoned their “christ like” principles. I am voting democrat this time
10. Tom Burnett | 10.14.08
I hope that most people can see through your twisting of the facts. Obama’s plan is far from socialism. From the way you assert your points, I would assume that you would be happy with letting half of America go homeless on the streets as long as no one asked you to contribute a dime to help out. What you “big money makers” fail to realize, is that the collapse of the middle class is the thread in your sweater. Pull them down and you too will soon be naked. Take note that true socialism is always the result of a greedy upper class. Eat the rich. Look at it this way : offer some sacrifices to the monster that is the population or it might come lumbering into your neighborhood to take what it needs to survive.
11. slbowman | 10.14.08
Then again, the “bailout” or “rescue plan” or whatever we are supposed to call it is an economic redistribution pure and simple. It takes from our children to assist banking elites’ vacation funds.
12. Christianscientist0507 | 10.14.08
I think it is important to note that any policies promoted by either candidate are just that, promotions. It still requires a voting congress; that is why we live a democracy not a socialist government. But along the lines of Obama’s plan being considered socialist, in this country we have seemed to virtue greed, accumulation of wealth, and personal accomplishment as Christian values. We have fallen into this idea that if we are successful then it is because God has blessed us and if we are struggling then maybe God is testing us or “building character.” These virtues could not be farther from what Christ taught. Jesus championed the widow’s mite and when asked by a wealthy man the way to heaven, Jesus replies by telling him to sell all he owns and give it to the poor, and countless times Christ teaches about “doing unto the least of these.” I find it sad that we have been misled to choose our sides based on two issues that seem minor in comparison to the millions of men, women, and children who do not know where their next meal will come from, or the tens of thousands who will loose their homes this year. If a government is not there to protect and care for its citizens, then why is it there at all? I think it is time we stop trying to assert “our rights” and focus on what we have been called to do as Christians, service to others. Our friends. Our neighbors. Our fellow citizens.
13. BlueDotRedSea | 10.14.08
I guess if I want to get financial handouts from the U.S. government teat under the McCain presidency, I need to be rich already. I guess I’m not too big to fail. To Senator McCain and the rich conservatives: The view is different down here for people like me, making $47k a year. I guess it’s my fault for not working harder.
15. Derek | 10.14.08
The fact is, if you are paying taxes, you are obviously working. So nobody is getting a free ride- whether you are a highly paid executive or a construction laborer. It’s undeniable that middle class until now have paid a greater percentage of their overall annual income in taxes than the wealthy 5%. If you make $250,000 or more you may pay more in taxes than someone who makes $40,000 but you pay a lower percentage of what you make and have more leftover after Uncle Sam takes his cut. That trickle-down philosophy has to go!
16. jon | 10.14.08
This redistribution of wealth stuff, is pure garbage.
What do you imagine, has been going on, with all the tax cuts to the wealthy?
Who makes up the difference? Yup, the rest of us.
The perfect example, is all the nonsense about the Inheritance Tax, the so-called *Death Tax.* You have millions of people, who will never get near any Inheritance Tax, whining about it.
Why? Because they’ve been brainwashed by the wealthy, and their mouthpieces (Hannity, Limbaugh, etc).
The truth is, that the redistribution of wealth HAS been going on, at an accelerated rate, over the past eight years. And the big loser has been the Middle-Class, which at present, barely exists.
Nothing *trickles* down to common folks, while we’ve been subsidizing the wealthy, and the Corporations.
Wake up, People. Stop buying this garbage.
Think before you vote!
17. George H. | 10.14.08
The Bush government has been spreading the wealth around for years, mostly to a select few. What is so wrong about doing it across the board? Do it for everyone or do it for no one. And no more of those tax rebates. Those are an insult.
18. John Keck | 10.14.08
If Bush’s $700 billion bailout is not “socialism” what is? The Bush administration has practiced socialism for the rich and the corporations. They just left out the middle and working class.
19. One BlackDemocrat | 10.14.08
In professional sports, this year’s number one team - the best team - the championship team does not get first pick in next year’s draft of new players. The best new talent pool (”wealth”) is redistributed to the worse teams. Why? How Marxist. Please ask these conservatives with their “heads on fire” to explain this crazy, liberal, socialistic system.
20. Will Jones | 10.14.08
The Ohio plumber may do a good job fixing leaks or installing commodes, but it’s clear he’s failed to pinpoint the source of the problem that now, G-d forbid, has America “circling the drain.”
The spiraling concentration of wealth by what can only be described as a false aristocracy - blind, deaf, and dumb to the pattern of serial treasons against the People and the Republic committed by the sectarian “bi-partisan” faction identified by Our Founder, Thomas Jefferson, as “the real Anti-Christ’s” Fifth Column - has been enhanced by the welfare fascism implemented by the 9/11-committing Bush/Cheney administration through the “redistribution of wealth” from the eighty percent Middle Class to the Wall Street usurers building Houses of Cards on hyperleveraged “froth” atop the unconstitutional Federal Reserve Bank foisted off on the United States by the same faction’s Robber Barons who built Roman Catholic Big Oil on unredressed murder and arson; financed Hitler and the Holocaust through Knight of Malta, and Vatican-banker Rockefeller frontman, Prescott Bush; promoted McCarthyism to silence Jews and intellectuals curious of the domestic funding of Nazism; killed President Kennedy, six weeks after his NSAM263 Vietnam withdrawal order, and Dr. King, to send 58,000 of us to die for papal interests in Rome’s “latifundial” estate of Indochina; imported illegal drugs to pay for IranContra weapons to support Central American fascists against the rise of Protestantism; robbed one-half trillion dollars in the S&L “bailout;” massacred the Seventh Day Adventists outside Waco for their “temerity” to explain over their own radio station of Rome’s takeover of Washington; blew up the Murrah Federal Building as a false-flag operation to prompt greater police powers; promote illegal immigration in conjunction with Rome’s openly published stratagem to takeover the U.S. at the ballot box (Viz. “National Pastoral Plan for Hispanic Ministry”); cheated Hitler’s banker’s, and JFK’s assassin’s offspring - a homosexual draft-dodger - into the White House through the patently unconstitutional decision of only the Roman Catholics on the Supreme Court in ‘Bush v. Gore’ (read Breyer’s sedulous dissent); and committed 9/11 (Viz.”The New Pearl Harbor,” Griffin, PhD) for heroin, oil, the Saudis, and a corrupt faction of false Jews in the State of Israel who, failing to realize G-d is watching, thought they could abet in the slaughter of 3,000 innocents at the WTC and the Pentagon yet consider themselves “righteous.”
There is a bright and clear line between those who support the humble, erudite manifestation of a fulfillment of Our Creed, “E Pluribus Unum,” and those, whether ignorant or venal, support the martial incompetent who, singing like a little bird to his captors after allowing through stupidity to let himself be shot down, and torching the Forrestal hot-dogging before take-off, compensated, having grown up on Capitol Hill by delusions of the presidency, came home to betray the faithful wife who waited with his children to lay with a trollop and married into the Mob.
The inbred trailer trash lacking the grace to call supporters protesters, with her confirmed abuse of office, lies and hypocrisy abounding, is the “icing” on McCain’s rotted “cake” which saw his short drunk admiral grandfather relieved of his command during WWII and his short drunk admiral father serve the assassins of JFK to oversee getting us dead for the pope in Vietnam fighting the Ho Chi Minh-led manifestation of Thomas Jefferson’s Whig Revolution against caesaropapism in South East Asia.
Support a Constitutional Law professor with a wife and family demonstrating the grace his speech reflects to any sentient listener; or a bullethead moron who wants to continue as a lemming into the abyss we have been thrown into by generations of traitors serving earthy evil intent on destroying America?
Is the choice really so difficult?
21. tunemakers | 10.14.08
Why is it that it’s only “redistribution of wealth” when the money goes from the rich to the poor? For the last 8 years it’s been steadily flowing the other way, from the poor working class to the wealthiest of the wealthy and we aplaud that as what, Capitilism? Why is it a wise and wonderful thing to spend 700 billion on bailing out the banks and the mere thought of 150 billion to help out working folks who have bourne the weight of this mess called socialism?
22. Greg Lockhead | 10.14.08
Although Obama’s tax plan is receiving a knee-jerk response as socialism, it might turn out to be aggressive capitalism. Just as small loans are essential for entrepreneurs to begin businesses, Obama’s “handouts” are certain to allow some (many?) people to begin a business and a dream. Of course, others of them will just spend the money, which means increased sales and profits for existing capitalists. If 1 out of 100 of these small “loans” results in a successful business, this will be a good investment. It is an experiment worth trying.
24. Mark Bohannon | 10.14.08
Most people I know with wealth did NOTHING to earn the money. They either inherited the wealth or made it off the sweat of other people forced to live on poverty level wages. There is a great need in this country, and world, to redistribute the wealth. Nobody is inferring that the redistributed wealth should go to anybody that doesn’t deserve it. That is nothing but right-wing, lunatic paranoia, and another excuse to be greedy.
26. Dougal | 10.14.08
I feel so sad reading this stuff in your newspaper, which in days gone by was a beacon of optimism and charity. Somehow you have been taken over by mean-spirited “conservatives” who have forgotten the basic human message of compassion. Perhaps Christian Science can now be lumped together with the hard right evangelical churches who preach hate and greed instead of love and charity…
27. bill | 10.14.08
Hes finally said it!!! What more could you need to prove that obama is nothing more than a full fledged communist!!!
28. Jimmy | 10.14.08
Wealthy make the laws that help the wealthy. Why don’t we have affordable healthcare…because congress never has to see how it expensive it is, we pay for it, their healthcare is free. If they had to write a monthly check for themselves and family then they would feel the pain.
RE: Redistribution of wealth…whatever, we have distributed wealth to the top 1% long enough, we just want what should never have been given to the top 1%, they got it by tax loop holes, corporate wealfare, etc.
29. P Dolan | 10.14.08
I thought this was a “non-partisan” blog. Time to remove that from your bio, Jimmy.
And nobody has ever redistributed the wealth more than W did, he redistributed it all to the wealthy.
30. Michael | 10.14.08
Listen, if you’ve ever been in a situation where you’re raising a family on one paycheck at $10/hr, you know that the earned income tax credit is the only way your kids are getting new shoes. Furthermore, higher taxes on the welathy didn’t really stifle the economy under Clinton, did they? Oh, and which party has run up the national debt with its irresponsible tax cuts for the wealthy? Right. And where has that gotten us?
May I also add, the only way this country is going to get its economy back on track, to reassert its dominance, is to invest heavily in health, education, research, energy, and infrastructure immediately. Government involvment in health care could reduce costs if done correctly. Education speaks for itself. We need research to underpin our investment in energy, and we need infrastructure period, plus it will put people back to work. So for all of that, we will need to tax the wealthy, and on top of that we will need additional deficit spending in the short term to get back on track, but when these investments pay off, the tax base will grow and we will be a stronger nation.
See, there is a difference between wise deficit spending, and blowing billions in the deserts of Iraq while the wealthiest get wealthier and everyone else suffers.
31. andrew | 10.14.08
WOW… Jimmy Orr you’re the Nations robin hood. Protecting that oh so fragile “other 5%” under the guise of “Socialism”… What you, the blogoshpere and John McCain can’t seem to explain is how a tax cut for the elites in hollywood, big business and an expansion of the Bush tax loopholes for major oil companies will benefit 95% of the the population, or how do people who don’t pay taxes benefit from a tax break, IF THEY DON”T PAY TAXES? Not redistribution… Higher taxes for those who make more in a year than any of us can earn and save in a decade.
And seriously “socialism…” Socialist is when a government to lobbies for the largest financial bailout in the nations history? And now the government is going to purchase stock in these companies. Government owned banking… what a predicament huh?
32. Heather | 10.14.08
The problem I see with this is motivation. What will be the motivation for those who are now earning good money to continue to do so; if it means they are just going to be taxed more?
And what is the motivation for others to work harder if they know that the government is going to give them money for nothing?
Isn’t this the problem we already have with welfare? I work with mentally ill adults who have no job. There lifestyle is better then mine, even though I work full time! They get 100% health care for free, they get to pay no more then $120 a month for an apartment that is at least 5 times larger then my apartment and they have more spending money in a week then I have about 2 months.
So, why should these people want to work? To have the same lifestyle they currenty have while collecting public benefits, they would need to make at least $32,000 a year!
33. Fair is fair | 10.14.08
It is not redistribution of wealth, it is doing away with the old “Company Store” economy from when middle class workers were taken advantage of by the rich coal barons and never had a chance to get out of debt or own anything of their own. The middle class is being sucked dry by so many greedy corporate enities (banks, oil companies, health care providers, etc.) that we don’t have a chance anymore. This has been fully supported by the GOP. With Obama, we will finally have someone looking out for us.
34. Matt | 10.14.08
I love how the fiscal conservatives still seem convinced that a capital gains cut just makes people jump out and start creating excellent jobs that help the economy.
What it does is make sure that everyone who’s already squeezing all the profit they can out of their company at the expense of all their workers can keep doing that, and new workers who are trapped in even more underpaid jobs continue to struggle to make ends meet, while the people who started those companies get to make even more money and contribute less back to the American people.
Trickle down economics is just like the communism that conservatives think is so evil, it sounds great on paper, but in practice it just doesn’t work.
35. allan wallace | 10.14.08
Ah America, we knew you well. It is sad to see a post capitalist society disintegrate - but once we have reached this level - it is almost inevitable.
As Ron Paul said in 2007 - if we did away with all income tax, it would bring government revenue back to where it was in 1997. Personally, I could live with a lot less government than we had in ‘97.
Think how the economy would soar if we could keep the money, and spend the money, we earn. The government uses our money to create a few more government jobs - we would create jobs with our own money also - in businesses that provide what we need and want.
36. MikeyG | 10.14.08
We have had many years of tax breaks for the rich, deregulation and corporate welfare. So why are our jobs disappearing? Why have our wages stagnated while executive compensation has reached obscene levels? Why have we gone from a government surplus to a huge deficit? Why have our dependable defined-benefit retirement plans been replaced with “you’re on your own” 401k savings plans, which are now disappearing before our eyes? My parents were able to own a home and raise a family on a milk-man’s wages, why are two income families struggling now? Meanwhile, Bill Gates fell from first place in the richest-person sweepstakes with a net worth of only 55 billion!
Trickle down economics has been given years to work. Nothing trickled down and the middle class has been left holding the bag. The rich are not bad people; they should not be punished for being rich; but they should be willing to pay their fair share. Just as I understand that I pay a higher tax rate than a person trying to get by on minimum wage, the truly rich should be willing to pay a higher tax rate on their income, whether it is a salary, investment earnings, or capital gains.
If you want to make US businesses more competitive, how about removing the crushing burden of employee health care with a universal health care plan?
37. lucy2008 | 10.14.08
I’ve never read an article so ridiculous. The poor understanding and level of “class-based” description of our economy is disingenuous.
Senator Obama’s economic program has been reviewed by economists all over with positive praise. The 95% tax cut for working families isn’t a new feature. This isn’t a handout. These people are middle class working families. To have idealogues on the right decry this socialism, is a travesty as the country is hurting. For shame. Only when Senator McCain is losing by 10% spread of the citizen vote and >60% spread of the electoral college vote, we hear the “s” word.
As it should be, the level of US government support for commerce is overwhelming. The level of government support of the rich and corporations is overwhelming. Government funds (at all levels) infrastructure and investment. Investment is treated fundamentally different than money made by labor.
It is easy when you have a lot of money and capital, that tax “cuts” work to benefit. However, this fueled our huge federal government deficit (from a $500B surplus) to $800B during the last 8ys. The benefit of this “distribution of wealth” to the rich and corporations did not benefit the middle class. In fact the middle class is shrinking and what use to be a single earner family are two earner family. The definition of middle class- the backbone of our democracy- has changed.
A little support for the middle class, which has not benefited from a trickle down theory is only fair.
38. Hank Fay | 10.14.08
Is the provision of food, shelter, clothing, health care and education for the poor, the sick and the weak, the elderly and the young, socialism? Or is it our duty to which we have been called by God? Every major religion of the past 7,000 years has stressed this duty. To cloud it over with other labels is a much worse wrong than simply ignoring that duty: it is an outright rejection and fight against that duty. Obama has consistently said he is here to tell us what we need to hear, not what we want to hear. We need to hear that this is our duty.
Factually, unless that plumber makes it into the top 5%, he is going to be saving under the Obama tax plan, not losing. And by the time he is pre-tax netting $140,000 (about the 5% cutoff), the little bit more he will pay will be a very small percentage of that. Most of us would love to have that problem.
39. Chipper | 10.14.08
I am tired of being trickled on by the GOP and the rich. The “redistribution of wealth” has been going on for years from the pockets of the middle class to the rich. It’s time for a correction.
40. bekbek | 10.14.08
Investors Business Daily says (as you’ve quoted), “An across-the-board cut would be a real middle-class rescue, focused on generating new private sector employment — the proven way of ’spreading the wealth around.’”
The trouble with this is that it’s actually PROVEN from the past several years to NOT WORK. That’s not “spreading the wealth,” that’s the same old trick-down theory that isn’t working right now.
We tried it your way. It’s got us into a hole. Why would we want to keep trying this failed strategy?
41. David K. | 10.14.08
Let’s broaden our horizons a bit, shall we?
What about infusing over a trillion $ directly into the US banks in exchange for a majority stake, isn’t that socialism? Perhaps Hugo Chavez and George W. have more in common than we thought.
What about cutting taxes for the richest 2% of Americans with no such cut for the middle class while paying for two wars on credit? (The implication being that the middle class will pay for it later just as they’re paying for it now in the form of inflated gasoline prices.)
I’m sorry, is that not “income redistribution”? I fail to see how the status quo is the best of all possible worlds unless you *do* happen to make a quarter of a million dollars a year or above when the middle class hasn’t had a tax break in 15 years. What you’re describing is not the American Dream of open-door, equal opportunity for all, it’s oligarchy and moneyed aristocracy, 90% of which is inherited and not by merit, hiding beneath the umbrella terms of “free market”, “pay according to merit”, et cet.
Why call it a redistribution of wealth at all? That’s merely one desirable result. The motive is REDRESSING THE BALANCE.
42. mich222 | 10.14.08
One can’t help but be astonished and depressed by the irony - that Republicans have so badly managed the US economy that THEY have invoked Socialism as their way out of the mess. Good riddance to these incompetent blow-hards.
By the way, the next time I hear someone say that unregulated ‘Private Business’ is intrinsically better at managing money than the government, I think I’ll throw up. Here here to redistributing the income of business executives and wall-street MBA’s to people who actually do and make things in this country.
43. Alvin Homebody | 10.14.08
Obama may be socialist, which is what you are claiming, but remember one thing, the Constitution makes it explicit: “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives,” as stated in Article 1, Section 7. Meaning, Obama will have no authority to make Law; his job will be to execute the Law should he be appointed President.
44. An educated white male | 10.14.08
1) Bush’s 700 billion dollar donation just saved the economy, open your eyes or look at the DOW to see for yourself. Without it, who knows if we would have rebounded.
2) Reditribution of wealth? Ok i get it, since I work and my neighbor is lazy and does not work, i owe him money? I’ll just quit my job so he has to pay me!
