Wealth redistribution?

[Carlota69]

What is this arguement truly about anyways? Redistributing the wealth? As oposed to what, flat out distributing to the wealthy only? I really dont get the repubs arguement on this isssue. We are currently distributing it to the rich only. Why is it so wrong to give back to the middle and lower class?

[BucEyedPea]

We are currently distributing it to the rich only. Why is it so wrong to give back to the middle and lower class?

Whose wealth and money is it originally? Who earned it? Why is it right to take the fruits of someone's labor and give it to others who earned less? Income is property. It doesn't belong to the state or to society. Granted taxes are needed to run govt but taking from some to give to others with a gun to their head ( since laws are force) is essentially just legalized theft. That's what's wrong with redistribution. It's socialism. The soviets took the farms away from farmers too.
I'd rather the govt keep the playing field level and fair to keep opportunity available. Helping the poor can be left to the states with other types of taxes.But not through redistribution.

[Carlota69]

Whose wealth and money is it originally? Who earned it? Why is it right to take the fruits of someone's labor and give it to others who earned less? Income is property. It doesn't belong to the state or to society. Granted taxes are needed to run govt but taking from some to give to others with a gun to their head ( since laws are force) is essentially just legalized theft.

But when the middle class/lower class worker also work their ass off for their money too, usually to get the rich richer. So why is it so bad to give them a break as well?

And giving me a $100 a month break is socialism? hell, I'm supposed to get bonused $4,300k next week. Guess how much I will get--about $2,600. Is that fair? Why shouldnt someone like me get a break? $100 a onth extra could pay a couple of bills, or buy grocereis or gas etc....what is so wrong with giving the middle class worker, like me, a break?

[BucEyedPea]

But when the middle class/lower class worker also work their ass off for their money too, usually to get the rich richer. So why is it so bad to give them a break as well?

How is it that a middle-class person working thier asses off making the rich richer? Is that really the cause of that? I don't think so. I'd have to see specifics because that's class warfare rhetoric.

[BucEyedPea]

Carlota, say a mc person works two jobs for awhile to accumulate capital to start a business. Wouldn't you want those that do that to be able to keep most of what they earn as they work more and make more instead of have more taken to give to others who won't do that?

[Carlota69]

How is it that a middle-class person working thier asses off making the rich richer? Is that really the cause of that? I don't think so. I'd have to see specifics because that's class warfare rhetoric.

OK, I make about 80k a year. I bring in killer ratings to my radio station. This rating period alone, my ratings alone, my shift alone will bring the radio station roughly 21k a day (ad revenue) for 5 days a week. My salary will have been met in a week. The rating perios alone as a station shold bring the staion over 2.5. million in aperiod of 3 months. The owners of my station are multi millionaires making bank off of people like myself. Which is fine, but why is it so bad to give me a $100 a month break at the same time?

[Carlota69]

Carlota, say a mc person works two jobs for awhile to accumulate capital to start a business. Wouldn't you want those that do that to be able to keep most of what they earn as they work more and make more instead of have more taken to give to others who won't do that?

Yes, I do. but again, I work my ass off to. Why shouldnt I be able to keep my money as well? Aain, they are going to take 40 some odd percent away from on this upcoming bonus check, as they have been doing for the last 5 years. 40 percent for someone like me is alot. Why is it so bad for me to be able to get a break?

[bkkcoh]

OK, I make about 80k a year. I bring in killer ratings to my radio station. This rating period alone, my ratings alone, my shift alone will bring the radio station roughly 21k a day (ad revenue) for 5 days a week. My salary will have been met in a week. The rating perios alone as a station shold bring the staion over 2.5. million in aperiod of 3 months. The owners of my station are multi millionaires making bank off of people like myself. Which is fine, but why is it so bad to give me a $100 a month break at the same time?

In a perfect world, the owners of the radio station would give back more of the revenues to the people who are making them the money.

However, are the employees taking the same amount of risk and the owners are? Should risk = income? Good question.

[bkkcoh]

Yes, I do. but again, I work my ass off to. Why shouldnt I be able to keep my money as well? Aain, they are going to take 40 some odd percent away from on this upcoming bonus check, as they have been doing for the last 5 years. 40 percent for someone like me is alot. Why is it so bad for me to be able to get a break?


You shouldn't look at the tax system as punishment, you should look at it as being more patriotic.

[Carlota69]

In a perfect world, the owners of the radio station would give back more of the revenues to the people who are making them the money.

However, are the employees taking the same amount of risk and the owners are? Should risk = income? Good question.

Well they are ina way--bonuses. however, a few years ago, the tax system changed (under a repub president) on bonus checks and now they tax over 40 percent. Thats alot. that is the difference between paying a large bill. car pymt maybe. Just dont see why its ok to keep taxing people like me heavily and not give us a break.

[Amnorix]

There are a number of ways to redistribute wealth through laws. The absolute simplest and most direct is Social Security, which redistributes wealth from current employees and employers and directs it to retirees.

Somewhat less direct methods can involve tax rates and exemptions and welfare programs. You could view certain types of governmetn income/spending mechanism as wealth redistribution as well. A bridge to nowhere, Alaska, is redistributing wealth to construction industry workers and owners in Alaska from taxpayers all over the US, as a hypothetical.