3) The slogan of Communism is ‘everything equal’. One of the ways they acheive this is by redistribution of wealth + property. Why don’t we go ask Russia how the USSR worked out.
4) All of Obama’s plans call for giving out money, where do you think this money will come from? Sorry, but the 1 % of america making $ 250,000 + is not going to support the other 99%. Money will come out of the middle class and go to the lower class.
5) Obama + Biden is the first presidential ticket in 30+ years with no military service for either canidates. McCain maybe be old, but being old is what a president is. Age is wisdom.
*******************
VOTE AMERICA, VOTE McCAIN PALIN
45. Sid Chitnis | 10.14.08
Hey, cut the man some slack - after all, Robin Hood of Nottingham did the same thing so many centuries ago, and we have romantic ballads written in his honor.
46. Jerry | 10.14.08
Jeez Will Jones did you take a breath of air when you were typing that 400 word sentence, I tried to follow your logic and could not. In 2001 just after 9/11 Bush had and 72% approval rating which means 28% of the country though he was still a nut job, some of us even said invading Iraq was a bad move. The 72% however said that we were unpatriotic, we were pinko communists, etc.
I rememeber Rice famous words if we dont go in now we risk the chance of a smoking gun turning into a mushroom cloud. Initially the invasion was about freeing the Iraqi people, then it changed to the accusation that Iraq was involved in 9/11, (this is still believed in many areas, if you tell a lie enough eventually it will sound like the truth), eventually it was they have nuclear and biological weapons. Rumsfeld said he knew right where they were (the dumbest statement ever made) ” I know right where the WMDs are they are north,south,east, and west of Baghdad”.
The media naturally will not question that type of statement because they want the war. A war is good business for the media why would they attempt to stop it. DEATH makes for good news.
The media will not start anything now about Obama’s past because it will make better headlines to question how he could be president with all the baggage he is carrying with him. All his associations from the past will come back to haunt him after he is elected not before, as Tim Russert proved its JUST TO CLOSE TO CALL. That makes good news.
47. El Cerebro | 10.14.08
Call it “redistribution of wealth” if you like. I call it “redistribution of value”. Taking some of the excessive value we place on some and giving a little of it back to those who have continued to be de-valued for a long time.
48. James | 10.14.08
Here’s the issue I take with both sides. Supposedly you’re saying, if you work hard, then Obama’s government would take part of your money and give it to people who don’t work. I don’t see it that way.
I have been out of steady work for over 7 years. I am now a stay-at-home dad. I raise my son and do a little bit of side work. I don’t make $200,000 a year. I have never made that in my entire life. Neither has my wife. There are those who have. I’m not saying they don’t work hard, but that money comes from somewhere.
Capitalism in general is a trickle-up economy The money trickles up to the owners of everything. It trickles from the many to the few. And it tends to stay there.
This has been a big idea of real conservatives since before Reagan. If you give more wealth to the wealthy, then it will trickle down to the many in the way of jobs and investments.
The problem with that is, it has never worked.
Obama is proposing that the wealthy give back some of the wealth to the government to be redistributed to those who actually need it. It’s not charity or welfare. Wealth redistribution has been a staple of all economies since man invented trading.
When wealth floats to the top, it tends to stay there. And the wealthy are not investing in America or Americans. They are sending their wealth oversees to bring jobs there and the returns come back to the wealthy.
In this global economy, The trickle down is trickling down to Bangalore, India. It doesn’t create jobs in America. American workers are too expensive for domestic investment. And the wealthy no longer care about Americans.
Thus, they must be encouraged to invest in America by wealth redistribution. It’s better for their money to go to the US government, than invested oversees in cheap labor or products.
If Barack Obama gets elected, it would be quite possible for us to make more on our tax return than we bring home from our jobs. Considering right now, one-third of our pay goes straight to health insurance. With that extra money, we could get out of debt and start building our own wealth. Americans aren’t saving anything. They can’t afford to save. This will help Americans with their debt and alleviate strain on banks who would then be able to loan more money to people who could actually afford to pay it back. The trickle-up effect works until the wealth gets redistributed back to the wealthy. By then, however, the middle class will grow and debt will decrease.
49. dullard | 10.14.08
A rising tide, lifts all boats. However… the folks without boats (fixed income / disabled, whatever) just sort of drowned. Before we sail off to enjoy the great yachting weather, it might be worth throwing out a life preserver to the “parasite class”.
51. Brandon | 10.14.08
Again, most of those who have commented have it wrong! Let’s take from the rich and give to the poor! Why? Well, because we feel bad for them. We need them. They are the engine of our economy! Wait a second! No, they’re not! We are going to take money from those individuals out working, paying a high-level of taxes already, and managing business and give it to those who take, take, take but refuse to give anything to our country. Our tax system is already progressive, taxing those that WORK harder and make MORE worse than anyone else. Those that are fortunate enough to be in that class of people not only pay more in taxes to support the lower class, but they also forgo many of the advantages offered to the lower classes, like financing for education. They are expected with their higher incomes to be able to afford these things, despite the fact that they are realistically taking home 60% of their income, because of failed government programs and taxes. But wait, instead of fixing the programs in place and doing more with the taxes they already pay by reducing spending and forcing the government to handle the massive amounts of money it already receives responsibly, let’s simply take more! Now, I’m going to go out on a limb and hope that everyone is capable of seeing this rationally and understanding the correlation. A small business is in trouble. It’s spending more money than it’s bringing in and it can’t afford to pay its employees, much less grow. What does this business do? Does it buckle? No! American businesses find a way! They do more with less! They cut fat and streamline their processes! These are the things our government needs to do! We’ve been handing money to the government for decades, expecting it to figure out how to finance these programs and run itself, yet it hasn’t happened. It’s not going to happen, so long as we continue to put individuals in office with no basic understanding of finance and management.
As a recent entrant into the world of full-time employment, I can attest to the absurdity of our tax system. I am a single male with a modest, at best, income, yet 40% of my paycheck is gone before I get it. Is this the American dream of which you speak?
A flat tax rate could fix all of this! Why do I need to pay more than the next guy? Let’s all contribute an equal percentage! That’s equality! That would be a real redistribution of wealth! Let everyone keep the EXACT SAME percentage of their income. Wouldn’t that be grand?
52. Brandon | 10.14.08
Again, most of those who have commented have it wrong! Let’s take from the rich and give to the poor! Why? Well, because we feel bad for them. We need them. They are the engine of our economy! Wait a second! No, they’re not! We are going to take money from those individuals out working, paying a high-level of taxes already, and managing business and give it to those who take, take, take but refuse to give anything to our country. Our tax system is already progressive, taxing those that WORK harder and make MORE worse than anyone else. Those that are fortunate enough to be in that class of people not only pay more in taxes to support the lower class, but they also forgo many of the advantages offered to the lower classes, like financing for education. They are expected with their higher incomes to be able to afford these things, despite the fact that they are realistically taking home 60% of their income, because of failed government programs and taxes. But wait, instead of fixing the programs in place and doing more with the taxes they already pay by reducing spending and forcing the government to handle the massive amounts of money it already receives responsibly, let’s simply take more! Now, I’m going to go out on a limb and hope that everyone is capable of seeing this rationally and understanding the correlation. A small business is in trouble. It’s spending more money than it’s bringing in and it can’t afford to pay its employees, much less grow. What does this business do? Does it buckle? No! American businesses find a way! They do more with less! They cut fat and streamline their processes! These are the things our government needs to do! We’ve been handing money to the government for decades, expecting it to figure out how to finance these programs and run itself, yet it hasn’t happened. It’s not going to happen, so long as we continue to put individuals in office with no basic understanding of finance and management.
As a recent entrant into the world of full-time employment, I can attest to the absurdity of our tax system. I am a single male with a modest, at best, income, yet 40% of my paycheck is gone before I get it. Is this the American dream of which you speak?
A flat tax rate could fix all of this! Why do I need to pay more than the next guy? Let’s all contribute an equal percentage! That’s equality! That would be a real redistribution of wealth! Let everyone keep the EXACT SAME percentage of their income. Wouldn’t that be grand?
53. dan | 10.14.08
omg I find it amazing the lack of any kind of research put into your comment on this subject.
the top 5% pay 40% of all taxes right now, the highest in the history of America
the bottom 50% pay no taxes that’s right NO taxes.
If you raise taxes on everyone that makes $250,000 you will affect a large amount of small busnies do you really think they will suffer or will they just cut an employee.
Plus don’t you get it Oboma is not talking about a tax break for them but a WELFARE CHECK for them. Money for nothing! Is that really the American way?
54. Jean | 10.14.08
Not sure if anyone else notices, but the video looks like it was edited to me. And of all the networks…..from FOX!!? I’m sure more was said, and some clever editing was done of the video. Why don’t they show the full video.
55. Grendelblogger | 10.14.08
You cannot call the Bush policies and the recent moves to nationalize our Banks conservatism, or even Republican ideals. They are distasteful now because it is socialism. Neo cons are as vile as democrats. Wake up people, both Democracts and Republicans want to enslave us using socialism. Barack is just a little more open because of his arrogance. If we cannot stand up to what is going on now we are lost. Just look how weak the anti war crowd is compared to the sixties and seventies. Everybody is dulled by their sububrban convenience lifestyle. It’s going to be a bumpy ride for sure.
56. Thomas Richter | 10.14.08
for the past 40 years while the super rich became even super richer and the middle class vanished while the poor became even poorer, we glossed that over calling it “free market” and “capitalism.” Now, that we recognize the deathgrip that the wealthy have had on the working class to the point of oppression and further recognize that we need to take corrective action to repay for our sins the last 40 years, we want to call it income re-distribution. Why is it that when the money goes one direction its “American” but when it goes the other direction its not ?
57. MAX | 10.14.08
If you would like to have redistribution of wealth to those who have not earned it, then by all means, please move to a country that already has that system in place. It’s obvious that all of you that support this kind of action have learned nothing from history, or are even to ignorant to compare.
58. “…his blog is non-partisan.” | 10.14.08
Somewhat off topic, but can anyone explain why Orr’s “non-partisan” blog exclusively sources FOX News, WSJ, and a handful of right-wing blogs?
Also, this has to be the first time in the history of the internet that a blog’s comment section has made more sense than the blog being commented on. Kudo, commentators.
59. Alseifus | 10.14.08
While the top 1% of US earners, collectively, make nearly twice that of the bottom 50%, those at the top also currently pay 13 times more in individual income taxes combined.
Those earners in the top 1% pay 39.89% of all federal individual income taxes. The bottom 50% of earners pay just 2.99% of those taxes.
This is the first time that the bottom half of taxpayers have paid less than 3% of the total income-tax bill.
More taxes for the rich is not the answer either.
Remember… Robin Hood was a thief.
60. Martin, GA | 10.14.08
The problem is that the executive branch of large companies or banks forgot that they started all as a small business and with loyal employees and loyal clients that trusted them. Once the company got bigger greed set in and then many employees and small clients became a burden…The problem is not socialism it is business ethics: If we have a family business we don’t kick out uncle harry because he eats too much, or daddy because he is too old we cut all back and if we make less money then it will effect all of the employees in a family business. Not so in a big corporation and not so in politics: companies try to stay in the black numbers: tough luck for uncle Harry and Daddy only shareholders and the directors have to make their share. The same in politics: Politicians will not cut back their salaries in tough times… And also tough look for clients and citizens ..
It is so easy to use words like socialism and communism instead taking true responsibility.
62. matt | 10.14.08
For all your harsh criticism, I see no supporting arguments or evidence for your claims; only the parroting of others making the same claim. In fact, I’ve seen no such substantiation from anyone making these claims. Thus, I have no choice but to conclude that it is a deceitful attempt to play on bitter decades-old social divisions. I find your partisan rancor and choosing to echo the calling of our fellow Americans ‘parasites’ patently unchristian.
63. Lou | 10.14.08
Here is the problem with the idea of “taxing the rich, and cutting taxes for the poor.”
The Rich DON’T PAY TAXES. The Poor DON’T PAY TAXES.
The Middle class pays the taxes.
We either pay through direct ways (taxes) or indirect ways (higher prices because the goods and services we need are taxed and the increase passed onto us.) The only way to alleveate my taxes is to decrease the size and expense of government, and to expand the middle class through the creation of QUALITY jobs. The government giving my money to poor people is going to work counter to both of those objectives. The government giving my money to rich people might bring more jobs and defray the cost.
NOT taking my money in the first place, and lowering the size of the government (at all levels) will allow me to give the money to the rich people that I want to buy stuff from so that at least I get value in return, and then those rich people, if not over-taxed, give their money to poor people via charities of thier choosing and through the creation of JOBS. For those who don’t want to work. I don’t have a lot of sympathy, I don’t want to work either, but someone has to do it.
64. Geoff | 10.14.08
Somewhat off topic, but can anyone explain why Orr’s “non-partisan” blog exclusively sources FOX News, WSJ, and a handful of right-wing blogs?
Also, this has to be the first time in the history of the internet that a blog’s comment section has made more sense than the blog being commented on. Kudo, commentators.
65. Captain Barky | 10.14.08
We’ve Walmarted most of our manufacturing to China, we’ve let the “whiz kids” on Wall Street devise chicanery of the most devious and complex kind without any oversight, and now we’re supposed to be worried about the rich biches not being able to make it to Naples next year????
I’ll tell you what. Let’s have a Workingman’s Gains Tax Cut, and let’s get some jobs back in the good ol’ USA that aren’t leaving for China on the next whim of some insulated Jack-donkey in his corner office.
My great-grandfather had a picture of FDR on his wall, in a flag-decorated frame. I didn’t quite understand why, but I do now. The rich didn’t like FDR very much, and that seems to be a good qualifier for political office. I live in a reactionary neighborhood, where people worry more about their 401’s than they do about their kids. Watching them jump through hoops to come up with ways to justify support of the Odd Couple this year has been pretty entertaining. Almost as good as the Popish plots detailed for us in the comments above.
66. kens | 10.14.08
It is hard to understand what McCain and his campaign consider worth going after. We are asking a RINO who wants to go down in history as “Mr. Honorable” who “reached across the aisle” than as someone who stood up for conservative values, to pull capitalism’s chestnuts out of the fire! Who are we kidding? Ourselves, evidently. The next time McCain mentions ‘reaching across the aisle’ in bipartisan comity, just think about that arm being bitten off and his head beaten by the bloody stump! What a dolt!
67. rick | 10.14.08
I can no longer afford to buy my way into Heaven, and nobody cares. I think Bob Dylan said that. If those that “are” able to purchase a ticket to heaven, are going to be there, then the other place souunds a lot better. I said that.
68. Theodore | 10.14.08
What say both sides to the facts: 1. Top 10% pay over 70% of tax burden. 2. Bottom 50% pay 3%. What are the right proportions.
69. This site is “Out of Touch” | 10.14.08
This site and it’s authors “just don’t get it”. It’s pointless to continue discussion in a biased forum. If nobody is willing to take responsibility for their actions, then it’ll be forced upon them one way or another.
That’s certain the Christian way.
70. clamberite | 10.14.08
The irony here is that the enormous Republican deficits starting with Reagan are transfers of wealth from generations yet unborn to the wealthy of our day who otherwise would be paying higher taxes. Worse the hypocrisy is that these deficits are tax increases on these future generations, another thing supposedly anathema to Republicans. Then there is the baloney about Social Security which in the end is a money problem, so the Republican angst about the future and SS is a joke when you add up all the extra debt from the tax cuts for the higher end folks to the SS debt. If they were really concerned about SS they wouldn’t be adding to the debt burden of the younger generations. If I were a young person I would cut my hand off before I would vote for a Republican. Kids couldn’t be more screwed by this generation of Republicans.
71. Enzo Vicenza | 10.14.08
America…My family came here in the 20’s to live free. We moved to Chicago and started to do brick and stone work. We worked hard, paid taxes (not much back then). I couldn’t go to school because my family was all “wops”. When my father died I took over the business. We got paid because we did good work. No one got welfare; no one got handouts. My sister did laundry and my brother worked in the stockyard. This government let us be free. We laughed and sang and had a decent house. Over the years we made friends because we worked hard and loved people. Now, because of government interference and Corporate greed, I have lost all my savings and investments. I’m 89 years old. How do I start over? How do my children build houses and feed their children? What have you done to our Country?
Why did you kill us? We trusted you. My children and grandchildren want to go back to Italy to grow wine for greedy americans. Who will say: “we are killing our people”; Who will pay for my funeral. Now…I cannot pay.
72. Sam | 10.14.08
After looking over the list of people against the plans of Obama, then going back and looking at their record of the last 7 yrs, it appears they have been wrong on almost everything. This is the same group that pushed for invading a country that never attacked America. This is the same group that has blindly followed Bushco while he tore up the Constitution so he could spy on American Citizens both home and aboard. This is the group that cheered when it was exposed that Bush supported Torture, cheered him on.
I could go on and on but you should of gotten my point by now. If you are still part of that 20% that would follow Bushco as he invades Iran nothing I say could change your quisling minds and lemming like behavior. If you are part of the group that has slowly seen the insanity of this admin., know that to elect McCain is to vote for more and more insanity and US policy.
73. Income Tax Payer | 10.14.08
Uhmm……I may be a bit ignorant here but how is it that more than 1/3 of the US population aren’t paying income tax? How do I get to be part of that group?
74. Middle Class Mom | 10.14.08
Some have noted that Christianity encourages the wealthy to voluntarily give to the poor, which is quite true, and it is known as giving to charity. When the government takes from the rich and gives to the poor that is not charity, it is forced redistribution of wealth, and in extreme forms known as socialism and communism.
If a business is going to be taxed to the extremes, why shouldn’t that business go to another country where it will not be so heavily taxed? That is exactly what will happen under Obama. The rich companies will be heavily taxed. Those companies will move overseas, and take their jobs with them. There will then be fewer jobs for the middle class to have. People, is that really what you want?
76. Kyle L. | 10.14.08
First of all, let’s agree on one thing. All tax policy benefits someone. That’s what keeps Congressmen powerful and lobbyists rich. As long as government and business are intertwined, those who have money and access benefit while those who do not lose. That’s the way it’s been for the last eight years, where the accumulation of wealth has been directed solely up the ladder.
While the richest received tax cuts and the same investment bankers and hedge fund managers who have nearly bankrupted our entire economy pay their income tax at the capital gains rate, the middle class has been left to bear the burden of multiple wars, corporate incentives, unprecedented bailouts, and interest on the national debt that has, incredibly, doubled in the last seven years. AND YOU WANT MORE????
Obama will give a tax credit to those WHO WORK but are always one mishap away from catastrophe. He will shift the burden away from the struggling middle class a little bit. And what does he ask in return? That the wealthiest people in the country go back to paying what they paid under Ronald Reagan.
Take your redistribution of wealth argument and stick it where the sun don’t shine.
77. JM | 10.14.08
I’m really happy that there are so many intelligent comments in response to this article and hardly any stupid “Obama is a Communist” comments that you commonly see on other newspapers like Fox News. Although this article is flawed and biased, at least the readers are intelligent!
I would like to agree with something that I read on here.
Just as pure Communism is flawed due to human nature and greed, trickle down economics is also flawed for the same reason.
78. Bill in San Diego | 10.14.08
It’s a pity that conservatives have so little sense of nuance. “With us or against us,” “Freedom or slavery,” “Capitalism or socialism” are all false dichotomies. Capitalism lets more capable people earn more wealth and have more influence over the economy. The absolutists, however, can’t understand that *extreme* disparity in income not only threatens social stability, but actually reduces economic growth. Sure, there is some trickle-down effect, but there’s also trickle-up. If they weren’t ideologically opposed … on the basis of philosophically flawed but strongly held beliefs … conservatives would realize that the trick is not to avoid all regulation/taxation, but to get the right balance of regulation/taxation for maximum growth.
Data for the whole period from 1948 to 2007, during which Republicans occupied the White House for 34 years and Democrats for 26, show average annual growth of real gross national product of 1.64 percent per capita under Republican presidents versus 2.78 percent under Democrats. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html). It correlates with a tendency to increasing income disparity under Republican administrations. Get your partisan blinders off and read the article. Because of the “rising tide” effect, under Democratic administrations the less affluent do somewhat better, but the wealthiest *do not do worse.*
If you can dispense with absolutism, you can help guide the country to a condition of both greater justice and greater economic growth. But if making an impure economic system “more impure” makes you grate your teeth, while making it “less impure” makes you happy even if it increases misery, then I guess you’re just a Grinch who would sooner cut out his heart than be more generous. Mind you, I’m not talking about significantly changing your standard of living, or even your relative position in the economic pecking order … just slightly reducing the excessive distance from top to bottom of the income spectrum.
Obama’s statement differed from JFK’s, but you’re stretching to make a case that the meaning is different. It’s true that adjusting the tax laws gradually shifts the wealth balance a bit. It’s true that economic imbalance tends to rise under Republicans, and tends to fall under Democrats. Neither is an absolutely pure economic system, far from it, so one would think that the best impure system would be the one sought. Given that the evidence suggests that the Democratic balance is better in every sense than the Republican balance, it seems that the only argument in favor of the Republican approach is based on a theoretical construct that frankly has nothing to do with reality … a quest for a pure capitalistic system that does not exist, has never existed, will never exist, and wouldn’t be worth a damn if it did exist.
Many conservatives believe that it is their individual effort that generates their wealth, and Ayn Rand loved to stroke that conceit. The fact is that our nation is wealthy in *large* part because it is well-organized, based on equitable laws, and has an efficient infrastructure, as well as because it rewards achievement and innovation. Those who think their wealth is due solely to their own ability are encouraged to move to Rwanda, Russia, Mexico or Columbia and try out their extraordinary skills there, to convince themselves that the magnitude of their success is largely due to the system. The people who make the most money benefit *by far* the most from the general system of government; therefore, it’s entirely proper that they should pay for the system at least proportionally to how much they benefit from it.
Furthermore, the relationship between income and actual spendable (disposable) income isn’t linear — it’s only after one pays for basic necessities that income becomes disposable. The lowest-income working people are virtual wage slaves, able to accumulate nothing. They don’t lose 35% of their income to taxes — they lose 100% of their income to the “cost of doing business,” i.e., the cost of existing, which oddly isn’t factored into the tax laws even though no business pays taxes on the cost of doing business. And FICA is a wholly regressive tax on every dollar of “income,” even though that dollar is really just paying for the cost of doing business.
Labeling a shift in tax policy “socialism” may set a conservative’s hair on fire, but it is just like all the scare tactics that work so well with conservatives. The bogeyman is not going to hurt you. Don’t just mindlessly oppose changes in tax policy because they will shift the income distribution … of course they will. Instead, consider whether they shift it in a way that is better for the country as a whole, and is not ultimately worse for even the greatest producer/earners. Quit being so ideological about a system that will never be (and should never be) pure, and be rational instead.
79. Jim R | 10.14.08
We don’t want “Obama Whatever” crewing up America! I am not going to vote to make Mr. Obama’s mess happen!
My two cents — everyone should pay the same % of tax.
80. seedobecome | 10.14.08
Since Obama knows about living on food stamps then maybe he will expand the program to include toilet paper, tooth paste, laundry/dish detergent or dare I say, paper and pencil? That would help those that are “unable” to provide for themselves to avoid criminal activity. Socialism will kill all the spirits, aka John Galt, and will replace them with attitudes of why bother to try spirits.
81. wallace norway | 10.14.08
Any person who considers himself rich either got the money no frills or with frills. If you got it with no frills ..then there is nothing to fear…you will make much more under the Obama system ( read how to get rich in America By Josh Hyatt, Robert’s ‘Rich Dad Poor Dad’, Mr Hill’s ‘Think and grow rich’, etc). THE ATTAINMENT OF A FAIR AND JUST SOCIETY IS OPPORTUNITY EQUALITY. Obama’s plans offers more of that than McCains.
“That which Fortune has not given, she cannot take away.” -Seneca the Younger
82. Lara M. | 10.14.08
I think this is going to make the rest of us small business-owners either l) leave the country (as I am planning to do) and/or hide our money in “stuff”.
83. Richard Eich | 10.14.08
First of all, class warfare is what happened to Marie Antoinette. We’re just talking economic and tax policy.
If tax cuts for those at the very top are great for the economy, then why — after those deep Bush tax cuts from 2001 — are we sitting in the worst economy since the Great Depression?
And McCain says that we just need to cut taxes MORE for those at the very top to get things going in the right direction? That’s like saying the solution to doing the wrong things is to do them faster. McCain should be laughed off the podium every time he spouts that nonsense.
84. crowdreamer | 10.14.08
From the article: “But it could also mean government taking from one group of people (the people who earned it) and giving it to those who did not.”
The problem is, those who “earned” it, didn’t really earn it. When CEO’s are making 400 times what the average person makes, even after making bad decisions that cost taxpayers money, they FAR from earned it. And if the market is not going to correct this problem, I say government needs to step in and TAKE that unearned money.
I’m surprised there are still lots of die-hard republicans out there who still haven’t learned the lesson–that “trickle-down” economics doesn’t work. I mean, we had six solid years of Republican rule where this was applied, didn’t we? How much more time and how much worse does our economy need to get to prove to them that you can’t give to the riches one percent and expect them to go and buy enough to prop up the entire economy??? Giving to the middle class works–they go out and spend every extra dollar they get, the rich just hoard it until they own every dollar in existence.
85. Burns Best | 10.14.08
LISTEN FOLKS: Under Obama 100% of Americans will see a tax rate increase!!!
100% of Americans will see an increase in their income tax rates under Obama’s plan, meaning they will take home less during the year.
WHO DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THAT?
That translates to reduced paychecks, less money avaliable to pay bills or healthcare, put toward retirement, or to save. Do you really think Obama is going to give you as much money back in tax credits (not tax cuts) as he says. This is the guy who broke his pledge to take public financing, the guy who said he had no idea Rev Wright was preaching hate for 20 years, and the same guy who would filibuster the wire tapping amendment, and voted for it. Should I go on…. I guess I am just too cynical?
My guess , if his record is any indication, is that you won’t get half of what he says, and he will blame all of his failures on the “failed policies of the Bush Administration.”
I don’t make $250,000 a year, and don’t care if tax rates go up on the richest of Americans. But don’t sell me a “tax cut” that isn’t a tax cut. Am I wrong to dislike Big Gov’t for telling me they know how to spend my money better than I do?
86. Hemi | 10.14.08
Straight up “socialism! How about the straight up Fascism we have now. Dictator George has destroyed the country. And what about this little Tid Bit of information I dug up. American workers are currently paying more than they need to in Social Security taxes in order to finance tax cuts for the super rich. In the book, Perfectly Legal: Johnston explains that in 1983, Congress began asking American workers to pay 50 percent more into Social Security than the system would pay out in benefits. The explicit promise, says Johnston, was that the funds would be used to pay off the federal debt so that the government would have the borrowing capacity to pay Social Security benefits to the Baby Boomers when they began retiring. Instead, Johnston says, the surplus money has been spent on tax cuts mainly benefiting the richest one percent of the population. “We have financed these tax cuts in good part by using the Social Security surplus,” Johnston told National Public Radio host Terry Gross. “If you make about $90,000 or less, you will pay 50 percent more than needed into the Social Security system, and that money will go to finance tax cuts for the super rich.” Now this started in 1983 so you can immagine how much money we’ve been robbed of. Now you know why Obama wants to even up the score. What did the last round of Bush tax cuts do for us. He pays these corporations our tax dollars to move overseas. We’re paying them to fire us. If you can’t see that Bush is trying to build a world of low wage slaves that get no pension or retirement your crazy. These people don’t care about this country. Their to busy trying to build their one world Government freak show..
87. Brandon | 10.14.08
The socialist policies of Democrats passed afford this 33% the right to not pay taxes, while the rest of us make up the difference. Someone earlier asked what the right percentage is with regards to the tax rates. Again, I wonder what everyone’s opposition to a flat tax system is? Would that not be the most “equal and fair” method of taxation? What about higher sales taxes? Then, those that can buy products and make the choice to buy goods and services pay taxes on those purchases.
Wait a second though… These ideas probably won’t be accepted, because they make too much sense…
88. Randy | 10.14.08
Hilarious. When the money is taken from the middle class and given to the rich through tax cuts, it’s “supply side economics.”
When the money is taken from the rich and given to the middle class through tax cuts, it’s called “socialism.”
89. Kelly | 10.14.08
I have no problem helping people out that need it… But lets be fair here.
30% of Americans do not pay a dime in taxes. The “rich” pay 38-40% income taxes which make up 70% of overall tax money in the US.
So my question is… what percentage should the “rich” have to pay to be fair?
80%,90%? Let’s get real.
My husband and I grew up in MS poor, with no money, no help from the government. Both of us struggled through school and paid our on way.
My husband now at 31 has a good job and we finally bought our first house.
I am a stay at home mom thinking about going back to work full time but by Obama’s plan if I go back to work that will put us into the “rich” category and therefore I will be taxed more for trying to better myself and my family.
So, how is that fair?
Let’s take care of the sick, elderly and the families struggling to feed their families by cutting the overspending in congress. Let people like myself that struggled through school prosper buy opening buisnesses and creating jobs and not punish us for trying to be successful.
90. chiepayne | 10.14.08
Let ME get this straight…when the government bails out banks and financial institutions, you have serious issues with it, call is socialism and call for the heads of those who voted for it (which you SHOULD do, by the way)…
BUT if Obama wants to take money from the wealthy (which I STILL think won’t happen because the rich will simply hide their money in tax shelters, etc so the middle class will end up footing the bill, as usual) and give it to non-tax-paying individuals, you have NO PROBLEM with that???!!!
IT’S THE SAME THING!!! SOCIALISM IS SOCIALISM, no matter WHO does it!!!
91. Rindacella | 10.14.08
Wow - I’m poor. I had no idea how much I was gonna get by voting Obama. He bought me off. I’m votin for him. Oh and I’m invitin a bunch of my relatives to join me in America too. They need the money and the libs are such a givin group. 
92. Richard Eich | 10.14.08
> the top 20% pay 80% of taxes
They also make 80% of the income. Duh.
> I think this is going to make the rest of us small business-owners either
> l) leave the country (as I am planning to do)
Don’t let the door hit your unpatriotic butt on the way out. There are plenty of patriotic small business owners ready to take your place here.
93. Enlightener | 10.14.08
#82 asked why we are in the worst economy since the Great Depression. Well, ACORN and other groups like it under the Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to provide mortgage loans to people who did not qualify for such a loan (they had no income, no job, no assets, and even no or bad credit ratings). When the banks “bundled” these risky mortgages and tried to sell the bundles to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Fannie and Freddie at first said “no, they do not meet our qualifications for a mortgage”. ACORN applied pressure to Democrats in the House and Senate, which in turn applied pressure on Fannie and Freddie. Fannie and Freddie caved, and bought the bundled risky loans, and so banks continued to make the risky loans. As could be expected, the jobless mortgage holders began to default on their loans. The banks (as well as Freddie and Fannie) began to have problems as they were left with mortgages that people had defaulted on. Some banks have since failed. More will follow. That is the basis of this whole mess.
94. Bob2008 | 10.14.08
How many of you have retirement plans? These will be hevily taxed by Obama-how many of you know someone who owns a small busness? They make over $250,000 a year and file under personal income-this will be taxed-they will either have to close or lay off employees. How many of you work for a poor person? Probably none-since poor people can’t afford to hire you.
This country affords everyone of you the oportunity to start a new business and make money if you provide something that people either “NEED, WANT OR DESIRE.” According to the Obama plan you are a great American up until you make $250,000 after that you are a scum sucking rich person that doesn’t deserve anything. By the way, did I mention that it is these very same people who provide not only jobs but invest in the stock market and rebuilding and re-tooling their business so others may become employed.
For thoes of you who are upset about the perverbial rich not paying their fair share of taxes-do your homework! It doesn’t sound like you have. By the way-I wm not one of the rich. In the 1960’s and 1970’s I was informed by the Democratic Party that I was rich. I was in the Army making @ $500.00 a month-but I had the intuition to invest in mutual funds-they taxed the heck out of my capital gains as they plan on doing now. This will hurt (damage) your retirement 401k or Roth. How-do you homework! Part of this plan is to increase the Death Tax which should be done away with. There is much more that Obama is not telling you that you need to be aware of.
Final note-yes I am upset at some of what the Republicans did-they spent money like drunken sailors on shore leave. I am not for ear marks at all.
95. Michael Murphy | 10.14.08
You know, this plumber should get over it. He makes lots of money and has the audacity to question the Senator about having to pay more taxes in the event he exapands his business. As a plumber he is clearly in the top wage earning slice of America and should bear his fair burden, his patriotic burden, of the taxes so that others can get, like, flat screen tv sets.
96. Jon Petersen | 10.14.08
Consumption drives production! DEMAND drive SUPPLY!!! Economics 101.
When the middle class is poor there is no consumption and an economic system collapses!!!! That is what is happening in THIRD WORLD countries (I hope the USA does not intend to become a third world nation). They have weak middle class so there is no effective demand and consumption. We all know that every time people get tax cheques between January and June, demand goes up and stores hire more help, consumption goes up and there is an economic boom.
Obama apparently understands this more than McCain. Republicans want to put all the money in a few hands, who in most cases store their money outside the USA leaving us broke and desperate.
Now they sound the word socialism as if they truly know what it means. They just went through a bail-out, a form of socialistic endeavor to help them come out of their financial mess.
Republicans make me SICK!!!!
97. exDemocrat | 10.14.08
I’m surprised Joe Bribem signed on for this …. doesn’t he give $300/year in charitable donations? He ain’t gonna like having his paycheck “redistributed” for him….oh wait…redistributions won’t include Senators.
McCain/Palin ‘08
(and if you’re a Hillary supporter, vote McCain now and Hillary ‘12)
98. Hemi | 10.14.08
73. Middle Class Mom | 10.14.08
Some have noted that Christianity encourages the wealthy to voluntarily give to the poor, which is quite true, and it is known as giving to charity. When the government takes from the rich and gives to the poor that is not charity, it is forced redistribution of wealth, and in extreme forms known as socialism and communism.
If a business is going to be taxed to the extremes, why shouldn’t that business go to another country where it will not be so heavily taxed? That is exactly what will happen under Obama. The rich companies will be heavily taxed. Those companies will move overseas, and take their jobs with them. There will then be fewer jobs for the middle class to have. People, is that really what you want?
================================
What did the big Bush tax cuts get us over the last 8 years? Nothing. He’s giving our tax dollars to companies that move overseas. We’re paying them to fire us. These companies are keeping their profits off shore and aren’t paying any tax. Their getting away with murder. When there was a vote to close the tax loopholes so the money could go to our wounded troops health care, John McCain voted against closing the tax loopholes. You can’t listen to anything the media says about this stuff. The large corporations own the media. Just look it up.
99. Smiley | 10.14.08
Here’s a novel concept, why doesn’t the government just spend less?
You balance a budget one of two ways, why must we always pick the choice that includes higher taxes? There are too many distributions that do not benefit America, only a small subset of the populace.
The money never goes to people that “need” it, just special interest groups that “want” it. Like all other pork barrel projects there are no complaints as long as your group gets its fair share.
Maybe we can evolve to a system where 90% sit on their butts while the other 10% pay. And you wonder why we can’t compete in the global economy?
100. dragonfly777 | 10.14.08
You people are stupid! 5% of the top cannot pay for everything! Obama is going to be your worst nightmare. It won’t be 6mo before your hit and about the same time for our next conflict. He is weak and he has foot in mouth Biden to make help him in his plunge of failed and weak policies.
101. Jenna | 10.14.08
I hate how everyone says that those who are rich now did not work for it. I will be so ashamed of our government if this goes in to play. My father used to be so poor that there were not even Christmas presents. Now, yes he does make more than 250,000. How? He used to work more than 70 hours a week and convinced the current owner of his SMALL business to let him buy it. I do not want his hard earned money to go to some guy too lazy to go out there and make something of himself. This is f*%*ing ridiculous. Everyone should just get what they work for, and if they don’t work… tough luck.
102. rick | 10.14.08
The level of ignorance here is unreal. Do any of you Liberals do any reading or research, or do you just parrot what Olberman and Matthews say?
List of inanities and outright lies in these comments:
The rich don’t pay their “fair share.” Just how much more than 80% of al taxes should the top 20% of earners pay?
The lower income levels have gotten no tax breaks in 15 years. Geez, people, this is easy stuff- Bush cut ALL TAX BRACKETS.
The middle class funds everything. Again, see the first one above.
The wealthy pay a LOWER % of their income in taxes than the middle and lower classes- Are you high? The %’s increase as your income increases. Please pay attention.
103. One4America | 10.14.08
The ignorance I’m seeing on this board is depressing. I don’t make much money now, but I understand what fair is, and I understand what drives people to work hard and contribute to society. Fair is not income redistribution. Fair is getting what you have earned. People work hard when it pays to work hard, and they are lazy when their work isn’t rewarded (or when they are rewarded for not working hard). America is the land of opportunity–meaning if we work hard we succeed. America is not the land of free handouts, and the right to government-guaranteed equality and prosperity.
Sure, I want to help my neighbor. I donate more than 10% of my income to charity, and I know the difference between charity and taxation. Having the government pick my pocket hardly makes me feel charitable. Americans voluntarily give a greater percentage of their wealth than the citizens of any other country on Earth. Let’s not forget this.
Socialism, or the redistribution of wealth, has not worked at any time in the history of the planet, we know where this path leads, and it’s not to a more prosperous future.
104. Rick | 10.14.08
Jimmy Orr said that Obama’s tax plan “could also mean government taking from one group of people (the people who earned it) and giving it to those who did not.” Orr ignores the fact that the money received by rich Wall Street fat cats was not “earned” by them. It was earned by the hard work of the Americans who worked underneath them in the corporate structure that neither of them built or owned. They do not deserve this money that they received. We, the people who earned it, do.
105. stillontheroad | 10.14.08
For those of you that do not know:
86% of all taxes are paid by the top 25% of wage earners
97% of all taxes are paid by the top 50% of wage earners
39% of all taxes are paid by the top 1% of wage earners
This is right on the IRS web site.