Others (including myself) might note that federal programs and policies, whether intentional or not, inevitably have the consequence of redirecting wealth from some states and into others. In general, highly populated, traditionally "blue" states get hosed in favor of less populated, traditionally "red" states. This is for a variety of reasons, and as I say in some cases these consequences are unintended.

http://www.nemw.org/taxburd.htm

Inevitably, however, all everyone ever talks about (cries about) is the redistribution of wealth along class lines, from the wealthy to the less wealthy, as a result of both tax policies and welfare programs.

[Donger]

Well they are ina way--bonuses. however, a few years ago, the tax system changed (under a repub president) on bonus checks and now they tax over 40 percent. Thats alot. that is the difference between paying a large bill. car pymt maybe. Just dont see why its ok to keep taxing people like me heavily and not give us a break.

What do you gross a year?

[Amnorix]

But when the middle class/lower class worker also work their ass off for their money too, usually to get the rich richer. So why is it so bad to give them a break as well?

And giving me a $100 a month break is socialism? hell, I'm supposed to get bonused $4,300k next week. Guess how much I will get--about $2,600. Is that fair? Why shouldnt someone like me get a break? $100 a onth extra could pay a couple of bills, or buy grocereis or gas etc....what is so wrong with giving the middle class worker, like me, a break?

In case you are not aware, BEP has strong views regarding capitalism and socialism, which in general aren't particularly realistic when applied to the real world.

[nychief]

Whose wealth and money is it originally? Who earned it? Why is it right to take the fruits of someone's labor and give it to others who earned less? Income is property. It doesn't belong to the state or to society. Granted taxes are needed to run govt but taking from some to give to others with a gun to their head ( since laws are force) is essentially just legalized theft. That's what's wrong with redistribution. It's socialism. The soviets took the farms away from farmers too.
I'd rather the govt keep the playing field level and fair to keep opportunity available. Helping the poor can be left to the states with other types of taxes.But not through redistribution.

It is not a redistribution... it is taxing the rich and lowering the taxes on the poor. This is semantics created to save a losing campaign. Taxes suck. get over it. Tax money is "redistributed" to build roads, fund schools and run the government.

[jjjayb]

But when the middle class/lower class worker also work their ass off for their money too, usually to get the rich richer. So why is it so bad to give them a break as well?

And giving me a $100 a month break is socialism? hell, I'm supposed to get bonused $4,300k next week. Guess how much I will get--about $2,600. Is that fair? Why shouldnt someone like me get a break? $100 a onth extra could pay a couple of bills, or buy grocereis or gas etc....what is so wrong with giving the middle class worker, like me, a break?


Work harder. This is the U S of Frigging A. You have the opportunity to be rich. Go out and get it. I'm sick of everyone making the rich out to be bad guys. They got there somehow. If I work my ass off and become rich why the heck should I feel bad about that? You have every opportunity to do it yourself. If you don't, who's fault is that? Waaah waaaah waaaah. I work hard to make other people rich. waaaah waaaah waaah. Quit blaming other people for your situation and fix it.

[Carlota69]

What do you gross a year?

I made 87k last year and grossed 51k

[BucEyedPea]

OK, I make about 80k a year. I bring in killer ratings to my radio station. This rating period alone, my ratings alone, my shift alone will bring the radio station roughly 21k a day (ad revenue) for 5 days a week. My salary will have been met in a week. The rating perios alone as a station shold bring the staion over 2.5. million in aperiod of 3 months. The owners of my station are multi millionaires making bank off of people like myself. Which is fine, but why is it so bad to give me a $100 a month break at the same time?

Have you taken the same amount of risks as them? If they went out of business would you be willing to suffer the same consequences as them?

Personally, I think you deserve that $100 month break but they own the place. I don't. Nor does the govt.

If they're not being fair I'd look elsewhere or make your case as you have here. I was talking about the govt stepping in and taking some of their earnings to give to others in lower brackets that don't even work for them. That wouldn't be fair either. In fact it would be an arbitrary redistribution of their wealth that wouldn't even reward those who made them rich.

In a good year, I've made $60k for 5 months work. But I am self-employed even if I hire temp help sometimes to make that money. I make more when I delegate if a job is big enough. They don't get close to what I get. Then again they have not had to pound the pavement looking for projects or pay for my advertising too.

I like my free time so I don't bother to go out and find more work either. So I goof off in my down periods. Too much sometimes. I also don't want to give the extra money to Uncle Sam. :D dirk diggler might get some of it. *wink* Then I have to give up some designer clothes and shoes. I could make $150k if I wanted too.

I also have the advantage of lots of deductions.

[Donger]

I made 87k last year and grossed 51k

You mean you grossed $87K and had net income of $51K?

If so, that's rather high, relatively-speaking. In fact, one could say that you are a experiencing "wealth distribution" personally.

Still like it?

[Carlota69]

Work harder. This is the U S of Frigging A. You have the opportunity to be rich. Go out and get it. I'm sick of everyone making the rich out to be bad guys. They got there somehow. If I work my ass off and become rich why the heck should I feel bad about that? You have every opportunity to do it yourself. If you don't, who's fault is that? Waaah waaaah waaaah. I work hard to make other people rich. waaaah waaaah waaah. Quit blaming other people for your situation and fix it.

Wow! too much coffee today?