106. Joe | 10.14.08
According to the Declaration of Independence we entitled to “the pursuit of happiness” not happiness, not a McMansion, not a plasma TV with 300 channels, not universal health care and not a college education. Americans need to rediscover the difference between a want and a need. There are two groups of people who share the blame for the current financial situation we are in, the banks and the people who took out loans on houses they could not afford. People started taking out loans that they could not afford, were flipping houses weekly and “printing their own money” so to speak during the last 10 years in the housing market. If that hurts, take a look in the mirror. “Irrational exuberance” is what Alan Greenspan called the stock market run up in the late ‘90s it also applies to the housing bubble that burst.
If we are just willing to roll over for the Socialism that is about to come then apparently very few Americans have the will to strive for greater things. Do you think that if just the rich are taxed into extension that is OK since you will never be one? Come on people, what about self improvement? What about a better life for your kids?
We need to wake up, Obama is not Robin Hood who steals from the rich and gives to the poor; he will just take our money and give it to someone else. I for one don’t feel giddy about that prospect at all.
If you want to feel the sense of accomplishment and know what it is to succeed you will do it for yourself instead of standing in line for it, like free cheese. I ate that cheese when I was growing up by the way, but weaned myself off of it with hard work and dedication. If you really want something, nothing can stop you. You will do what it takes to take care of your family, if you need a second or third job you will do it. If you think there are no jobs for you then you don’t want it bad enough. I scrubbed dishes at a nursing home and delivered pizza on the weekends while putting myself through college. Would your kids? Or would you just cry about it and want Uncle Sugar to do something for you instead of doing something for yourself?
Sorry I still believe in the American Dream.
Joe
107. Michael | 10.14.08
I find it interesting that very few have mentioned anything about their involvement in their personal situations. It’s always the banks, corporations, big greedy fat cats that caused me to be in job I don’t like making $x/hour. Most people are in the situation they are in because of the decisions they have made throughout their lives and those people shouldn’t expect to live off the gov’t teat, which is exactly what Barack Obama is proposing.
For those who truly do not have the ability to make those decisions due to mental or physical inabilities, then yes we the people should provide for them.
108. Fed Up With Them All | 10.14.08
As a fiscal conservative and a strong believer in property rights and limited government, here are my 2 cents (or rather 5 cents):
1. The Bush/Paulson/Bernanke bailout is wrong. End of story
2. The bailout in number one is not remedied by more bailouts for anyone.
3. Jesus told the man to sell his stuff ON HIS OWN. Jesus NEVER advocated that the government take from the haves and give to the have nots.
4. Obama does not have the right to “spread” anyone’s property around.
5. If Obama is so concerned about the have nots, perhaps he and his wife can dig a little deeper and find some extra cash to throw at them. Don’t they have several million dollars? He should walk the walk before he tells others what he plans to do with their property against their permission.
109. Bill in San Diego | 10.14.08
Lara M. said :”I think this is going to make the rest of us small business-owners either l) leave the country (as I am planning to do) and/or hide our money in “stuff”.”
Lara M., your idea that small business owners are going to be heavily burdened by the Obama tax plan is simply incorrect. The people telling you that have the same goal as the people calling Obama’s tax plan “socialism”: it’s meant to freak out a certain portion of the population in an effort to swing the election. But you wouldn’t be so easy to freak out if you weren’t so convinced that “your” economic ideas are right, while everybody else’s are dangerously wrong. And your misplaced confidence in “your” economic ideas is based on Objectivist theory, which itself is fatally flawed.
Objectivists all want to be John Galt, the engine of the economy, the essential ingredient. They never get that he was an *imaginary character*, a made-up example tailored to demonstrate Ayn Rand’s wholly flawed thesis that there’s a stark choice between “freedom or slavery.” You’re all so easily manipulated by Rand’s emotional appeal that you’ve allowed yourself to believe her third-rate “philosophy.”
The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are good literature, but lousy philosophy. They are FICTION. “Objectivism” isn’t objective; it’s just foolishly absolutist and based on the false dichotomy that if freedom is good then any restrictions are anti-freedom and therefore bad. The absence of sensible restrictions (regulations) is what brought us the recent economic meltdown.
I look forward to America finally realizing that Ayn Rand over-reacted to the horror of the Communist revolution, and created a simplistic syllogism based on a false dichotomy to justify her personal political preference.
You may ask, why am I ranting about Ayn Rand? Because she created a pseudo-philosophy that seduced all sorts of people who wanted something they could believe in; and that pseudo-philosophy is the flawed underpinning for the religious zeal of the uber-capitalist right wing. Despite its fatal flaws, it has tons of adherents who rely on it to justify all manner of political and economic opinions. Relying on flawed doctrine, as they do, their opinions are simply wrongheaded. But they’re ABSOLUTELY sure they’re correct.
110. markspencer8@gmail.com | 10.14.08
To those calling Obama a ’socialist’, I have this to say: You may think redistribution of wealth, as you would call it, is a bad thing. Let’s look at it another way. All great powers have eventually fallen, and I think some checks and balances could keep this great power from falling. Capitalism looks great on paper, but at this point the playing field is far from even. It’s easy for those at the top to say “why should I be penalized for making tons of money, I work hard for it”. True. So does the barista that makes your skim-sugar free lattes every morning. It’s also easy for those born into money and power to inherite the same. I went to high school with sons and daughters of farmers and mechanics, I also went to high school with sons and daughters of doctors and lawyers. Take a wild guess which group never had to worry about their college education. Sure, they got better grades….they had time to do homework instead of working and worrying about how to make it in the world as an adult. They were also the ones that I saw way more often partying and doing drugs, again they had less worries and more time on their hands to do those things with minimal consequences. Where capitalism was once ‘ every man has the oppritunity to make it for himself’ it now seems it could be added ‘well, depending on where you are born, what your parents do for a living, let’s not forget who you know, etc….
Those in gov’ment and the financial sector are also the ones that call the shots, and sometimes things go wrong and the economy suffers. Common people, the backbone of society, suffer most. So should the ultra rich be penalized? Not really. Should the rest of us be penalized for not being in the top 1%? NO!!!
I’m no socialist, but maybe a little redistribution of wealth isn’t such a bad thing. Imagine if the 90’s never happened ( when the economy was good ) If the 80’s had continued (when the middle class started dissapearing) we would be a third world counrty eventually, with the wealthy and powerful few at the top and the rest of us essentially helpless serfs with no options for advancement or improvement. The last eight years have been closer to Reagan’s 80’s than to the boom of the 90’s.
We need an upswing. And here’s a question for all those with wealth…..Since ‘we’ are the economy, if we don’t have money to spend at ‘your’ business, for ‘your’ services, etc… then where is ‘your’ money going to come from?
I don’t want to see this country eat itself. Let’s level the playing field.
111. John Drew | 10.14.08
The angry right wing call it Socialism, but I call it fait taxation! McSame is out of touch….our fundamental of our economy is strong at 9:00 AM and our economy is in crisis at 11:00 AM. McCain is unfit to lead the country. Forget about Palin, she is dumbest governor by any measure. Even Righties call her dumb!
112. David Forrest | 10.14.08
The first false premise of this argument about “redistribution” is that the federal government is giving lots of money to poor people. It isn’t. In case you missed it, Bill Clinton ended the federal antipoverty program, and there are no longer direct cash payments to the poor. What’s left is food stamps and WIC: would you rather have starving people stealing food?
The second false premise in this argument is that the remainder of government spending is somehow optional or useless. The vast majority of our budget goes to:
a) interest on all those Treasury bills that you’ve just shifted your 401K into (perhaps we should suspend interest payments on government debt?)
b) defense (fighting two wars is expensive. You wanted the war, but only if someone else picks up the tab?)
c) social security and medicare (ask a senior citizen whether that’s “redistribution”. After clocking you with a walker, they will tell you that they paid into social security for their entire working life, and they have every right to get their money out again.)
What Obama realizes is that we have to pay our bills as a nation and that it is simply not fair to ask the same contribution from a single mother making 12,000 and a business owner making 500,000. Even by percentage, the ugly fact is that an 18% tax bill will push the single mom out onto the street (which is in nobody’s interest, including the business owner) but it will make comparatively little difference to the business owner.
The meaning of patriotism is that you are willing to give back to the country that made it possible for you to realize your potential. And yes, “giving back” includes paying your taxes.
Don’t like it? Try living in South America or Russia– taxes are very, very low on the rich. But then there’s that whole lawless society thing to watch out for…
113. Jason | 10.14.08
How about a Nation sales tax? You buy a mansion you pay, you buy a loaf of bread you pay “Each acording to their need”. There are no loop holes and there is no staying up late in early April to fill out paperwork
114. Dean Poppe | 10.14.08
The “Trickle Up” Theory
For the past 75 years or so the federal government has been increasingly aggressive in claiming it has the inalienable right, or ‘god’ like duty, to ‘create’ jobs and improve the economy. The Democrats and some Republicans want the majority of us to believe that the government provides the money that “trickles up” to create jobs and improve our economy. The truth is the government can neither create the capital needed (create wealth) to start a business nor guarantee its survival.
The simplest way to understand what it takes to create a job is to divide the assets of a business by the number of people employed. A business with $2,000,000 of assets that employs 50 people knows it takes $40,000 to create a job. A business with $50,000 in assets that employs 2 people knows it takes $25,000 to create a job. The birth of the business requires an investment, then it requires an income to survive, to grow and pay employees, and neither the birth nor the survival of a business is ever guaranteed.
All government revenue i.e. taxes, must be siphoned from earned income; it cannot tax unearned income because there is no such thing as unearned wealth. Governments only source of money is from taxes. When it taxes citizens it decreases investment income, and when it taxes businesses’ it disables their survival. When government sucks money from the earned and gives it to the unearned (income redistribution) it starves and weakens our economy. Tragically, the more people that become dependent on government to take care of them (the Katrina Syndrome) the fewer people there are who will take the risk to invest and grow a business. In fact a business has no social value if it doesn’t survive, and the more socially oriented it becomes the more likely it will fail.
The “trickle up” theory will become a law when water starts to flow up hill.
Dean Poppe
115. Kevin | 10.14.08
Its all shades of gray. We don’t have pure capitalism and never have. What is clear is that trickle down does not work. The motives of the “haves” is not to make things better for the “have nots” that in general they are feeding from (albeit often from hard work). Handouts should not be given to those who don’t try, but more progressive taxation is clearly in order. Call it socialism if you wish. There is a critical amount of money that you need to live at a certain level.
116. goskimike | 10.14.08
Equality is a basic tenet of democracy. Equality for me means that all people have a similar opportunity to participate in the social, economic and political realm. Part of the nature of equality is a reasonable distribution of the wealth of society. This doesn’t always mean taking from one to give to another. Although the concept of charity and justice is well ingrained our human values and has often been furthered by sound democratic decisions. There are many millions of hard working Americans who just want there work to bring them happiness, economic security, and affordable health care. This has been harder and harder to do. One of the main reasons has been a shift in economic inequality in America. The distribution of wealth should be a fair topic for conversation in public policy. By putting forth the bogeyman of “socialism” whenever it’s mentioned that we might want to think about how wealth is distributed and inciting fear of “taking” from someone to give to the lazy, conservatives are disingenuous. It’s fairly clear that unfettered capitalism, while sometimes leading to economic progress, also leads to the accumulation of wealth in the hands of those who already have it; in short, wealth is redistributed not necessarily by hard work, but by the workings of the market and the policy of government. Many millions of Americans have become poorer these past eight years (even while working harder), and even millions who have maintained or become wealthier, feel it is time for more equality and justice in American society; this is a justice that is not achieved by allowing the accumulation of wealth in fewer and fewer hands.
117. Brandon | 10.14.08
Post 114: Agreed.
Post 112: Spewing rhetoric and invalid speaking points does nothing to progress the conversation. All you did was repeat what you’ve heard on the media.
America, as a whole, would be better off if we spent as much time actually reading these two candidates policy plans and evaluating their character, as we do repeating the nonsense we are spoon-fed by the media.
Our country will not become third world, because of tax policies, but instead because of our lack of education….
118. nagamas | 10.14.08
FoxNews which is the mouthpiece of the business interest and self interest group would like to make you think that if the small business makes $250,000 a year it is subjected to higher tax. There is a difference between a small business making a revenue of $250,000 to making a profit of of $250,000. I think, if my income is $250,000 p.a I would not mind paying more taxes, as part of my responsibility to my country. The problem is that in actual life, the top 5% of the income earner are paying much less tax relative to the middle income and even lower income group, as they can afford to hire professional accountants; if they are mega rich, they can even hire lobbyist to create tax loopholes specifically tailored to their situation!
It would be interesting to find the actual amount of tax paid by Rupert Murdoch (FoxNews owner?) and the CEOs of Halliburton last year. I can tell you that they would be paying much less tax in proportion to their income as compared to the middle income wage earner.
119. Bill in San Diego | 10.14.08
stillontheroad wrote:
For those of you that do not know:
86% of all taxes are paid by the top 25% of wage earners
97% of all taxes are paid by the top 50% of wage earners
39% of all taxes are paid by the top 1% of wage earners
This is right on the IRS web site.
First, that information is meaningless without considering as context the proportion of all wages earned by the top 1%, 25% and 50% of wage earners.
Second, raw wages tell little of the “profit” made by an individual or organization, which shouldn’t include the “cost of doing business;” for an individual or family, the cost of doing business should include the costs of survival and of education, training, etc. to enable the earning of income.
Moreover, I doubt that you’re including FICA, a tax that’s treated separately, yet accounts for most of the taxation on the lowest earners.
You should try presenting the truth sometime, instead of setting forth cherry-picked facts so isolated from the context that gives them meaning as to be (apparently) intentionally misleading.
120. Brandon | 10.14.08
The real problem in our country is a complete lack of understanding and education. This issue is blatantly evident in the American public’s inability to understand basic financial and economic principals. I’m a recent college graduate. I graduated from a reputable business school in the midwest. Do you think I was taught how to balance a checkbook or budget for living expenses (rent, mortgage, car payments, groceries, etc)? Absolutely not! Anything that I’ve learned on these topics was taught by my parents. Our education system sets students up for failure by not preparing them to deal with these real life issues. If a parent can’t teach their child how to live financially responsibly (because the parent doesn’t know him/herself) and the education system doesn’t do it, then how can we expect these people to know how to do it? Stop supporting the lower class and offer them the means to support themselves!!
I’m reminded of an old saying, which speaks exactly to the point I’m making.
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and **** eat for the rest of his life!
121. Cate | 10.14.08
The majority of comments on this board are appalling in their depth of ignorance of economics, free markets, and human psychology and sociology. However, you are correct about one thing: the rich do NOT pay their fair share of taxes; they pay a disproportionately higher share. Your class envy will never create jobs or amass wealth. And even if you took all the money from the “evil rich,” and gave it to all those “poor, struggling American,” how long do you think it would stay “evenly distributed?” People who make money WORK FOR IT, and they work hard. They are willing to do what many are not in order to become wealthy: work 5-9, give up a family life, live within their means, and save their money. 87% percent of millionaires in this country are FIRST GENERATION millionaires. Do you understand what that means? They EARNED it. In turn; they create jobs for people; provide goods and services; contribute to people’s health care; and they BUY things. That makes the economy run. Who will be paying for all your goodies if you destroy these people?
122. Preservetherepublic | 10.14.08
I was below the poverty line just a few years ago. I started my own business and will exceed Obama’s definition of rich next year. I did not have a handout from the government or anyone else. For all of you people whining about the wealth being redistrubuted from the poor to the rich, you are believing an Obama illusion. There are too many people going from rags to riches in this country to make a case for Obama’s plan. The last IRS reports showed that the lower and middle class incomes actually have increased the last few years while the top class has declined. For those of you who want wealth to be redistributed to you, read a book, get another skill, and go make more pie. Quit whining and waiting for the Obamas to take someone else’s piece.
124. DBO | 10.14.08
Hundreds of Economists Sign Letter Opposing Obama’s Tax Plan
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/10/hundres-of-econ.html
Of course… all you people who believed the ‘consensus’ about global warming should be just as quick to believe this report. Obama will make things worse… not better. Educate yourselves and stop looking to the government to solve all your problems. Personal responsibility people!! Don’t buy what you can’t afford. The only things you should ever buy on credit are your house and your car. (And only buy a new car when the old one has stopped running. Not just because you want the latest/greatest goodies.)
PS… Trying to cast all rich people as villians will not help anyone. Did a poor person ever give you a job/paycheck?
125. Earl | 10.14.08
Obama will reduce raxes for everyone making less than $250,000. The only people whose taxes would increase are those making $250,000 or more. This would restore the same tax rates the rich paid under Ronald Reagan that they all loved so much.
126. Jim Lagnese | 10.14.08
Not only is the bailout socialism, it is a sham as well. We’ve been conned. The bigger con will be when Obama gets elected. God help us.
Jim
http://www.therightguyshow.com
127. THINK!!! | 10.14.08
A couple of really great quotes…
“…for a nation to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.”
~Winston Churchill
“A politician cannot spend one dime on any spending project without first taking that dime from the person who earned it. So, when a politician votes for a spending bill he is saying that he believes the government should spend that particular dollar rather than the individual who worked for it.”
~~ Unknown
“If I am not where I wanted to be at this stage in my life I have no one to blame but myself: by my words, my actions and my inactions.”
~~ Anonymous
128. Marcus Tullius | 10.14.08
Dear One Black Democrat (posted above):
The difference between the NFL draft and socialism is as follows: the new players (employees, funds, or other resources in the real world) are not being taken from the rolls of the existing teams. Detroit doesn’t get to “draft” Tom Brady from the Patriots just because the Pats were being too successful. In the real world new markets are opened for business, new products are created, etc… Your comparison, isn’t a good one.
Socialism takes from the successful - Obama’s middle-class plumber for example - and “distributes” their gain to those who have failed to earn any such reward. Eventually, as history since the days of the nadir of the Roman Empire demonstrates time and again, the successful simply disappear or move into vocations that do not contribute to the growth of society or its economy. Socialism is a giant Ponzi Scheme doomed to failure every time it’s tried.
129. Richard Barry | 10.14.08
Redistribution of wealth? Just look at the past eight years! Wealth has been taken from everyone and redistributed to filthy rich Republicans. Bush even redistributed wealth from future generations, for Pete’s sake! Look at all of the war profiteers - a bunch of Republicans. What about the Wall Street crowd. Sure, they give money to Democrats but that is just because they cynically want to make sure they have greased the skids no matter who is in office. These pukes are only going to vote for a party that promises them lower taxes on their millions. Republicans.
I’m so sick of Republican rule.
130. Mid Class Joe | 10.14.08
So is this what people think of the middle class? That we are a bunch of Lazy, unmotivated leeches waiting to feed off the rich? I’ve personally bust my a$$ to be where I’m at. My parents were immigrants, we started from the bottom but I’ve had a great education, I now make what would be considered decent money and no I don’t need a hand out!! Others though, also went to school and bust their a$$es and still find it hard to make ends meet. Or if they’re doing ok and are able to maintain, they’re only a paycheck or 2 away from ruin. That is the unfortunate state of most American households. So YES, THEY NEED HELP. Who is going to help them? I haven’t heard of any other plans that would help. What is McCain proposing instead of Obama’s plan that will help the middle class directly? So, say what you may…I support Obama’s plan.