I never said I hated the rich. In fact, I said it was fine that my employers make a grip of cash. I just dont understand why it is so evil to give someone like myself a $100 a month break on taxes.

[Carlota69]

You mean you grossed $87K and had net income of $51K?

If so, that's rather high, relatively-speaking. In fact, one could say that you are a experiencing "wealth distribution" personally.

Still like it?

Under Obamas plan, I would get about $100 a month back. So I dont see how that is a bad thing.

[Amnorix]

Wow! too much coffee today?

I never said I hated the rich. In fact, I said it was fine that my employers make a grip of cash. I just dont understand why it is so evil to give someone like myself a $100 a month break on taxes.

Because increasing the marginal rate on people who make $250,000 or more from 36% to 39% would end the American Dream.

At least, according to some...

[Donger]

Under Obamas plan, I would get about $100 a month back. So I dont see how that is a bad thing.

Shouldn't you being giving more back to those who make less than you? You earn more than 75% of Americans do, after all.

[Carlota69]

Shouldn't you being giving more back to those who make less than you? You earn more than 75% of Americans do, after all.

I'm part of the 95%. I am the middle class.

[jidar]

Work harder. This is the U S of Frigging A. You have the opportunity to be rich. Go out and get it. I'm sick of everyone making the rich out to be bad guys. They got there somehow. If I work my ass off and become rich why the heck should I feel bad about that? You have every opportunity to do it yourself. If you don't, who's fault is that? Waaah waaaah waaaah. I work hard to make other people rich. waaaah waaaah waaah. Quit blaming other people for your situation and fix it.

Okay so it's fine for the middle class to work their asses off and pay 40% of their income to taxes, but not fine for the rich to pay taxes?

[jidar]

Shouldn't you being giving more back to those who make less than you? You earn more than 75% of Americans do, after all.

Yes, and we do pay more than those who make less than us. As it should be.

We're just pissed that when you get to the final tax bracket, you pay less than anyone else before.
It's bullshit.
It's take from the middle class and redistributing wealth to wealthy.

[bkkcoh]

It is not a redistribution... it is taxing the rich and lowering the taxes on the poor. This is semantics created to save a losing campaign. Taxes suck. get over it. Tax money is "redistributed" to build roads, fund schools and run the government.

What would you say EIC is?

[Chief Henry]

Define wealthy then please define rich.

[Carlota69]

Define wealthy then please define rich.

Thats a good question/thought these days when the word billion is thrown aroun like million was when I was a kid. So I guess I would say rich is a multi-millionaire and wealthy is when you can actaully buy the rich. Shaq said it once, "I'm rich my bosses are wealthy."

[Amnorix]

Define wealthy then please define rich.

That's part of the problem. It's not susceptible to easy tests.

On income, especially, alot of factors come into play. A single guy in the middle of nowhere Iowa or Wyoming or whatever making $100K is probably "rich" for all practical purposes. A guy making $100K with a family of 4 in New York City is not.

[dirk digler]

Here you go Carolta:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/index.html
Tax Facts

October 19, 2008 7:51 PM
<!-- dschabner
--> Crunching numbers of the candidates' tax plans -- as they explain them on the stump -- the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center offers THIS GENERAL ANALYSIS (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411749_updated_candidates.pdf).
Tax quintiles are from HERE (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/Content/PDF/T08-0079.pdf). There are equal numbers of Americans in every quintile.

Obviously these are all averages, and generalities. All sorts of other factors come into play in taxes as I likely don't need to tell you.
But in general, for 2009:
If you make up to $18,725, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., will give you a tax cut of $65, while Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., will give you a tax cut of $567.
If you're in the second tax quintile, earning between $18,725 and about $37,000 a year, McCain will give you a $259 tax cut, Obama will give you a $892 tax cut.

If you're in the third quintile, earning between about $37,000 and almost $66,000, McCain will give you a $608 tax cut, Obama will give you a $1,118 tax cut.

If you're in the fourth quintile, making between almost $66,000 and about $110,000, McCain gives you a $1,487 tax cut, Obama will give you a $1,264 tax cut.

If you're in the top quintile, making above $110,000, McCain will give you a tax cut of $12,144 while Obama will raise your taxes $4,600 more. (To suss this out a little more -- the Obama campaign says it will not raise taxes on individuals making less than $200,000, or couples making less than $250,000.)

Here's where the starkest differences come in. If you're in the top 1 percent of wage-earners, making from about $602,000 to around $2.8 million, McCain gives you a $109,214 tax cut on average, while Obama raises your taxes on average by $121,689.

If you're in the top 0.1 percent, making $2.9 million a year or more, McCain gives you a $577,148 tax cut, Obama raises your taxes $699,872.
So if you're voting at least in part based on the tax proposals a candidate is making -- there you go.

If you have issues with this analysis -- please take it up with the Tax Policy Center.

[Carlota69]

Here you go Carolta:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/index.html
Tax Facts

October 19, 2008 7:51 PM
<!-- dschabner
--> Crunching numbers of the candidates' tax plans -- as they explain them on the stump -- the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center offers THIS GENERAL ANALYSIS (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411749_updated_candidates.pdf).
Tax quintiles are from HERE (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/Content/PDF/T08-0079.pdf). There are equal numbers of Americans in every quintile.

Obviously these are all averages, and generalities. All sorts of other factors come into play in taxes as I likely don't need to tell you.
But in general, for 2009:
If you make up to $18,725, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., will give you a tax cut of $65, while Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., will give you a tax cut of $567.
If you're in the second tax quintile, earning between $18,725 and about $37,000 a year, McCain will give you a $259 tax cut, Obama will give you a $892 tax cut.

If you're in the third quintile, earning between about $37,000 and almost $66,000, McCain will give you a $608 tax cut, Obama will give you a $1,118 tax cut.

If you're in the fourth quintile, making between almost $66,000 and about $110,000, McCain gives you a $1,487 tax cut, Obama will give you a $1,264 tax cut.

If you're in the top quintile, making above $110,000, McCain will give you a tax cut of $12,144 while Obama will raise your taxes $4,600 more. (To suss this out a little more -- the Obama campaign says it will not raise taxes on individuals making less than $200,000, or couples making less than $250,000.)

Here's where the starkest differences come in. If you're in the top 1 percent of wage-earners, making from about $602,000 to around $2.8 million, McCain gives you a $109,214 tax cut on average, while Obama raises your taxes on average by $121,689.

If you're in the top 0.1 percent, making $2.9 million a year or more, McCain gives you a $577,148 tax cut, Obama raises your taxes $699,872.
So if you're voting at least in part based on the tax proposals a candidate is making -- there you go.

If you have issues with this analysis -- please take it up with the Tax Policy Center.

Oh sweets, trust me, I am not just voting based on tax policy. No way. I have other issues I'm very interested in. I just find it interesting that people are screaming about redistributing wealth when it seems as if the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer. Isnt that redistributing the wealth already?

[Friendo]

Published on Monday, March 26, 2001 in the New York Observer
Here’s a Capital Idea:
Make the Rich Pay Taxes!
by Nicholas von Hoffman

Class warfare? Every time the D’s timorously burble their little demurrals on the subject of the R’s pro-millionaire tax scheme, the Republicans answer with the shout, “Class warfare!” They should live so long. Class warfare is chaps like those Dayak fellows in Borneo coming at you with machetes, aiming at knee and gonad. Instead, what we’ve got here is overly genteel discussion with a marked absence of the kind of rage that is described as righteous and a bit frightening. In contemporary, money-soaked Washington, that’s a little too much to ask.

The Republicans yell “class warfare!” whenever the subject of tax justice is raised because the phrase is meant to remind us of Marxism—and therefore something beyond the pale of civilized thought. The term “class warfare” is used only to intimidate Democrats, who are already so intimidated that they use the label “progressive” to describe themselves, lest they be called liberals. Well, the opposite of “liberal” is “reactionary,” which is what the Bush tax schemes are.

Really, here we have Paul O’Neill, the Secretary of the Treasury, who earned $56.4 million last year as the main man at Alcoa and got away with paying no payroll tax—not a dime’s worth—on over 55 million bucks’ worth of his compensation. So while Mr. O’Neill pays no tax on 99 percent of his income, virtually all the rest of us pay a payroll tax on 100 percent of what we make. And this creep is now popping up in front of Congressional committees saying he wants his income tax cut. Oy!

President Bush has reached into his pack of reactionary dogmatics and proclaimed that nobody should pay more than 33 percent of their income in taxes, a statement greeted with unalloyed joy by the plutocratic class (and thank you, Dr. Marx). Why this number and not some other is never explained—but when you’re dealing with dogmatics, it doesn’t have to be.

The Democrats, when they can tear themselves away from taking subventions from the same people who support the Republicans, say that isn’t fair. “Fair” and “unfair” have become the wimp words of modern, mousy liberalism. In a debate over taxing wealth and income, “fair” and “unfair” aren’t going to get you very far, particularly when the Republicans can say, quite correctly, that poor people in modern American have color TV, air conditioning, telephones and plenty of the plastic whatnots of our time.

This debate cannot be won along those lines. The question is plutocracy: Shall the rich rule? Shall we have a lopsided society à la that of the last century of the Roman Republic, in which a few unimaginably rich families used their wealth to manipulate the vast plebeian mob until the whole rotten scaffolding fell down, to be replaced by an hereditary monarchy? The question is, how great an imbalance in the possession of power, as represented by money, can a democratic society take? We are approaching a point where the plutocrats have in effect been able to buy 100,000 or a million votes while you and I cast our one.

Look at New Jersey and the election of Jon Corzine last autumn. Here is the example of a plutocrat whose accomplishments prior to buying a Senate seat were essentially those of a bucket-shop operator. A sensible tax system—one that supports the continued existence of democracy—would have deprived this gold-plated nonentity of the power to seize a high office in the Republic as he did. That he ran as a Democrat is symptomatic of how difficult it is to maintain a plausible democracy when the edifice is overrun by rich rodents. You have got to use the tax collector as the rat catcher.

It is a strange thing, but the Democrats, stumbling around in the thickets of identity politics, have made things more difficult for themselves. They’ve done so by twisting and distorting the word “democratic.” Too often in common debate and daily journalism, “democratic” or “undemocratic” doesn’t refer to our system of governance but to special group pleading. “Undemocratic” has come close to meaning “not good for the black people” (or the Hispanic people, or the homosexual people). “Undemocratic” falls on the ear as a synonym for “unfair” or—God save us!—“insensitive.” Unless we take care, “democratic” may take its place on the list of whiny, wimpy, self-centered, selfish, self-absorbed P.C. words that sound like fingernails on a blackboard to sensible people.