131. Joe | 10.14.08
To the right wing, anything other than economic anarchy is socialism. That’s why we learn little about the “public good” or “public service” these days.
132. Richard Eich | 10.14.08
> For those of you that do not know:
> 86% of all taxes are paid by the top 25% of wage earners
They also make about 86% of the income.
> 97% of all taxes are paid by the top 50% of wage earners
They also make about 97% of the income.
> 39% of all taxes are paid by the top 1% of wage earners
They also make about 39% of the income.
How come you guys always leave out the part about the relative percentage of income earned in each of those brackets?
133. marik casmon | 10.14.08
Every time the government takes tax money, wealth redistribution occurs. That’s the way it is. People who don’t realize that are not paying attention.
If the government takes my tax money and buys a tank, my money goes from me to the stockholders and employees of the contractors who make the tank. The same is true of ALL government expenditures. The idea that there is something wrong with wealth redistribution ignores the reality of taxation.
The alternative is anarchy.
P.S. A national sales tax is a regressive tax, of course, affecting the poor more than the wealthy. The poor HAVE to buy a loaf of bread. The wealthy do not have to buy a mansion. Instead, they can invest and “make” even more wealth for themselves. That’s wealth redistribution also.
134. frank buck | 10.14.08
As an actual small business owner, I can tell you several things. There is enough blame to go around for all the dems and reps. “Free trade” Open borders is a joke, and a job suck to foreign countries, as well as harming the american people with unregulated **** poison in their foodstuffs, and drugs.
I have a food industry business, and you don’t even want to know what goes on. I don’t hire illegals, but many do at unfair wage, and underground prices which hurts american workers, and honest employers.
However, it is small business that is the engine of the economy, and you are very foolish to think of laying more taxes on these folks. I know what we do when the going gets tough. We work harder, and lay off the borderline useful employees.
We used to employ 12 people per shift just a few years ago, we now employ 6 due to minimum wage increases, inflation, etc., and interestingly enough we still make about the same amount of money, because suprise, we (the owners) work harder, longer hours which is generally why the small business person is successful, and your average “poor” person is not.
I have watched for many years the results of putting the (un)earned income credit in the pocket of a few of my employees.
135. SeesThroughBeeS | 10.14.08
Enough! The “5% wealthy tax increase” is simply a repeal of the W “give to the rich and screw the poor” efforts. Look at history — previously Republicans redistribute wealth to the richest 1 percent and the economy suffers. The DEMS redistribute towards the middle and lower classes and the economy does better. Look it up via Google. It is a fact!
136. Dave | 10.14.08
Flat tax is the way to go as far as leveling the disproportionate taxes we face. I earn a good income and donate thousands of dallars to charity each year. I find it sadly ironic that Obama is fine with donating other people’s money, just not his own personal income. This year alone, I gave more money to charity than BOTH Obama and Biden COMBINED during the past 8 years. They both make a lot more money that most of us. So don’t tell me they really mean to help the poor, because they don’t, and it shows buy their lack of personal investment and sacrifice. They are trying to buy votes with tax breaks for “90%” of Americans. That is all it is. Buying votes. I doubt Obama could actually pass such a loony Tax bill through the other branches of goverment anyway because of the politcal and finacial reprocussions they would cause. So his pla is only hot air. Grow a brain people. Obama is an empty suit.
137. bekbek | 10.14.08
From #106, stillontheroad:
“For those of you that do not know:
86% of all taxes are paid by the top 25% of wage earners
97% of all taxes are paid by the top 50% of wage earners
39% of all taxes are paid by the top 1% of wage earners
This is right on the IRS web site.”
The wealthiest 5% aren’t getting their money from wages. I’m not entirely sure how that figures into the conversation here, but I do think it’s important to recognize that the wealthiest members of our society don’t come anywhere near paying that much in taxes, because for some reason we’ve prioritized their ability to make money off… money.
138. FL-Indie | 10.14.08
Jimmy Orr… “though his previous experience has been with Republicans, his blog is non-partisan.” ROFLMAO
The epitome of the ignorance here is the equation socialism=communism. I did not major in economics or political theory, but at least I know enough to know that they are not one and the same. For those who want a primer: http://www.geocities.com/commiett/difference.html
139. Lily | 10.14.08
“Who cares if the top 5% see the largest tax increase ever?”
What you don’t see is that YOU will pay these taxes, not some rich guy you don’t know. You won’t pay it directly - not with a check on April 15th. But you will pay it just the same. You’ll pay for it as the cost of the goods and services you buy increase. You’ll pay for it as you notice that its is harder to get the goods and services you want. And you pay for it in reduced opportunites for employment and pay. You probably won’t understand what happened (head in the sand?). But the pain will be real. Socialism reduces opportunities for all - hurting those at the lower level the most.
140. Lily | 10.14.08
BTW, Jesus never suggested we form large government insitutions to help the poor. Is this because he just didn’t think of it? NO, he asked each of us to be responsible for our neighbors - not to demand that Gov’t take care of them with someone else’s money.
141. Oregon4Obama | 10.14.08
OK look…..we tried the trickle down method and we went from billions in surplus to trillions in debt…..the method doesnt work…..
All tax increases under Obama affect people making over $250,000/year…thats income, capital gains etc……
Remember, all these plans were echoed under Clinton…..those were huge years for prosperity when everyone gained, not just the well informed and connected…..
plus, its resetting the taxes to before Bush was in office, and its not socialism because Obama would not make everyones paychecks the same…..right now, the rich do not pay the same percentages as some in the middle class..
142. Shawn | 10.14.08
Hey oneblackdemocrat, I don’t believe your analogy is accurate. For example: the Boston Celtics won the NBA championship and a redistribution of wealth would be that the Celtics players would be distributed throughout the NBA. This would allow every team in the NBA to have an equal chance to win the title. Isn’t that what Obama’s plan is, to allow everyone to have an equal chance to succeed even if they didn’t work as hard as everyone else? In this example, I would assume that the worst team (Memphis) would tank every game so they could get a Kevin Garnett at the end of the season when the teams are redistributed. Sounds like there isn’t an incentive to work hard if you know you will be rewarded at the end.
The draft is not the equivalent of redistribution of wealth. You can relate the NBA draft to taxes. Basically the teams with the worst record gets the lowest draft pick, like the individuals with the lowest income paying the lowest tax percentage or not paying taxes at all.
I guess this conservatives with my “head on fire” just explained the correct analogy.
143. bob | 10.14.08
The true fair tax is a per capita tax. Each person pays the exact same amount not a percentage. We all use the gov’t services and those who pay the least often use the most services. Then if I want to donate to charities to help those less fortunate then so be it. But, it would be a choice. The way we are headed with income redistribution, soon, McDonalds will post prices based on income level. If you make $10,000 a year you’ll pay a quarter for a hamburger and if you make $100,000 you will pay $10.
We need to stop supporting other countries until we can support our self. You don’t lend a fried money if you can’t pay your own rent.
Trim Government back to what it should be. Protector and Educator not a free service provider.
144. Debbit | 10.14.08
The “articles” that are referencing are OPINION PAGES–not actual articles written by WSJ or IBD writers. Citing an editorial as proof of your conclusion is a flawed and weak argument at best!
145. schas | 10.14.08
It’s time to end the myth that says that all individual earnings result soley from individual merit - hard work, skill, preparation, risk, etc. The reality is that all of us benefit from U.S. social and legal institutions and, often, just good fortune. The wealthiest benefit disproportionately from circumstances that favor all of us. Why shouldn’t they give more back to society?
146. Marcus Tullius | 10.14.08
Dear “One Black Democrat” (posted above):
The difference between the NFL draft and socialism is as follows: the new players (employees, funds, or other resources in the real world) are not being taken from the rolls of the existing teams. Detroit doesn’t get to “draft” Tom Brady from the Patriots just because the Pats were being too successful. In the real world new markets are opened for business, new products are created, etc… Your comparison, isn’t a good one.
Socialism takes from the successful - Obama’s middle-class plumber for example - and “redistributes” their gain to those who have failed to earn any such reward. Eventually, as history since the days of the nadir of the Roman Empire demonstrates time and again, the successful simply disappear or move into vocations that do not contribute to the growth of society or its economy - there is less and less to redistribute - the politically powerful remain powerful (see Democrat Party vis-a-vis the poor and minorities over the last 50+ years) and the people sink into poverty.
Everyone thinks that socialism is some kind of step up from capitalism, but it has a history. In fact, Roman nationalization of Italian lands, resources, and industry in 312 A.D. was a major contributing factor in the development of European feudalism. That’s a big step forward. Think for yourself. Socialism is a giant Ponzi Scheme doomed to failure every time it’s tried. It’s a great power acquisition and maintenance tool, though.
147. Patrick | 10.14.08
Oh my goodness, what is wrong with people these days. “Redistribution of wealth” has been going on ever since the income tax was introduced; it’s hardly a new concept.
If you’re a small business and you’re making $250,000 a year, you can already afford to hire someone. If your taxes go up, and now you bring home $140,000 instead of $150,000, are you really going to have to fire someone? COME ON! You’re still making great money! Ridiculous. And guess what: you could lower your tax burden by hiring someone.
And as for the idiotic “wah wah, I’ll quit my job and let someone else take care of me,” try living on welfare or unemployment for a while. It’s not pleasant. There’s a huge difference between not starving, and being financially comfortable. No one wants to live on handouts. There’s still plenty of motivation to work. In a country as supposedly rich as ours, it’s a shame that we have so many homeless and hungry.
Capitalism, by nature, concentrates wealth in the hands of a few. We need a little bit of redistribution to keep the economy vibrant!
148. Publius | 10.14.08
It saddens me to see so many willing to take from others for themselves. If we agree upon this premise, then where is the mark set? If one makes $40,000 a year, they are “rich” to someone who only makes $20,000 a year; after all, they earn twice as much.
Why not confiscate 50% or more of their wealth and give it to those less fortunate? How many automobiles do mich, David K., Patrick Henry, Aaron, tj 1491, Tom Burnett, jon, BlueDotRedSea, Dougal, Jimmy, AC Walker, P Dolan, Michael, Fair is fair, Matt, lucy2008, Chipper, Hank Fay, Mark Bohannon, bekbek, El Cerebro, James, mich222, and Thomas Richter each have?
If they each have more than one, then they have too many; maybe they should take their excess vehicle(s) and give them to some struggling single mom- talk about “giving a little of it back to those who have continued to be de-valued”… Put YOUR wealth where your rhetoric lies. Wow- we’ve been able to assist 24 underprivileged single moms just from this blog so far. I feel so much better- and my intentions are good! After all, ‘Fair is fair’…
If I give directly to the needy, they receive a greater benefit than if it is filtered through several layers of governmental bureaucracy.
“The 95% tax cut for working families isn’t a new feature. This isn’t a handout.” Au contraire- if 32% of “working families” don’t pay federal income taxes, then how do 95% have their taxes cut? This is welfare.
The “many” giving money to the “few” is not done in a confiscatory manner- unlike the taking of wealth by the government. No one forces the “many” to buy that nice truck or SUV, or the HDTV, or the nice house, or new computer, or beer, or dine out at the restaurant.
They willingly provide their money for a good or service provided. If a business doesn’t provide value, they cease to exist. A great American example of the “many” giving money to the “few” is when millions of Americans buy billions of hamburgers- it’s called McDonalds.
151. Kevin | 10.14.08
And to the couple people here advocating sales taxes, they are proven regressive - the poor pay a higher share because all their money buys “things” whereas a wealthy person invests a large share.
152. Q | 10.14.08
I’m a registered Democrat, consider myself an Independant but most important of all.. I am NOT a Socialist. You say “Want to set a conservative’s hair on fire? Just mention redistribution of wealth and watch the fireworks.”. Redistribution of wealth should set any Capitalist’s Hair on fire. The breakdowns of the policies aside, socialism is the antithesis of what our country was founded on and I hope this is understood at a fundemental level.
Just to be clear this is not an endorsement nor meant to be derogatory towards either major party candidate.
153. Bob | 10.14.08
Corporate loopholes: According the research reported in this article: http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/12/news/economy/corporate_taxes/
“Nearly two-thirds of U.S. companies and 68% of foreign corporations do not pay federal income taxes, according to a congressional report released Tuesday.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) examined samples of corporate tax returns filed between 1998 and 2005. In that time period, an annual average of 1.3 million U.S. companies and 39,000 foreign companies doing business in the United States paid no income taxes - despite having a combined $2.5 trillion in revenue.”
Closing loopholes raises the country’s income tax revenue.
I like the flat National Sales Tax idea, since your level of taxation will be proportional to consumption. To be sure, the Tax Accountant and Tax Law industries will fight that tooth and nail since it will largely put them out of work. Additionally, it removes the government’s ability to artificially manipulate the economy through tax codes. I would think free market fans would be all over this, but the so-called free-market enthusiasts are indeed fans of socialism for the wealthy.
When Reagan foisted “trickle down” economics on the US, he spent record sums on National Defense, and famously, “star wars” projects. In the 1980s, ALL the defense systems were made in the USA. Everyone was working, making money, paying taxes. Support businesses made money… down to the sandwich shops on Long Island that fed the 50,000 people who used to work at Grumman Systems.
When everything was made here, there was a discernible “trickle down” affect. Now, when the uber-wealthy take home even more of their multimillion dollar packages, maybe a few more landscapers work.
True, big companies provide jobs to a lot of people. They used to provide jobs to a lot more people.
A world that trades together and is inter-dependent is a world that will be inherently more peaceful.
Congress needs to level the playing field by eliminating artificial advantages (tax breaks) for manufacturing overseas (or providing remote services), and requiring that all goods sold in the US conform to product safety guidelines having been made in factories providing decent worker protections.
I certainly don’t see this kind of direction coming out of the McCain camp.
154. Howie of Holland | 10.14.08
I love it when a Democrat takes a hit. Yet the truth be known, all politicians are as crooked as a dogs hind leg. We need term limits! We need tax reform, a straight 15%, no loop holes for companies or anyone else for that matter. Come on Dem’s, where’s the change your shoving down everyone’s face. Funny, a President can’t spend a cent of our tax money or raise/lower taxes with out the House and the Senate approval. Which is controled by the Democrats and Special Interest groups. Good Article!
155. Alicia | 10.14.08
I’m not in the top 5% of earners and I probably never will be. Therefore this tax plan sounds great to me. Honestly the current distribution of wealth in the world is wrong. Furthermore, the majority of people complaining about these taxes live extravagant and often frivolous lives. The majority of wealthy people I know did not reach wealth their selves nor do they work to maintain it (unless you count continually exploiting the poor and disenfranchised for profit). No they are living off of the hard work of their ancestors. As a result hard work and diligence are no longer prized in our country. No it is the athletes and socialites of the world that are prized, people who made their way by being paid too much for too little work and their fast lavish and wasteful life styles that are valued. So I say, tax them. Give the money back to the people on who’s back others empires were built. It is time that the little people finally got an equal piece of the big pie.
156. Economaniac | 10.14.08
Do you think the top 5% wage earners just stand around and the money falls on them out of the sky? Most all of them are like the plumber - they work their rear off for it every day. So if Obama increases taxes on them, they will just increase the price on what they produce or the service they provide which will negate any “spread the wealth around” plan. It is just a matter of the laws of economics. And if the top 5% wage earner happens to be a “trust fund kid”, they’ll just move the money into tax free bonds.
157. Al from MD | 10.14.08
when you take from the wealthy and distribute that money to the poor it is an example of socialism plain and simple. If you believe in the policy that approves of this then just admit it. Personally I can’t see giving my money that I worked hard to get and giving it to someone who didn’t work hard for it. If that makes me a capitalistic money monger then so be it! Our country was not founded on socialistic principles, it was founded on individual freedoms which included the freedom to make and keep ones money except for money to defend the country. No where in our Constitution does it give the politicians the right to decide who gets wealth distribution.
158. Jonathan | 10.14.08
Has any ever recieved a job from a poor person? I dont think so. So quit complaining about the evil rich people.
159. Red Eye | 10.14.08
Since when is government intervention in the economy to redistribute wealth and income upward socialism? If anything qualifies as a nonsense, this would be at the top of the list for this is exactly what government policy has done in this country, including the Clinton administration, since the early 1970s. The United States now has the greatest level of income wealth and income inequality since the 20s, and the bi-partisan bailout packages, now totalling over $1 trillion will only increase inequality.
But, even if government policies and practices had reduced wealth and income inequality, which has often happened in US history, it still has nothing to do with socialism. No industries are moving to the public sector, and no work sites are suddenly being run by employees, the two basic forms of socialism.
160. PJW5552 | 10.14.08
Many people think taxes are bad and all tax is just a redistribution of wealth. If you just give the tax money collected directly to poor people who don’t pay anything it is a re-distribution. However, lots of tax money goes to fund infrastructure and defense that benefits everyone, including the wealthy. Business and social laws, rules, regulations and enforcement are required to maintain social order. Defense protects everyone from outsiders who seek to harm us. Education is a social investment that provides long term returns to society by generating a population that is more able to be productive, creative and contributing members and tax payers in our society. Social security is a social compact between older and younger workers. You pay into social security while young and receive benefits from it when you are older. Truth is, taxes are a necessity of paying for government which oversees our society and is responsible for ensuring it functions smoothly and effectively.
Who pays and how much has to do with what we define as disposable yearly income and ultimately defined by how much tax is required to operate government. The US public in general has not been paying what is required to pay for the operation of government for many years or we would not have the huge deficits we currently have. Many in the US population need to take a basic civics class so they understand why we need government, why it must perform the functions it does and why the tax base to pay for it is structured the way it is. One gets the sense that if 90% of the population were living below the poverty line and 10% of the population was very, very wealthy the 10% who were extremely wealthy would just complain the poor need to be more responsible for their share of the total tax burden. The question should be, what do we need to do to make that 90% more successful and productive so they can afford to contribute more to society and pay taxes?
161. Gail from NYC | 10.14.08
I work hard and I pay 35% or more of my income back into our government, only to watch it being spent capriciously, and for the political gain of one congressman or another. Obama will mean more taxes and more spending. One of my proudest moments was when I was able to work hard enough and earn enough to begin to contribute to the education and children’s causes that I believe in. When Obama raises my taxes, that discretionary income will be taken away and re-routed where he and the congress say it should go. Redistribution of wealth. Yes, Obama drives toward socialism. His record of work as a community organizer, Acorn funder, trainer and lawyer, and his years of political mentoring under Jermiah Wright (do your homework on what he has been involved with their) all show it. I am and have always been registered as an independent. This 2008 election is a sad, sad time in the US.
162. Mark | 10.14.08
Firstly the working class is not the middle class. This is the biggest lie that Obama and his cronies are spreading. Merchants, professionals, academics, bureaucrats, and some farmers and skilled workers comprise the middle class.
When you get a tax cut it is a relief that the government is giving you not a hand out. The money you earn is yours to begin with not the ‘country’s money’ as stated by AC Walker post number 4. When you get a tax break you get to keep more of the money you have earned. When you get a government hand out you get to keep money that somebody else has earned and you liberals call that fair.
The bailouts are loans not hand outs. Those banks will have to return the money to the government. The recipients of governmental hand outs do not return any of the money they are given.