Get this debate back where it ought to be by asking the important questions, such as how long can our democracy maintain itself if 2 percent of the population own or control 60 or 70 percent of the society’s disposable wealth? Anyone looking at the struggle over campaign contributions has reason to be worried about our political future. The plutocracy’s influence on the national legislature and the Supreme Court is so large and obvious that the odds for the passage of an effective, as opposed to a nominal, campaign-finance law in this session of Congress or any other are between slim and none. The odds of a truly democratic (or, if you will, a class-warfare) tax bill are about the same. Nevertheless, let’s ask ourselves if one way to clear up the corruption of the democratic process isn’t to take away a significant clump of the corrupters’ dough-re-mi.

The plutocratic answer to this argument is that, quite to the contrary, the rich should get more money when taxes are cut because the non-rich will simply spend their money on unproductive things like paying down credit-card debt or buying food. The rich don’t have any credit-card debt, and they have already destroyed vast sections of Long Island with their ugly mansions, so they are in a position to put their capital to socially valuable use.

The Democrats denounce this reasoning as “trickle-down” economics. Well, a case can be made that sometimes the trickle-down drops do indeed fall on the noses of the vast, toiling white-collar masses. Cleared of its hot air, this is an argument about what kind of tax legislation gives the economy the cattle-prod shock to send it into a condition of prosperity. Judging from the past, you really can’t tell if the cattle prod works or not. The Kennedy tax cut—often used as an example by the plutocratic apologists—was followed by a happy upsurge in business. The Reagan tax cut was followed by some years of high unemployment and what passes, in our era at least, for hard times. Go further back in the 20th century and you get ambiguous answers. The Harding-Mellon tax cut was quickly followed by a great burst of prosperity, one that lasted nearly 10 years. The Franklin Roosevelt–New Deal cuts were not followed by much: The unemployment lines, soup kitchens and Hoovervilles remained part of the American landscape. Low taxes and low interest rates had no discernible effect on ending the Great Depression.

There are no single steps that automatically perpetuate prosperity or extract us from recessions; there are no one-to-one relationships like that. What works one time may work a second time and fail a third. Thus, basing a tax cut or tax increase purely on what its advocates promise for the economy in the next six months is fool’s gold.

It is argued by the hired mouths of the plutocracy, their economics professors and the denizens of their think tanks that the rich should go untaxed because they—not having to spend all their money on groceries or paying off plastic—will invest their surplus in technology and enterprise, which pays off for one and all. Sounds good. And to give the rascals their fair measure of credit, sometimes it does pay off.

But sometimes the rich don’t invest, or they don’t do it well. It isn’t true that just because you’re rich, you’re smart. The plutocratic class can be assigned no small part in the destruction of billions of dollars in the stupidity of the dot-com disaster. All plutocrats aren’t equally good at plutocrating. A Warren Buffett is, but what have the venture capitalists who must answer for the squandering of untold sums of money on Priceline or the Iridium idiocy done to increase material well-being?

No doubt about it, some of the big rich do make sound investment decisions, thereby helping themselves and the general good, but a helluva lot don’t—and the track record these past few years isn’t so impressive that these people, as a class, deserve yet more than they presently have to invest via a tax cut. These people weren’t the only source of investment money. To hear them talk about it, you’d think they were alone out somewhere in dangerland doing the pioneer investing that gave us the technological basis for the huge jumps in productivity we’ve enjoyed for the last decade or so.

Yes, some did, but so did the taxpayers. For 200 years, a major source—perhaps the largest single source—of research-and-development money has been the federal government. From the development of machine tools and the telegraph to the newest work on the genome, taxpayer money was put up when private venture capitalists wouldn’t or couldn’t. The Internet, which has so captivated and transfixed American business, was developed with taxpayer money. Say what you want about a Brave New e-World, Uncle Samuel paid for the birthing.

So it isn’t true that billionaires are the only ones smart enough to invest productively. Let’s continue to have a mixed system of investment; it has worked well enough since Alexander Hamilton’s time. We don’t have to choose between prosperity and democracy. Class warfare be damned, make the rich people pay their taxes.

Copyright © 2001 The New York Observer

###

[patteeu]

What is this arguement truly about anyways? Redistributing the wealth? As oposed to what, flat out distributing to the wealthy only? I really dont get the repubs arguement on this isssue. We are currently distributing it to the rich only. Why is it so wrong to give back to the middle and lower class?

WTF?

I'm literally squirming in my chair with the fear that my head will explode reading things like this and thinking about how easy it is to vote in this country.

[Velvet_Jones]

I made 87k last year and grossed 51k

How much risk are you taking? How much money do you have invested in your radio station. Oh - thats right, you don't own the radio station, therefore your salary is based on what the market will bear, not on income of the business.

You need a lesson in economics. Thats what will change your attitude.

[dirk digler]

Oh sweets, trust me, I am not just voting based on tax policy. No way. I have other issues I'm very interested in. I just find it interesting that people are screaming about redistributing wealth when it seems as if the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer. Isnt that redistributing the wealth already?

I hear what you mean.

They are just flailing away trying anything to scare people when it was their own policies that got us into this mess in the first place.

[patteeu]

Well they are ina way--bonuses. however, a few years ago, the tax system changed (under a repub president) on bonus checks and now they tax over 40 percent. Thats alot. that is the difference between paying a large bill. car pymt maybe. Just dont see why its ok to keep taxing people like me heavily and not give us a break.

They don't tax your bonus check separately from your income. The withholding rules changed, but that didn't affect how much you were taxed.

You've got to be putting us on with this thread.

[BucEyedPea]

Oh sweets, trust me, I am not just voting based on tax policy. No way. I have other issues I'm very interested in. I just find it interesting that people are screaming about redistributing wealth when it seems as if the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer. Isnt that redistributing the wealth already?

I actually have some agreement with you on that. But I feel the causes of it are due to the socialism/redistribution we currently have. Afterall, Marx wanted to get rid of the middle-class. Full fledge socialist countries don't have one at all. They have the rich (party members in power aka political classes) and the masses are all equally poor. This is where we've been heading for years.

[patteeu]

Oh sweets, trust me, I am not just voting based on tax policy. No way. I have other issues I'm very interested in. I just find it interesting that people are screaming about redistributing wealth when it seems as if the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer. Isnt that redistributing the wealth already?

No. It isn't. Not even close. I agree with Velvet.

[NY CHIEF]

I have a problem with the people that PAY NO INCOME TAX getting all the tax credits in the form of rebate checks from the irs...... Its a disentive to get off your ass and work... once this happens it will never change.. how will you ever get people off the goverment tit.......:cuss:

[Carlota69]

They don't tax your bonus check separately from your income. The withholding rules changed, but that didn't affect how much you were taxed.

You've got to be putting us on with this thread.

Pat, yes they do. I get two checks during bonus periods. One is my regular pay check and the other is my bonus check. My bonus check is taxed at a way higher rate, over 40%. Not putting you on at all.

[BucEyedPea]

Pat, yes they do. I get two checks during bonus periods. One is my regular pay check and the other is my bonus check. My bonus check is taxed at a way higher rate, over 40%. Not putting you on at all.

Now see, that is wealth redistribution right there. I don't agree with that at all. I think you should keep it—all of it.

[Adept Havelock]

What would you say EIC is?

:shrug:


"the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress."

:p

[patteeu]

Pat, yes they do. I get two checks during bonus periods. One is my regular pay check and the other is my bonus check. My bonus check is taxed at a way higher rate, over 40%. Not putting you on at all.

That's just withholding, that's not taxation. Your bonuses are taxed just like your normal paycheck.

I do have to amend one of my previous posts though. If you're talking about our tax system, it's insane to say we are redistributing wealth to the rich. If, on the other hand, you're referring to the recent bank bailiout, I don't disagree. That's still no reason for the working poor to expect an increase in government handouts though, IMO.

[Carlota69]

I actually have some agreement with you on that. But I feel the causes of it are due to the socialism/redistribution we currently have. Afterall, Marx wanted to get rid of the middle-class. Full fledge socialist countries don't have one at all. They have the rich (party members in power aka political classes) and the masses are all equally poor. This is where we've been heading for years.

Exactly. Arent we already headed in a socilaistic society? What was the bank bailout? Doesnt the Govt own the banks now? isnt that socailism? And why is it ok for a man to walk into a company and 3 weeks later leave with 19 million dollars, but it is a bad idea to give the middle class a tax break?

[Carlota69]

That's just withholding, that's not taxation. Your bonuses are taxed just like your normal paycheck.

I do have to amend one of my previous posts though. If you're talking about our tax system, it's insane to say we are redistributing wealth to the rich. If, on the other hand, you're referring to the recent bank bailiout, I don't disagree. That's still no reason for the working poor to expect an increase in government handouts though, IMO.

The idea and question is somewhat based on the bailout.

As far as my paycheck is concerned, I went to my Company controller and asked why the check was so little in comparison to the gross amount and he told me there was a new tax that was in effect (this was about 4 years ago and it still remains that way today) and bonuses are taxed at a higher rate. My regular check is taxed in the mid 30% and my bonuses are literally taxed in the low 40% range.

[Amnorix]

How much risk are you taking? How much money do you have invested in your radio station. Oh - thats right, you don't own the radio station, therefore your salary is based on what the market will bear, not on income of the business.

You need a lesson in economics. Thats what will change your attitude.

Or not. I doubt you could give me much of a lesson on economics, and yet I'm going to vote for Obama, so...

[patteeu]

The idea and question is somewhat based on the bailout.

As far as my paycheck is concerned, I went to my Company controller and asked why the check was so little in comparison to the gross amount and he told me there was a new tax that was in effect (this was about 4 years ago and it still remains that way today) and bonuses are taxed at a higher rate. My regular check is taxed in the mid 30% and my bonuses are literally taxed in the low 40% range.

I'm sorry, but either you've misunderstood your company's controller or he's wrong. Your Federal marginal tax rate is determined by the level of your total income (regular paychecks plus bonuses) minus applicable deductions. They aren't taxed at different rates unless you're talking about some whacky state or local tax that distinguishes between the two (and I seriously doubt that this is the case).