It is the job of the government to provide infrastructural facilities and protection from internal and external aggression for its citizens. It is the citizen’s responsibility to earn their living.
163. Mark | 10.14.08
Firstly the working class is not the middle class. This is the biggest lie that Obama and his cronies are spreading. Merchants, professionals, academics, bureaucrats, and some farmers and skilled workers comprise the middle class.
When you get a tax cut it is a relief that the government is giving you not a hand out. The money you earn is yours to begin with not the ‘country’s money’ as stated by AC Walker post number 4. When you get a tax break you get to keep more of the money you have earned. When you get a government hand out you get to keep money that somebody else has earned and you liberals call that fair.
The bailouts are loans not hand outs. Those banks will have to return the money to the government. The recipients of governmental hand outs do not return any of the money they are given.
It is the job of the government to provide infrastructural facilities and protection from internal and external aggression for its citizens. It is the citizen’s responsibility to earn their living.
164. Michael | 10.14.08
In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. From each according to his ability to each according to his need - Marx.
Ring and bells?
165. Linda | 10.14.08
From #103 - Rick
The lower income levels have gotten no tax breaks in 15 years. Geez, people, this is easy stuff- Bush cut ALL TAX BRACKETS.
Are you kidding me? My family and I have been solidly middle class for all of my 57 years, and I have YET to see my taxes go down. In fact, my son made $7,500 last year as a bicycle messenger and had to pay about $1250 of that pittance back in self-employed FICA!!! Oh - and that was working full-time, 40 hours per week, 8 to 5, Monday to Friday - so give me a break!
I think we need a FLAT TAX on all incomes greater than $30,000 (below that, you’re starving anyway). Sure - the rich will pay more - heck, they earn more! But if you’re earning $1,000,000 per year and paying 10% of that in taxes, and if I’m making $50,000 and paying 10% of that in taxes, we would both would actually be paying a FAIR SHARE, we could cut the HUGE bureaucracy and fascist state known as the IRS (who strike fear in law-abiding citizens when faced with an audit because of their power), and we would ALL be better off.
I don’t think we will ever see this - both Obama and McCain feel they have to work in this “IRS system.” But I’m voting for Obama because I think he is working for the middle class, while McCain doesn’t have a clue. And “that one” he chose for his running mate - well, what can I say? I don’t think she’s the smartest tack in the box.
166. Ron M | 10.14.08
When Bush cut the capital gains to 15% and allowed Hedge Fund Managers to pay a tax rate that was less than the man who leases him his Hummer, that is not called redistribution. But when that taxing pattern is reversed that is called redistribution. The wealth of the bottom 99% has not nearly increased as much as the top 1% and Obama is simply trying to rebalance the economy so that all will participate in economic prosperity. If that is what is meant by the term socialist then this investor who earns more than half his income from the stock market will be called a Socialist. I know this is an absurd discussion if I am considered a socialist.
167. GivemeaBr8 | 10.14.08
Imagine the triplets running the US Govt– Obama, Reid and Pelosi…
Now that gives shivers up and down my spine.
Robbing from the rich…and giving to the poor.. That’s not Obama’s style though he might come out and spin it that way.Rather Robbing from all American people and giving to the triplets and their enterage.
Senator McCain and Gov Palin’s cries are Drill-baby-Drill and Mine-baby-mine.
Senator Obama’s….Spin-baby-baby (aka…let me keep spinning the line of yarn I am throwing out to you). Are the US people that naive.
Give me a Break!
168. Cynthia | 10.14.08
I’m wondering who here earns more than $250K a year. I have one friend who does and he pays his taxes without question, because he’s an honest man. He isn’t better educated than I am and he hasn’t been working for more years than I have; his field is more lucrative than mine. If you don’t earn that much, why are you freaking out? And even if you did, that’s a lot of money! I also would like to say that anyone posting comments such as ‘you should just spend less’, ‘you’re not working hard enough or you wouldn’t need handouts’, etc. that your view of economics is incredibly naive. I’ve worked hard all my life since I was 15, which is 23 years of paying taxes. I’ve been in the middle class for about 6 years and I pay 35% in taxes. I’m not looking for, nor do I need, a handout. I paid for that bank bailout. The people who can afford to hire a fleet of accountants to find all the loopholes and end up not paying any taxes didn’t pay for that bank bailout. The wealthy should pay their fair share.
And, please, to anyone stating things like ‘this country wasn’t founded on…’ Don’t you think the global economic structure has become just slightly more complicated since 1776? Were high-level jobs being outsourced to India in 1776? Drag yourself into the 21st century.
This brings me to Socialism. What a horrific concept. It’s just evil to the core, isn’t it? Yeah, having a Police department is just depraved. How about a Fire department? Who needs that? We have buckets and a well..oh, hold on, this isn’t 1776. Do you enjoy knowing that if you call 911 that emergency services would come to your aid? That’s Socialism, folks.
And, please, anyone trying to be an Economics expert by Googling is not needed. Obama already has a Stanford University Economics professor advising him. You can fact-check that.
169. ds | 10.14.08
whats wrong with doing away with ALL income taxes, then charging a certain percentage as a federal sales tax?
Then, everyone would be taxed fairly on the goods and services they buy. If you want an extravagant lifestyle, you pay more taxes. If you want to be a stingy mizer, you buy less stuff and pay less taxes.
That way, anyone who doesnt want to pay taxes can just live a meager lifestyle…
This tax plan would effect everyone exactly the same and would be the most “fair” solution…
170. jeff k | 10.14.08
95% of Americans make less than $167,000. Obama says anyone under $250,000 won’t pay additional taxes, that is the upper 1.5%. What about $167,000 to $250,000? The highest tax bracket is already at 34%; with tax burdens reduced on every income level in 2002 (look up history of US income tax rates). The last time taxes were raised to “redistribute wealth” during a recession was 1932, that didn’t work so well. The current mortgage situation was predicted long ago as early as 2000 and nothing was done except protect freddie/fannie by Rep Frank, perhaps because he had a gay lover there.
171. ron_o | 10.14.08
I hope someone reads my commment, all the way down here.
For those who keep saying that the top 5% pay most of the taxes, they are wrong. They pay huge income taxes, which aren’t *all* the taxes as you imply. The propaganda never ends does it? The middle class pays more in taxes than the rich do.
Bush claimed that giving the rich $1 trillion in tax benefits will actually pay for itself. We see that didnt’ happen. But for a time, the rich took advantage of such low taxes. Why do you think in 2007 they gave themselves nearly $62 billion in bonuses?
172. Jon | 10.14.08
Let me ask something; maybe smarter people than me can help.
If I run a business, and that business nets 500k, my taxes go up on the portion that exceeds 250k. Okay, got it. Good so far.
If I hire a new employee, that employee’s salary, health benefits, etc. comes off the top. So I hire two employees, and pay them 100k together. Now I’m paying taxes+ on 150k instead of 250.
I make some capital investments in my business, for another 30k. Now I’m paying taxes+ on 120k. And I have two extra employees to do/find more work, and I have better infrastructure.
Isn’t that basic “using the tax codes in your favor?” It seems to me by providing incentives to hire more folks and do more infrastructure work, a higher tax code on a given tax bracket (high enough that such work and hiring would be practical and useful; might be 250k or 200 or 1m) encourages stronger businesses.
What am I missing?
173. mom against socialism | 10.14.08
As an American who lived & worked in Canada (a socialist country) it makes me sad to think that anyone with a basic understanding of economics or capitalism would think Obama’s redistribution of wealth is a good idea. Free healthcare, free education, tax credits for those who don’t actually pay taxes and any other social program that BO thinks we should finance are not FREE. You are fooling yourselves if you think socialism is the right direction for America. All it does is de-value education (why do I need an education, I get free stuff) and it de-values working hard (why do I need to work hard, I get free stuff). Additionally, as a person who may be considered rich by BO’s standards, I am wondering why my hard earned money (of which I pay almost 40% of my check already) should go to people who didn’t make responsible choices who now want a free ride. I agree with folks that GW’s administration hasn’t done a great job either, but then again, they aren’t acting as true conservatives. That said, I would rather vote for Ronald McDonald than someone with such left wing, liberal (socialist) views!
174. Stephen Scouten | 10.14.08
Wow!
We have become a jaded country. We don’t trust anyone any longer.
The fact is that Socialism does not work. It’s why our country is better off than every other major socialist nation.
Obama’s policies will lead our country and it’s economy down a path of long-term destruction. Please go and speak to someone from a Socialist, or communist country about their nations economic policies. It does not work! Healthcare is sacrificed and major corporations will leave our nation.
Our prohibitive corporate tax policies are already hindering our nations job growth, just wait until we try to raise them higher. Corporations will not only take their jobs oversees, they will take their entire companies from our shores.
Please stop all the jealousy. If someone has more money than you who cares. Money is not the end all be all. Live your own life and be content with what you have. Do not hope that the government will take money from those that have been lucky enough to have financial success so that you can fell that things are “fair.” (However there is a great plan that is “fair” to all…it’s even called the “fair tax,” it taxes consumption instead of income)
The top 5% already pay almost 80% of the total tax revenue. If you tax them to much you create incentives for them to find more loopholes, commit fraud, or just reduce their productivity. The problem is that over 50% of our nations citizens to not actually pay taxes. We must first enforce our laws, prosecute and punish tax evaders, and make sure that we move to a consumption tax so that we get the appropriate revenues from all illegal immigrants who are currently carrying none of the tax burden.
Obamas tax policies will be bad for our nation, our economy, and it’s individual citizens.
175. Stephen Scouten | 10.14.08
Response to Ron_0
Fact check buddy. You just believe what people tell you don’t you?
The Federal Budget office statest that the Top 1% of income earners pay just under 40% of the Federal Tax Burden.
The top 5% pay 59% of the tax burden.
The top 10% pay 70% of the tax burden.
Please notice the small differntial when doubling the amount of people included. Please do the research before commenting blindly. That is propaganda.
176. 1984=2008 | 10.14.08
What I would be more concerned about is speaking out against his plans. O’s secret police will come and get you in the night. Much like another “popular” leader of the 1940s.
If you think I’m joking, just look at how the media demonizes anyone who opposes him. Sick.
177. Margaret | 10.15.08
I am saddened that there is so much anger and anomosity between the comments here. Obviously there is a great deal of misunderstanding between both sides. It isn’t fair to say those at the bottom of the spectrum are sitting on their hands or those in the gated communities are greedy money horders. Are there those at either end and in between abusing the system? Sure. Are there many whose credo is greed whether making 30,000 or 300,000? You bet. But I believe the average American is hard-working, decent, contributes to charities and takes care of their families. Why can’t we agree to disagree on symantics, vote for whoever you think has the country’s (not just our personal) best interest at heart and lose all the anger. I heard this will be called the “Age of Fear” and everything points that way. For a country that has so much we do more complaining than anyone. Heads up Americans. Say a prayer of thanks for all you do have.
178. Don | 10.15.08
Plain and simple. The guy down the street doesnt deserve to have a penny out of my pocket. I worked for it, I made myself into the successful person I am. He hasn’t. So, according to you, because I am successful and making more money than he, I am to give him a share of my earnings.
That -IS SOCIALIST- and NOT AMERICAN.
You all need to wake up.
179. under 250,000 | 10.15.08
I can’t believe some of the stuff I am reading on hear. I am far from 250,000. The thought of increasing the taxes even more on the wealthy makes absolutely no sense unless everyone else is holding their hands out waiting for their hand outs. I work alot of overtime to make extra money. The problem is, once I reach a certain income level, I fall into the next higher tax bracket. I pay a higher percentage of my wages in taxes. The more you go up the income level, the higher the percentage of taxes you pay. Check out the Federal Income Tax code. The top 5% is already paying their share of the tax burden. Even if they had a flat tax rate, they would still be paying more taxes than some one making less money. Figure it out, if I made $50000.00 and was taxed at a flat rate of 25%, I would pay 12500.00 in taxes. If some one else made $1000000.00 and was taxed at a flat rate of 25%, they would pay $250000.00. Is that not paying alot more tax than I would pay? We don’t go by a flat tax though, they actually pay a lot higher percentage than I do. I believe our ancestors left Great Britain to avoid “Taxation Without Representation”. Now we feel that this is a good idea?
180. american | 10.15.08
if you do not agree with this article, you do not agree with the spirit of capitalism. America is a capitalist nation. if you think obama is right, move to a nation that is already socialist- dont ruin this one too.
181. NO-BAMA 2008 | 10.15.08
1. Obama is a socialist.
2. Obama wants to take my money and use it how he thinks is best.
3. I don’t like that at all.
4. Obama wants to take my money and give it to someone else just because they make less money than I do.
5. The church, along with other wealthy individuals, should privately take care of the poor and needy. That is not the federal government’s job.
6. Quit trying to twist the Bible and Christianity to make it sound like it supports and preaches wealth redistribution-because it doesn’t.
7. Christians are commanded to take care of their neighbor-not Big Government take care of us all and give us handouts for doing nothing.
8. Barack Obama, you may not have my money and you will not get my vote!
9. I will help those around me as I am able. I will not stoop to the forms of socialism and social tenants that enslave people to the government and never actually allow them to live the American dream to the fullest!
182. under 250,000 | 10.15.08
I just heard Obama on a news clip saying reditribution of wealth is a good thing for everyone. Everyone but Obama????????? I read an article that talked about one of Obama’s very close high school friends that he talked about in his book. His old pal fell on hard times, got involved in heavy drug use and ended up in jail. After getting out of jail and living with another friend in a car, he contacted Obama and congradulated him on his run for President and proceeded to tell him of his problems. Obama told him it was great to hear from him, but he was busy and had to go. Wow, what happened to redistributing some of Obama’s wealth to help an old best friend? I also have read about Obama’s half brother that lives in a hut in Africa. Wow, what happened to redistributing some of Obama’s wealth for his half brother that could use a little money to help better himself? Just who’s wealth does Obama want to redistribute here? When he can’t be a compationate enough human to help a former best friend or a family member. He said in his comment that he was one of the ones over $250,000 and those people should be helping those behind him to be able to achive. Obama…….Put your money were your so called policies are…….You’re such a fraud.
183. Chris S. | 10.15.08
“Redistribution of wealth” is an expression used by ideologues so that people think they have a choice which they don’t have. You can be a fair capitalist and believe that nobody should pay high taxes, including the rich, or you can be a Godless Commie who believes in “redistribution of wealth.”
The problem is, there IS no such choice. ALL economic systems, and all economies, are about “redistribution of wealth,” no matter what side of the political spectrum you fall on. WEALTH IS A FINITE COMMODITY.
The fact that our dollars are no longer backed by a mineral such as silver or gold changes nothing about that fact. Sure, America could ostensibly print out a few million extra $20 bills, but inflation will swiftly correct that so that, ultimately, the relative value of everything will stay the same. Wealth can’t be “created,” it can only be redistributed- in one direction or another.
Whenever we earn or spend money, we are “redistributing wealth,” even if the earnings are passive. If my $10 share of stock goes up in value to $40, I don’t see any of that money until SOMEONE buys the stock.
The fact that wealth is finite means that, if Paris Hilton has several hundred million dollars in her bank account- that’s several million YOU can’t have. Multiply that by the super-wealthy in the top five percent and you’ll realize that “working hard” isn’t QUITE enough to get you there. Family ties and connections help (which the people who have money already have in abundance.)
So do taz shelters (which the working and middle class don’t have access to.) Warren Buffet, a very rich, and very honest, man, has pointed out that our tax code is a farce- not because it makes the rich pay too much, but because they find ways of not paying AT ALL.
184. Maggie | 10.15.08
Let’s see. A clever “redistribution” or spreading the wealth to actually result in people who pay no taxes receiving tax rebates, government provided health care (believe it when you get to see a doctor and are not on a gurney with a heart attack,) huge government investments and stock in financial institutions, a president who will sit down with terriorist nations with no reservations or pre-conditions. hummmmm sorts sounds like a cross between a dictatorship and socialism. If Obama becomes president. Now I’m old enough not to care much about this going on a long time, after all unless he declares himself dictator much like Castro did after “helping the poor people LOL” but one thing I do know. The Obama’s are people to fear and one simple judgement example which cannot be disputed.
185. Hawaii Glen | 10.15.08
My strategy for Obama tax increases: For every dollar that Obama increases my taxes, I’ll match with a reduction in spending. Those luxury items that I pay the sales tax on - sorry believe or not I can do without. Just reducing my mindless spending will save me money and deny about $5,000 dollars a year in sales tax. I’ll increase my donations to conservative causes only which will in turn help offset by tax bill. Donations at the higher tax rate will be more effective. If I do this right the government will get the same amount or less, I’ll give more to “my” causes, while my networth will be higher. The big plus is I’ll have less stuff that just sits and depreciates. Maybe I’ll sell the 2 snowmobiles and boat I have in storage at my vacation home in Montana. That way I can save the cost of monthly storage.
186. So called rich | 10.15.08
It took around 20 years of hard work, but my wife and I are now making a combined income somewhere around 300k. Our only real investment is our house, and our recent tax returns saw us paying over 100k in federal income tax, plus we still pay state/property taxes as well. We give thousands of dollars a year in charitable contributions, including local food banks, Christian Children’s Fund, medical research, after-school programs, etc. I just recently set up a lunch account for my daughter’s friend when we found out she was missing lunch at times due to lack of money.
I do not mind paying taxes, as long as I feel they are being wisely spent. So far the federal government has a so-so track record in how it has spent the tax revenue. My fear is that the Obama tax plan will (1) increase our tax burden even more and yet (2) not increase the quality of life for most. Government has shown that it is not very efficient in spending our money. Grow it’s size, and a larger chunk of our tax dollars will be swallowed just to keep the beast alive.
I wholeheartly support a flat income tax for individuals above a certain income, perhaps combined with a small federal sales tax. I also think the real solution here is not so much wealth redistribution, but the shrinking of the federal government. Reduce the size of the government, reduce the tax burden on everyone. Problem is that the people who have the most power to enact such a change are the ones most hurt by it…
187. Kerry | 10.15.08
These are the most ignorant liberals I’ve ever read! Wow! Education, people!! Try it!
188. haugh | 10.15.08
I just want to thank all you rich folks in advance, because when Barack Obama gets elected, I will enjoy your tax money very much.
I think Ill go out and get a giant sack of w##d to celebrate (with your money), then I will veg out on the couch and watch infomercials for a month or two.
Thank god and jesus and all the rich people, for making it possible for lazy folks such as myself to just sit around and do nothing, while still eating steak and drinking beer every single night.
Thanks rich people!
189. Patrick Henry | 10.15.08
“These are the most ignorant liberals I’ve ever read! Wow! Education, people!! Try it!”
With what money? do you know how much a teacher makes? about 1/4 of what the superintendent makes. Yeah, I want to be a teacher to school you.
190. Patrick Henry | 10.15.08
“Under 250,000″, if you were making more than 250k, believe me you would find more loopholes to pay less taxes. You think that rich people or well off people pay that much in taxes, then you my friend are as ignorant as most of the conservatives here that say nobama. You know why the rich give money to the poor or non-profit orgs, “tax breaks”, “tax deductions”, “reinvesting of wealth”, there are ways to go around paying high taxes. If you can afford a good accountant, there is no way you are paying high taxes.