[Amnorix]

They don't tax your bonus check separately from your income. The withholding rules changed, but that didn't affect how much you were taxed.

You've got to be putting us on with this thread.

He probably doesn't get that it all gets sorted out at tax-return time.

[Amnorix]

I actually have some agreement with you on that. But I feel the causes of it are due to the socialism/redistribution we currently have. Afterall, Marx wanted to get rid of the middle-class. Full fledge socialist countries don't have one at all. They have the rich (party members in power aka political classes) and the masses are all equally poor. This is where we've been heading for years.

So pure capitalism would reduce income inequality?

:spock:

[Amnorix]

Pat, yes they do. I get two checks during bonus periods. One is my regular pay check and the other is my bonus check. My bonus check is taxed at a way higher rate, over 40%. Not putting you on at all.

No, it's withheld at 40%.

When you do your tax return, your bonus is lumped in with all your other pay and and other sources of ordinary income and taxed at whatever your applicable rate is.

[SNR]

Here you go Carolta:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/index.html
Tax Facts

October 19, 2008 7:51 PM
<!-- dschabner
--> Crunching numbers of the candidates' tax plans -- as they explain them on the stump -- the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center offers THIS GENERAL ANALYSIS (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411749_updated_candidates.pdf).
Tax quintiles are from HERE (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/Content/PDF/T08-0079.pdf). There are equal numbers of Americans in every quintile.

Obviously these are all averages, and generalities. All sorts of other factors come into play in taxes as I likely don't need to tell you.
But in general, for 2009:
If you make up to $18,725, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., will give you a tax cut of $65, while Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., will give you a tax cut of $567.
If you're in the second tax quintile, earning between $18,725 and about $37,000 a year, McCain will give you a $259 tax cut, Obama will give you a $892 tax cut.

If you're in the third quintile, earning between about $37,000 and almost $66,000, McCain will give you a $608 tax cut, Obama will give you a $1,118 tax cut.

If you're in the fourth quintile, making between almost $66,000 and about $110,000, McCain gives you a $1,487 tax cut, Obama will give you a $1,264 tax cut.

If you're in the top quintile, making above $110,000, McCain will give you a tax cut of $12,144 while Obama will raise your taxes $4,600 more. (To suss this out a little more -- the Obama campaign says it will not raise taxes on individuals making less than $200,000, or couples making less than $250,000.)

Here's where the starkest differences come in. If you're in the top 1 percent of wage-earners, making from about $602,000 to around $2.8 million, McCain gives you a $109,214 tax cut on average, while Obama raises your taxes on average by $121,689.

If you're in the top 0.1 percent, making $2.9 million a year or more, McCain gives you a $577,148 tax cut, Obama raises your taxes $699,872.
So if you're voting at least in part based on the tax proposals a candidate is making -- there you go.

If you have issues with this analysis -- please take it up with the Tax Policy Center.So for that top section, I make 3 million per year. Obama will dock me $700,000.

It doesn't appear to be a big deal because we're dealing with large numbers, but that's a huge chunk of my change, realistically.

You can talk about being "fair" and why the rich deserve all these taxcuts and whatnot. But raising someone's taxes by that big of a percentage is flat-out STUPID.

[patteeu]

He probably doesn't get that it all gets sorted out at tax-return time.

I suspect you're right.

BTW, Carlota69 = "she."

[Amnorix]

Now see, that is wealth redistribution right there. I don't agree with that at all. I think you should keep it—all of it.

Thsi doesn't even make sense. It's ordinary income, just like any other compensation paid to employees.

[Carlota69]

I'm sorry, but either you've misunderstood your company's controller or he's wrong. Your Federal marginal tax rate is determined by the level of your total income (regular paychecks plus bonuses) minus applicable deductions. They aren't taxed at different rates unless you're talking about some whacky state or local tax that distinguishes between the two (and I seriously doubt that this is the case).

Well since its been a minute,or 4 years, since I've asked, i will ask again and get back to you. But, I can tell you, when I get bonuses, I get a serpeate check and the gross vs net is drastically different than my regular paycheck.

But as soon as I see him, i will ask again and get back....

[Amnorix]

The idea and question is somewhat based on the bailout.

As far as my paycheck is concerned, I went to my Company controller and asked why the check was so little in comparison to the gross amount and he told me there was a new tax that was in effect (this was about 4 years ago and it still remains that way today) and bonuses are taxed at a higher rate. My regular check is taxed in the mid 30% and my bonuses are literally taxed in the low 40% range.

Withheld, not taxed. There's a difference and your controller is an idiot.

[Carlota69]

I suspect you're right.

BTW, Carlota69 = "she."

ROFL Thanks Pat.

[Calcountry]

What is this arguement truly about anyways? Redistributing the wealth? As oposed to what, flat out distributing to the wealthy only? I really dont get the repubs arguement on this isssue. We are currently distributing it to the rich only. Why is it so wrong to give back to the middle and lower class?LMAO.

As if, the money the rich EARN is someones to distribute.

It is no surprise, if you could make such a statement, why you don't get it.

This is further, an illustration, why half the
American public can be tricked by such double speak as "95% of Americans are going to get a 'tax cut' ".

If you don't pay any taxes, and get a refund when you file, you are getting welfare from the government, not a tax cut.