To all you ignoramus that hate socialized health care, I pay dear for mine and a good one at that. Last physical, I waited 2 1/2 hours to be seen with an appointment. My friend that has medicare because of low income went for a physical, 25 minute wait. To add insult to injury, my doctor lectured me about my wait time and to see another doctor if I was not happy. In all, my physical lasted 10 minutes. How much was that to my insurance company $450, with my $10 copay. Yeah, our healthcare system really works, for who? beats me.
191. dan | 10.15.08
Hey folks…Bush isn’t running for president. It seems many democrats are resorting to using Bush’s recent actions to justify Obama’s. How can one bash Bush and yet use his actions to justify Obama’s desire to implement the same ideology in all he wants to do? I can only conclude that it takes a liberal mind to be able to do so.
The fact is…I don’t like Socialism regardless which side institutes it. I was surprised by Bush’s latest move…I never saw it coming. At least my republican Congresswoman representing my district and even my state’s democrat Senator voted against it.
But with Obama, we know Socialism is coming, in all that he will do. So those saying…yeah but look at what Bush just did…is not justification for supporting Obama. It just means a vote for certain socialism.
192. Mr. Independant | 10.15.08
People who do not know that the president can not pass the bill unless the house (which is primarily democrat today) approves first, are not qualified to post comments indicating that the President and Mr. Paulson are the sole authors and approving bodies for this bill. Anyone who believes that either party can do no wrong is ignorant and close-minded. So many people hate one party or one person so much that their vote will be based on emotions alone without any sane reasoning. You can ask people why they believe that Obama is the best candidate to better the economy or why McCain is the ideal candidate to defend our nation and a significant majority will have nothing to say other than what they hear by a biased news reporter or anchor. Personal responsibility (that goes for the government as well, they are not innocent of this economic meltdown) and being able to think for one self is so essential these days where politicians change their stories daily to get our votes. Demand transparency and clarity, and question their so ever changing stance on the issues that affect all of us. Be thirsty for the truth and set your emotions aside, and just for a while, so that your vote won’t replace corrupt politicians with others that may be even worse. If you tolerate being lied at from any party then your ability to choose the best leaders for our country is as inadequate as your ability to drive while intoxicated.
193. Bryan | 10.15.08
To all who keep harping on the fact that only a portion of tax-payers will have their taxes raised, the revenue realized from such policy will be used to give a tax “credit” to tens of millions of people with no income tax liability. There are many terms used to describe such a policy. Euphemistically, we may use “middle-class entitlement” or “wealth re-distribution.” But let’s call it what it really is: a government hand-out. Obama’s tactics should now be clear to all: appeal to as large a group of voters as possible by promising money from the government. Be afraid; for Obama thinks he is smarter than you, and as President will do anything to prove it to you.
194. Aimee | 10.15.08
This comment is only based upon the answers that Obama gave to the gentlemen in the video. As a small business owner, I work over 50 hours a week and I work hard. It has taken me many many years to grow this business through blood, sweat, and tears to have reach this point. Now Obama wants me to “share the wealth” to those behind me? Where is the sense in that? I did not receive any “checks” and to be honest I am so proud that I am able to be were I am today without a handout. I can honestly say that this is me and my accomplishment. I don’t ask from others and I share and contribute because it is who I am. I don’t want to be force to do it. And besides I rather keep the money in my community to help schools, sports teams, and charities then to hand it over to the government. I do not trust them with all my money. Build infrastructure, pay the military, and keep us safe is what I believe them to do. We are strong individuals who can and will take care of ourselves through hard work, intelligence, and innovations of our businesses.
195. Shawn Torres | 10.15.08
“Spread the wealth around. That can mean many things. It could mean a rising tide lifts all boats. But it could also mean government taking from one group of people (the people who earned it) and giving it to those who did not.”
Apparently, it also means taking from one group (the people who earned it) and giving it to another who LOST IT from bad investments. Does 700+ Billion ring a bell?
The fact is that all governments spend. Its what the tax dollars are spent on that matters. Call me naive , but spending money domestically on infrastructure, schools, green incentives and healthcare seems better than wallstreet, wars and oil drilling. People who are throw around terms like “redistribution of wealth” make it sound like the bolshevics are marching through Joe sixpack’s living room to take their loot and give it to welfare moms. This fear manifest itself in gated communities, prisons, Fox news and Palin rallies because there is no appropriate channel to express these concerns as we continually try to shield ourselves from a world that seems like its getting worse and worse.
We cannot enclose ourselves in little bubbles with the notion that “whats mine is mine” because if we turn our backs on the world…it WILL GET WORSE and seep into our lives. If we let the free market reign…children will work in factories again, crime on the streets will get worse, our libraries, parks and schools will crumble and our society will decay.
This global financial crisis is only one sign that the levies are breaking. We as Christians are our brothers keeper…whether they be muslim, buddhist, jew etc. We see the survivors of countless tragedies (New Orleans for example) lose everything and yet we whine about our 401 K’s and high taxes. What gives?
Unfortunately, I have seen politicians like Bush I, come along and say that he would cut taxes and then raise them. What happened to the rich who felt some sense of civic duty..who felt a moral responsibiltiy to care for the poor? What you do now will shape the America of the 21st century…are you going to try to preserve your bubble and fear being taxed (which will happen anyway) or are you going to stand up, participate in the process and find some new solutions.
America you are better than this. My two cents.
196. wow | 10.15.08
the problem is about 30% of the 95% Obama talks about do not even pay income tax under the current system. Obama wants to give them a “tax break” by taking the money from productive Americans and cutting them a check. If Obama wins we need to change the name of this country because America will be dead (1776-2008, R.I.P.) Why even try to succeed if you are going to be punished for your success?
197. Conservative | 10.15.08
There should be no bail out for poor decisions of corporations. The nature of the beast is that if you make poor decisions you go out of business no matter how big or small you are. The same goes for a mortgage. You buy a house you can’t afford then you end up forclosed. It is not taxpayer responsibility to absorb the risk and poor decisions of others.
198. hesingswithfrogs | 10.15.08
This country has ridden an enormous wave of success on the back of the American worker. Guess what? The American worker is tapped out. He’s broke. His credit cards are maxed. His home values are declining. He doesn’t have any more money to spend. Money is scarce for the American worker, even though he is employed and is one of the most productive workers in the world. As a result of the American worker being broke, businesses bottom lines are suffering because the demand for their products and services isn’t there. Unless we can figure out how to get more money into the American worker’s pockets, everyone, businesses included, is going to suffer. We can start by taxing the American worker less. With more money to spend, he’s bound to spend more, thus helping businesses. With more demand from the American worker for products and services, businesses will be able to create more jobs and sell more products and services. But without the American worker being able to spend more money, businesses won’t have the demand and resulting revenues necessary to create more jobs and their products and services won’t be selling. Unfortunately, simply taxing the American worker less won’t fully solve our problems.
A large part of the problem, namely that the American worker is tapped out, is largely caused by the tremendous hoarding of assets by the nation’s most wealthy. We’re not talking saving for a rainy day or for kids educations. We’re talking about serious, piles of money hoarding. In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation’s wealth. I’m sure its even worse now. This hoarding of assets by the nation’s top 10% creates a tremendous scarcity of money for the remaining 90%. Unless the top 10% reduces its hoards of money in a way that gets money back to the American Worker, the scarcity of money for 90% of the country will remain. If the scarcity of money for 90% of the country remains, business, our economy, and our people will suffer terribly as a result of reduced demand.
While concepts of wealth redistribution are obviously controversial, they are necessary to get our economy back on the right track. It is becoming clear that the tremendous hoarding of assets by the top 10% is sucking the life-blood out of the American Worker. Be it through provision of incentives for wealth hoarders to reduce their hoards through spending or charity, or through tax and spend programs, or other measures, the unsustainable disparity in wealth must be addressed.
199. JTP | 10.15.08
Many of you people make me sick.
Thos with your hands out, looking for freebies from the hard working people of this country. Do you realize the hard working people of this country provide you with wealth? Don’t you realize that corporations provide you with jobs? Don’t you realize that when you penalize productive individuals and corporations with higher taxes, it reduces wealth for EVERYONE?
200. John | 10.16.08
The $700 billion bailout takes my tax payments and gives it to rich wastrels. That is the opposite of Socialism: it is theft the old-fashioned way. And to say that progressive taxation takes money from the people who “earned” it is equally bizarre. The super-rich may work hard at times, but the reason why they are rich is simply because they are skilled at ripping off the people who do “actual” work for them. Without workers, the rich would never get to be rich. And the excessive “earnings” of the super-rich (often in the form of capital gains) have little to do with their own work. That’s what I call redistribution. In contrast, progressive taxation is only a very mild form of un-redistribution. Harsher methods do exist.
201. Bob | 10.16.08
If you freely give money to the poor it is called charity. It someone takes your money by force and you have no choice, that is called STEALING.
202. Homer X Thompson | 10.16.08
What Joe Knows: Change = Socialism
http://obamasenate.com/2008/10/16/what-joe-knows-change-socialism/
203. Patrick Henry | 10.16.08
Funny, all you people that say that “I work hard for my money”, “I made my business through blood and tears”. Good for you, lets see you keep that business running when there is no money to spend. When your regular customers go for the cheaper guy because they cant make ends meet. Everybody works hard and everyone helps each other by redistributing wealth. My dollar earned, even for working at min wage, goes to purchase your goods ie your dollar earned. If I dont have a dollar, you get nothing. Taxpayers dont provide anyone with wealth. JTP I can see you are another ignorant conservative, look up the definition of wealth would you? John, some people here dont understand the whole concept. They just see it as hand outs, freebies. You see Bob and other conservatives here are in the 5% group of wealthy americans, they make more than $250,000 a year, they made it on their own, with nobody’s help. Nobody bought anything from them, they did not provide any good and services to anyone, they put a building with a name on it and money just seem to come in through the front door. Amazing isnt it?, oh wait, let me put it in lammer’s term, a la Palin, amazin’ ain’t it?
204. Jerry | 10.16.08
Poor Joe the plumber. Let’s all spare some change for him, he’s only earning a quarter of a million dollars. No big deal if regular people can’t afford his $120-an-hour billable rate, Palin will make sure Jesus raptures him away before he has to scrimp on his yacht payments. Let’s pass the collection plate to the poor rich plumber so he can hoard all the wealth and never give any back.
205. Emzad | 10.16.08
McCain agreed to the bailout… I mean “rescue” bill… I hardly think he can be pointing the finger at Obama. Face it. If you actually are a conservative you will vote Bob Barr, not McCain. McCain is saying one thing, but acting in a manner that goes against capitalistic economics. If you vote for either you are not really concerned amount the economy from a free market view, you are just saying it because you figure Republicans still stand for what they did years ago. Real conservatives what smaller government, fewer taxes and more freedom… you know, conservative government. You will not find that in either of the two. You want Bob Barr for that.
206. E. Rodriguez | 10.16.08
Hey Patrick, you would love living in Venezuela! You are talking exactly how the middle class in my country (Venezuela) were talking before they elected Chavez. I tell you, we all fell for it and elected Chavez, and look at the mess we are right now. Class warefare, hatred between the poor and the rich, the middle class dissapeared! Obama with his speeches is trying to create that same class warfare between the middle class and the wealthy, trying to make them say “yeah, we want a piece of that wealth!”… you can see the result of that type of thinking by reading a news article on Venezuela. You don’t know what is to live in a country with the policy of “spreading the wealth”, and I don’t think that you would like to live in one. Don’t vote for Obama if you don’t want to take the US down the same path my country went down.
207. Judy Miles | 10.16.08
What’s wrong with Socialism.
Obama is for socialism and we love it.
We are the people who will take over thw world.
Long live Obama and socialism!
208. JAN | 10.17.08
greedy, selfish adults throwing childish tempertantrums. Its time for some one to step in and say enough is enough. Stomp your feet and cry socialism all you want. I’ll be outside having a good time with my friends who don’t value hording, lying, cheating, manipulating, and stealing from others. Brats!
209. cj78415 | 10.18.08
WE already redistribute our wealth to those who are not citizens and those who refuse to get up and go get a job…!! This country is being taken over by illegal immigrants who are getting something for nothing…! I am all for helping people who are willing to help themselves. But I am not for giving to those who won’t work and prefer to get welfare checks, that are taxing my income more and more.
210. American Farmer | 10.18.08
If you tax anyone making over 250,000 that would include most farmers gross income for their farms. So go ahead an tax us and then where are you going to get your food???
Please find out how 95% of ALL Americans are going to get a tax break when almost 40% pay little to no taxes?? So are they going to get a check for nothing??
Repubs give more to charity by % of income tha Dems based on all levels of incomes. So dont staart on Repubs not caring about people. Dear Nancy has asked for 350Bil more in bail outs this past week not the Repub. So both sides are at fault in this issue. Loans to illegals for houses that cost 300 to 400 thousand and could not pay the interest !! I dont own a house worth 30% of that and you want me to pay more taxes because the farm produces over 250,000 in gross income !!!! You are all drunk with this kool-aid from both sides. Wake up America they are using you for their own blue or red agendas !!! Stand up and be real thinkers and Americans not what some professor or politician feeds you. Get the facts. The rest of the world thinks its funny that they are leaving socialism and we are finding it as warm and fuzzzy. The Russsians have more billionairs than America. WHY??
Because they spread the wealth?? No because of power control. Most of you seem to want the Gov to take care of you. How do you think the Kenney’s got rich?? By spreading the wealth?? Think again. I am glad I can grow my own food and dont need much else of your world of gread.
211. LTCHI | 10.19.08
Rather interesting to see that OBAMA makes 150 million for the month of Sept in camoaign support. Hmmm.
Where is all the money coming from to pay for Zero’s give aways? There isnt enough rich people to spread the wealth. Remember increase those taxes on companies and they leave for friendlier countries…..GM, Ford Chrysler are gone.
Remember he lied about Staying with the campapign limits…..hmmmm
212. Dr. Dean | 10.19.08
“Please find out how 95% of ALL Americans are going to get a tax break when almost 40% pay little to no taxes?? So are they going to get a check for nothing??”
Exactly. “Refundable Tax Credits”. That means that literally, even if you pay zero dollars in taxes, Obama will take money from other people and give it to you. For no reason whatsoever - other than to get elected. Some people think that is ok.
Why does he have to take money from some people and give it others you wonder? Why not just cut the taxes of those 95% (which is what he’s claiming to do)???
Easy. He can’t because there isn’t enough to cut. There has been a lot of misinformation about the tax load upper income makers pay. Someone above had the required deficit of intelligence to state the the middle class has seen their taxes increased by Bush so he could cut taxes for the rich.
The reality is not what the left would have us think. Upper income makers (the top 5%) have been paying a larger percent of the nations income tax since Bush took office.
In 2001, the top 5% paid 53.25% of all income taxes.
In 2002, the top 5% paid 53.80% of all income taxes.
In 2003, the top 5% paid 54.36% of all income taxes.
In 2004, the top 5% paid 57.13% of all income taxes.
In 2005, the top 5% paid 59.67% of all income taxes.
In 2006, the top 5% paid 60.14% of all income taxes.
During that time the BOTTOM 50% paid a smaller percent in 2006 (2.99%) than they did in 2001 (3.97%). To be clear, the bottom 50% of taxpayers have seen their tax bill - as a portion of the total - go DOWN by almost 25% beginning in 2001.
213. Kaela | 10.19.08
Dear Mr. Patrick Henry,
Your view of Christianity seems a little skewed to me. In fact, as far as I can tell Jesus’ mantra seems to be more about helping your fellow man as Jesus gave his life for all of you. Your statement about living in a Christian country, where it seems you think it is a God-given right to “take more and not share” is the opposite of what Jesus had in mind. Jesus didn’t look at the poor men and women standing next to your rich ancestors and say “I’m not doing this for you lower class filth. Christ is only for the rich!” Take your ridiculous ideologies, along with your $250,000 a year, on a long vacation to give the rest of us here in America a break from having to deal with your self-centered greed and stupidity.
214. Sarah | 10.20.08
Hello, any moderates out there? Any self-made women/men who have finally made financial successes of themselves after years of hard-work, risk, and stress (yes, keeping paychecks coming to those under one’s employ can be very stressful). I wish I had time to directly respond to some of the absurd comments posters have made here, some very articulate in espousing their ignorance or bitterness.
I make over $250,000. Finally. For many years I struggled financially building a business, many years paying those I employed more than myself. The bulk of my money is still at ‘risk’ growing a business that continues to add numbers to the payroll every year. I have just recently been able to put money away for my childrens’ college education and retirement (because of my recent arrival to the “wealthy” class there will only be merit scholarships for my children and no other financial aid gifts from the colleges). I’ve never lived above my means or felt entitled
to anything. Why should I be happy about the government wanting to put its hands in my pocket? I wonder how
many surgeons/physicians feel, after incurring HUGE debt to put themselves through med school, about finally reaching a wage that puts them in an ‘elite’ class while facing the repayment of these loans? I think there are many people out there who are in that top five percent who worked very hard for it, didn’t get there overnight, and have many people around them who are better for their success. I add, my employees are paid higher than industry standards, but not as much as me (I took the risks and weathered the business storms). This as it should be.
Does Obama realize that his restructuring of the social security ceilings (no tax between $102-200,000) will mean
that the individual making $200,000 will be paying roughly 50% of his/her salary in social security tax while the individual making $65,000 will be paying 100%? The tax picks up again on wages over $200,000. How do the poor feel about the middle class on this one? This increase is also a socialistic proposition. I don’t know anyone who is happy with the recent financial bailout, but I do know that the “conservatives” were more reluctant to vote yes. If the bailouts are successful as structured, the intent is to return this money to the taxpayers - with interest. The government needs to let me continue to grow my business and figure out how to be more efficient with what I am already giving them.
215. LowlyWise | 10.21.08
Hold it, hold it! Neither Obama nor McCain can do a thing without Congress. They cannot, thank heaven, impose their programs upon a populace that would be about 50% unhappy no matter how it went. The subtext of most of the comments written here–and I haven’t read them all–is that everyone would like to be wealthy, but not wealthy enough to have it taken away by confiscatory taxes.
For me, one issue trumps them all, and this is why I have voted for Obama: one thing the President is empowered by the Constitution to do: appoint supreme court justices. I don’t want a McCain-Palin government appointing another of the ilk of Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, or Alito. You can bet the arch-conservative factions have Roe v. Wade cases all ready to go, cases that would a lead-pipe cinch to overthrow that decision. It’s about economic freedom, too: to overthrow that decision will say that women are to be kept barefoot and pregnant chattel slaves.
Matters requiring interaction with Congress can be hammered out: not the appoint of justices. Oh, of course there would be a confirmation battle, and that would be a time-consuming sideshow that would prevent any legislation being done–but an Obama administration could avoid that.
216. Howard | 10.23.08
Obama’s first, second, and third priority is to get elected. If that means pandering to large numbers of unemployed, under employed, those on welfare, illegal aliens, and malcontents, be happy to throw them a few crumbs as a way to get their votes. He will also turn democracy and capitalism on it’s head, and villainize the affluent and successful in our society, in order to rally the masses behind him. With evangelical zeal Obama will convince his followers to replace reason with hope and belief … to blindly follow him … never challenge him … and embrace his words as gospel. In the real, and unforgiving world of economics however, when you immediately gratify everyone by feasting on the goose that lays the golden eggs, the economy looses it’s ability to continue generating growth and wealth. Obama is promising everyone a piece of the pie, whether they helped bake it, or not … but, only in a socialistic, or communist state do the non-contributors demand to share equally in the property that belongs to others. Immediate gratification is like a drug to the malcontents, but in the big picture, every farmer knows that you never eat your seed crop. If Obama gets elected, America will turn into a third world country, with massive government welfare programs, unable to generate jobs for it’s citizens, and unable to compete in the global markets. Keep America safe, free and strong … elect McCain/Palin on November 4th.
217. DL | 10.24.08
Next time you go out for dinner/order pizza or give a tip to someone. Don’t tip, take that money and donate it to someone less unfortunate.
We have a Buisness card that we use in place of the tip. It looks something like this….
Obama’s
Wealth Redistribution Plan
The tip you have earned is $_____________.
However, I will not be giving you what you rightly earned.
Instead I will give it to a person/group that needs it much
more than you do. This follows Obama’s plan. You might not
like this idea; neither do I.
Think before you Vote!
We get very nasty comments. People don’t like letting others decide where there money is going. Which is why they need to “Think before you Vote!”
218. The real working Man | 10.25.08
For those that have never owned a business that creates jobs for hundreds of individuals . Most of the comments I have read are out of line and totally misinformed. I worked 14 years building a business ..spent many years paying everyone else except myself. kept the money in the business to grow it to create more jobs. Barack Obama’s plan…does not help or reward our stewardship of the opportunities we have been given. As far as the Christian comment I read earlier.. Who is better to distribute the wealth than the individual that Tithes to God. I will tell you that Government is always the worst place to trust to distribute wealth.
219. Born Evil | 10.27.08
We would not be in such a crisis to begin with if the banks had not been forced to give sub-prime loans. Merrel-Lynch is a great example of how ridiculous this situation is; they refused to give the loans at first, but after they were slapped with a two hundred million dollar lawsuit for discriminating against the poor, they had two options:
1) Lose all their money in a lawsuit
2) Go broke when nobody pays them back for anything.
So what are they supposed to do? If everyone if entitled to everything, if its not deserved or practical, everything will go in tank. And its ridiculous that I’m evil because I was lucky and born into wealth. I know I did nothing to deserve it. But I also give thousands to charities every year. I work for and with groups that improve the lives of the less fortunate. Time, money, energy; who can tell me that I’m not doing my share to try and make it a better place for everyone? It is unfair that the government can arbitrarily take my money just because they can’t control their spending.
I support neither candidate, but I do want to say that every Republican is not Bush.
220. Hillary | 10.27.08
Here is a breakdown from the IRS on how much of the Federal taxes are paid by certain salary groups… Looks to me like the 5% Obama is talking about already taking the majority of the tax burden….
but maybe I am just bitter because I lost the primary.
* If your family makes under $30k, you’re in the bottom half of wage earners, and that group pays 2.53% of federal income taxes collected.
* If your family makes more than $30k, you’re in the top half of wage earners, and that group pays 97.47% of federal income taxes collected.
* If your family makes more than $41k, you’re in the top 41% of all wage earners, and that group pays 94.8% of federal income taxes collected.
* If your family makes more than $50k, you’re in the top third of all wage earners, and that group pays 91.62% of federal income taxes collected.
* If your family makes more than $75k, you’re in the top 20% of wage earners, and that group pays 82.4% of federal income taxes collected.
* If your family makes more than $100k, you’re in the top 12% of wage earners, and that group pays 73.61% of federal income taxes collected.
* If your family makes more than $200k, you’re in the top 3% of wage earners, and that group pays 53.16% of federal income taxes collected.
* If your family makes more than $500k, you’re in the top 1% of wage earners, and that group pays 35.87% of federal income taxes collected.
221. Jamie | 10.27.08
I notice a lot of people on this blog saying that the bailout was a Republican thing. Might I remind you that the Democrats in Congress were the one backing it, not the Republicans. The conservatives were completely against it. Makes sense though. The Democrats caused the whole mortgage crisis by forcing banks to lend money to people that didn’t have the means to pay the money back. As soon as home values started to drop and variable rate mortgage rates started to rise, predictable, it hit the fan. This is because of morons like Barney’s Frank and Barack Obama. Bush went along with the bailout. And Bush is not now, and never was, a conservative.
222. Toni Quinn | 10.27.08
The bottom line is the current tax code is already a redistribution of wealth. The fact that someone makes more money and therefore should be taxed at a higher rate is riduculous. A few years ago, my husband received a promotion from an hourly wage to management. A $3000/yr promotion. Same hours, unpaid overtime, much more responsibilty and stress. This put us into a high tax bracket (higher tax rate) instead of getting a $3000 year raise he got a $300/yr raise due to the increased taxes. Moreover, he actually made less that year because he had no overtime pay. Harder work, more stress, less pay. That really makes you want to work hard when you get penalized for working hard.
224. JustALittleGuy | 10.28.08
I think the “MePublicans” have focused so much on how Obama wants to redistribute the wealth to take the heat off of the redistribution of wealth that has happened during the last 8 years under their watch — Bush has contributed more to the national debt than all of the past presidents in history combined.
THAT REDISTRIBUTION of wealth pales in comparison to the tax breaks Obama wants to give to the little guys.
225. Instigator24 | 10.28.08
Let’s not get carried away here. Obama is only increasing income tax. So you will just see more execs make $249,999 and make the rest in stock compensation. They won’t even see the increase. Also, the “Joe The Plumber”’s of the world need to get a good accountant to set up an S-Corp and only pay your self $249,999 and get the rest at the end of the year passed on to you as stock, thus only paying capital gains on anything above $249,999 and not get a tax increase. Come on people. The rich haven’t paid taxes in decades. There are always ways around it. The only fair proposal is on fairtax.org. Consumption tax is the only way to make taxing fair.
226. Grant | 10.30.08
I keep seeing the same thing over and over again: “the wealthy have gotten so many tax breaks, now they should get taxed more so that our economy will do better.” We forget that our economy is ruled by the rich. Yes, corporations get tax breaks. Know why? Because if they didn’t, the consumers would suffer; prices would rise. If the government doesn’t give them breaks, they aren’t going to take the hit: WE take the hit. Don’t give breaks to oil corporations? Watch our gas prices soar. Don’t give cuts to international corporations? Watch their products get more and more expensive. The rich provide jobs, they start businesses. Tax them more, the troubles WILL trickle down in the form of price increases and fewer job opportunities.
227. Mimi | 10.30.08
First of all…redistribution of wealth back to the wealthy is NOT redistribution. So those of you who said that, obviously do NOT know what you are talking about.
Secondly, redistribution of wealth IS socialism ~ go back to school or research the true meaning (honestly, you people are making complete fools of yourselves).
Third, I would rather have a job working for a RICH conservative, than to be unemployed and accept a 1 time hand out of $500 (that’s my BIG bonus from Obama…I calculated it on HIS calculator being single and making $35,000 annually)
Also, there is PLENTY in this country to be made! There are already social programs in place (grants and low interest government loans as well as EXTENSIVE unemployment services and training) for those who want to better themselves, further their education and WORK hard. And guess who is going to give you that high paying job when you are qualified for it? THE RICH BUSINESS OWNER! (unless he is taxed to the hilt and as a result, will pay you LESS to make up for it)
On to the bailout:
Do you realize that the economy was booming until the DEMOCRATS took over the majority in both houses 2 years ago? That is when the lending institutions and Wall Street were able to get away with their greed and SUNK our economy. Senators Frank and Dodd were “IN CHARGE” of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac!
Come on people, use your brains and do your homework! UGH!
We still live in the land of opportunity…FOR NOW! I pray that doesn’t change with the election of Mr. Obama. If YOU vote him into office ~ YOU GET WHAT YOU DESERVE!
228. Steve the Carpenter | 10.30.08
your $250,000 has dropped to $200,000 and again to $150,000 according to the lovely Mr. Biden! Just like Clinton Promises Promises and will it ever happen? Jump on the Communist bandwagon and follow Mr. Obama into depression when the 5% that pay the biggest percentage of taxes leave our country for some less taxing one and leave us middle class to foot the bill. look at Mr. Universe and Callyforniya! California is in Debt up to its ears because of this fact! Barstool Economics! I love America, Choices and Freedom are why i love it, so vote as you will and live with your own decisions and i will sleep easy when i Vote for McCain.
230. steve | 10.31.08
who was in charge of the senate the last two years,who told the lending instutitions to give subprime loans or be hit with a fine where do you knuckle heads come from that profess to be Americans and educated,but it is so easy to blame it on one man.
231. C JAY | 10.31.08
There should be a FLAT tax for everyone. Everyone who has an education and a good paying job did NOT NECESSARILY have it handed to them on a silver platter. I know lots of people who worked hard and put themselves through school so they could better themselves. It’s not right to REDISTRIBUTE their wealth to LAZY people who don’t want to work or.
FOR family’s that decide they don’t want one of the parents to work…that’s fine…..BUT DON’T EXPECT TO BE EQUAL AND HAVE THE SAME LIFESTYLE that families do where BOTH PARENTS WORK.
We have MAJOR lack of motivation in this country. I don’t care what color you are…BLACK WHITE RED or YELLOW. WHEN all people do is sit around waiting on a govt. check…that is called “THE DUMMING DOWN OF AMERICA”. When the govt. gets you DUMB ENOUGH then they can do anything because you become like a robot that does not have his own opinion…YOU ARE TOLD WHAT TO DO AND WHAT TO THINK.
Providing free education IS A WHOLE DIFFERENT STORY. That enables people to better themselves. There NEEDS to be a limit to the handouts……you either better yourself or YOU WILL LIVE IN POVERTY.
232. KIM | 11.04.08
Remember, redistribution means that when I eat at a restaraunt and the waiter works hard to make my experience a pleasant one, Obama will take his $20 tip and give it to the student going to university. I bet that makes the waiter feel great! And on top of that, the waiter will soon realize that he shouldn’t have to work that hard and give his money away. Leave that up to someone else, he’ll still get his money. Redistribution means few work hard and many get the workers rewards. This may be in the guise of taxe cuts but this is truly what is happening
233. Kim | 11.04.08
Let’s get this straight once and for all about the sub-prime mortgage industry…People are told the terms of their mortgage and the monthly paymnet no less than THREE times before theuy sign their loan papers. No bank makes someone pay a mortgage payment they cannot not afford. A bank’s job is not to control YOUR finances. They have a formula to calculate your debt-to-income ratio. If you qualify, they tell you your payment. It is up to YOU to pay it. If you can’t afford it then don’t buy the house… Oh, I forgot Americans just keep making poor financial decisions and it is the bank’s fault. I want, I want , I want.. That is how those peole got there.TAKE RESPONSIBILTY FOR YOUR MISTAKES AND STOP MAKING THEM BELONG TO SOMEONE ELSE.
234. derrr` | 11.05.08
Its super cool to give money back to people who aren’t paying taxes anyway! woohoo! lets look at all the studies that show what happens when you give money to people who don’t earn it - 90%+ keep right on spending it on ETHANOL (alcohol) and crack cocaine.
Its a great plan!!!
235. Common F. Sense | 11.05.08
Bottom line is those that work hard should be entitled to keep a FAIR amount, and certainly should NOT have to subsidize the parasite-class. Get rid of the BS welfare loopholes and lock down illegals obtaining my wealth at ANY level, and I might be a bit more open to the idea.
Of course, if we simply tackled those two major issues, we probably wouldn’t have a need for redistribution.
236. Dave | 11.05.08
Well, I guess I can now quit my job and let the government take care of me. I will now get “free” healthcare and our great savior, obama, will solve all of my problems. I guess I can also move to Venezuela or Cuba now that America will share the same fate. At least gas prices are cheaper over there and I’ll be making $42,000 less per year.
237. Kris | 11.06.08
Most of you people above need to read about what socialism really is before you run your mouth about how Obama is not a socialist. Bottom line…
Anytime you take from the rich and give to the poor it has socialist undertones whether you like it or not. AND Socialism and Communism are two different ideals. I don’t believe that Obama is a Communist. Why on earth should rich people be punished for being rich and poor people be alowed to stay on welfare funded basically by the rich? No that is effed up. I understand that we are in hard times, but the Obama tax plan is not the answer. I DO think that the bailout was a bad idea and that they should be made to pay for their greed )Simple regulations can fix this from happening again). But poor people who abuse the welfare system and refuse to work should not be helped by the government either. I am sick and tired of everyone thinking that the goverment should fix everyones problems.
238. Nick G | 11.06.08
I love how people whine about the bank bailout. Ok, let’s not bail them out. Let’s let them tank. Hope you didn’t have any money in the bank. Since you’re so ****** about the bailout, why don’t we take the money you had in the bank and give it to all the crack heads who don’t pay taxes because they don’t have jobs. It’s not THEIR fault they’re addicted to crack and don’t want to work. It’s obviously the government’s fault for not giving them free stuff!
So, to remedy this, let’s take money from the 50 year old worker, who started at his job 35 years ago in the warehouse, and moved up through the ranks to become the owner of a multi million dollar construction company. Obviously, he’s corrput and doesn’t deserve his money, but the crack heads do. Don’t worry though, low class America, pretty soon it won’t matter that you don’t want to work, you can just sponge off long-term employee’s EARNED income and sit at home smoking crack, and complaining that your teeth itch.
239. Miguel | 11.06.08
Why doesn’t anybody place any blame for the current state of the economy on the very people who helped cause it? I’m speaking of 95% of the people in this country who are getting foreclosed on. Buy more house than you can afford and not read the small print on the biggest purchase you’ll ever make…you’re asking for it. Take responsibility for you actions America!!!
240. UABJourneyman | 11.09.08
I’m tired of hearing the “conservatives don’t want to give a dime to help others” nonsense. My wife and I together make approximately 90k before taxes. We have a 2000 square foot house, 2 cars, and an 18 month old son. We pay approximately 12k in income tax yearly, not to mention sales tax, gas tax, etc.
THAT IS CONTRIBUTING!
241. Obama Supporter | 11.10.08
Its ridiculous to hear people who earn more than $100,000 complain about being taxed in order to spread the wealth to a lower class who isn’t offered the same opportunities right off the bat as others. Spreading the wealth will have its flaws by giving money to people of a lower class that don’t work but there are those who need help every now and then. Since when did it take $100,000 to survive? This materialistic culture we have all become caught up in makes me sick. Maybe you feel you do deserve all the money in the world because you can’t fulfill your happiness anywhere else except by being marveled at when you carry your Louis Vuitton purse down Broadway. The question is, what will you have to show for yourself in 100 years when you are in the ground with every other equal on this earth? Do you want to spend your time helping others towards the future or kicking everyone in the teeth on your way up the social ladder?
243. Floss | 12.04.08
Let’s take from the rich and give to the poor! Why? Well, because we feel bad for them. We need the rich people of America. They are the engine of our economy. We are going to take money from those individuals out working, paying a high-level of taxes already, and managing business and give it to those who take, take, take but refuse to give anything to our country. Our tax system is already progressive, taxing those that work harder and make more money than anyone else. Those that are fortunate enough to be in that class of people not only paying more in taxes to support the lower class, but they also miss out on many of the advantages offered to the lower classes, like financing for education. They are expected with their higher incomes to be able to afford these things, despite the fact that they are realistically taking home less. But, instead of fixing the programs in place and doing more with the taxes they already pay by reducing spending and forcing the government to handle the massive amounts of money it already receives responsibly, let’s simply take more.
I hope that everyone is capable of seeing this rationally and understanding the correlation. A small business is in trouble. It’s spending more money than it’s bringing in and it can’t afford to pay its employees, much less grow. What does this business do? Does it buckle or does it take out a loan to stay afloat? No! American businesses find a way. They do more with less. They cut fat and streamline their processes. These are the things our government needs to do. American’s have been handing money to the government for decades, expecting it to figure out how to finance these government programs and run itself, yet it hasn’t happened. It’s not going to happen, so long as we continue to put individuals in office with no basic understanding of finance and management.
This country affords everyone and gives you opportunity to start a new business and make money if you provide something that people either “need, want or desire.” According to the Obama plan you are a great American up until you make $250,000 after that you are a scum sucking rich person that doesn’t deserve anything. These are the same people who provide not only jobs but invest in the stock market and rebuilding and re-tooling their business so others may become employed. We need to wake up, Obama is not Robin Hood who steals from the rich and gives to the poor; he will just take our money and give it to someone else.
A flat tax rate could fix all of this. Why do I need to pay more than the next guy? Let’s all contribute an equal percentage. That’s equality. That would be a real the redistribution of wealth. Let everyone keep the exact percentage of their income.
244. DRU | 12.11.08
1. Obama’s “redistribution of wealth” comes straight out of the communist manifesto.
2. It is ours and the governments fault that these banks are going bankrupt. The Clintons/democrats forced the banks to make risky loans so everybody could live in a nice house whether they could afford it or not. It is our fault in that we elected these idiots.
3. It is ours and the governments fault that the automobile industry is going bankrupt. We, or you guys, want safer cars and the democrats want to use less energy. So the government is giving the automobile industry so many rules and regulations that the cars they are being forced to make, nobody wants to buy.
4. There is nothing communist about the bailout plan whether I believe in it or not, which I’m not sure if I do. But don’t blame Bush for having to come having to come up with an idea that the democrats got us into in the first place.
5. I can’t believe you grown adults are actually letting a 17 year old kid make more sense than you.
245. EYES OF TEXAS | 01.22.09
From a small business owner:
Subject: If you must lay off employees in 2009
As a business owner who employs 30 people, I have resigned myself to the fact that Barack Obama will be our next President and that my taxes and fees will go up in a BIG way.
To compensate for these increases, I figure that our customers will have to see an increase in my fees of about 8%. I will also have to lay off six of my employees. This really bothered me as I believe we are family here and didn’t know how to choose who will have to go. So, this is what I did. I strolled through the parking lot and found eight Obama bumper stickers on my employees’ cars. I have decided these folks will be the first to be laid off.
I can’t think of more fair way to approach this problem. If you have a better idea, let me know.
I am sending this letter to all business owners that I know.
Those that created this mess with their ignorant vote for Obama should now have to feel the results of their ignorance.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
5. Obama: “It’s not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody that is behind you, that they have a chance for success too. I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” | Right Voices | 10.14.08
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
Jimmy Orr has worked in politics for the majority of his professional career working for two U.S. Senators, two Governors and one President. Most recently, Orr served as White House Spokesman and Internet Director for President George W. Bush and Special Advisor to Governor Schwarzenegger for Internet Communications.
David Cook is Washington bureau chief of The Christian Science Monitor and host of the Monitor's newsmaker breakfasts. He was the Monitor's editor from 1994 to 2001. Cook is a graduate of Principia College, served in the U.S. Army, was a Bagehot Fellow at Columbia University, and is a member of the Gridiron Club, Washington's oldest journalistic organization.
1. Bush | 10.14.08
Isn’t Paulson and Bush’s bailout plan socialism?