Of course, this assumes a person knows the difference in the types of taxes we are referring to. Generally, when a Republican speaks of a "tax cut" we are talking about "income tax", not social security or other FICA withholds. BTW, your employer, that rich guy, has to match all of your FICA's and pay them out of his gross profits.

Most people who are wage earners, nttiawwt, do not make enough money to pay "income taxes". When they qualify for an "earned income tax credit", that is a "transfer of wealth" from the "rich" to the "working class".

[Carlota69]

Withheld, not taxed. There's a difference and your controller is an idiot.

ROFLROFL you have no idea how true that is...My boss would kiss you right now.

[Amnorix]

Well since its been a minute,or 4 years, since I've asked, i will ask again and get back to you. But, I can tell you, when I get bonuses, I get a serpeate check and the gross vs net is drastically different than my regular paycheck.

But as soon as I see him, i will ask again and get back....


No, we do agree with you as to what you are seeing when you get your bonus.

But withholding is, if you want to think of it that way, your "up front" tax payment. Ultimately, when you submit your tax return, you reconcile all of what you owe to the feds (in this case) and all of wha tyou had withheld. If you withheld too little, you pay them $$, and if you overwithheld, you get the difference back.

Let me put it this way -- if you changed your exemptions, etc. on your W-4 (think that's the right form) from 4 to 0, would you say your tax changed or your withholding changed? The correct answer is the amount of tax WITHHOLDING changed. Your tax rate stays the same, but you've chosen to have more withheld. Then when you do your tax reutrn it all gets sorted out in the wash.

[Amnorix]

ROFLROFL you have no idea how true that is...My boss would kiss you right now.

Is she cute? Otherwise, thanks anyway, but... :D

[Carlota69]

LMAO.

As if, the money the rich EARN is someones to distribute.

It is no surprise, if you could make such a statement, why you don't get it.

This is further, an illustration, why half the
American public can be tricked by such double speak as "95% of Americans are going to get a 'tax cut' ".

If you don't pay any taxes, and get a refund when you file, you are getting welfare from the government, not a tax cut.

Of course, this assumes a person knows the difference in the types of taxes we are referring to. Generally, when a Republican speaks of a "tax cut" we are talking about "income tax", not social security or other FICA withholds. BTW, your employer, that rich guy, has to match all of your FICA's and pay them out of his gross profits.

Most people who are wage earners, nttiawwt, do not make enough money to pay "income taxes". When they qualify for an "earned income tax credit", that is a "transfer of wealth" from the "rich" to the "working class".

I EARN my money too, hence my point all along. My money gets distributed, why is is so bad for me to keep more of it?

[Carlota69]

Is she cute? Otherwise, thanks anyway, but... :D

No, she's horrid, so I'll just keep our little secret quiet.:D Gotcha on the tax thing. thanks for explaining it better that my turd of a controller.

[patteeu]

No, she's horrid, so I'll just keep our little secret quiet.:D Gotcha on the tax thing. thanks for explaining it better that my turd of a controller.

Yeah, he did a good job explaining it. I should have tried harder on that count.

[bkkcoh]

I wonder if the tax code would be any different if 2 things were changed.

1. Change election day to the April 15th.

2. People had no withholding from thier checks, but had to send in a check for what they owed tax-wise on April 15th.

[alanm]

I EARN my money too, hence my point all along. My money gets distributed, why is is so bad for me to keep more of it?Because Barry said so. That's why he's going to take more from you and give it to those who don't have it.

[HolmeZz]

Wealth redistribution? Is that anything like a progressive income tax?

Like we'd ever get caught doing something like that!

[penguinz]

2. People had no withholding from thier checks, but had to send in a check for what they owed tax-wise on April 15th.Sounds like a good idea but Americans are to good at living paycheck to paycheck. No way they would condition themselves to save money just for tax day.

If you want to drop the idea of withholding from the paycheck then the best solution would be a national sales tax. At least that way even drug dealers would pay taxes.

[Calcountry]

I EARN my money too, hence my point all along. My money gets distributed, why is is so bad for me to keep more of it?This begs a question: Why is it bad for a "rich" person to keep more of thiers?

You probably make more money than I do, but philosophically, I don't have a problem with "rich" people keeping more of their money.

[Calcountry]

I wonder if the tax code would be any different if 2 things were changed.

1. Change election day to the April 15th.

2. People had no withholding from thier checks, but had to send in a check for what they owed tax-wise on April 15th.If people got a refund, when it wasn't thier money overwitheld, it would say on the check, "welfare payment".

Maybe people would understand the whole "tax cut" thing of Obama is a big fat lie.

It IS redistribution of tax increases that will be levied on "the rich".

Class warfare, income redistribution, and socialism.

Nice. Welcome to the United Socialist States of Amerika.

USSA all the way.

[Calcountry]

Wealth redistribution? Is that anything like a progressive income tax?

Like we'd ever get caught doing something like that!No, but it IS LIKE "earned income tax credit".

EIC=WELFARE. Learn it, live it, love it.

[bkkcoh]

Sounds like a good idea but Americans are to good at living paycheck to paycheck. No way they would condition themselves to save money just for tax day.

If you want to drop the idea of withholding from the paycheck then the best solution would be a national sales tax. At least that way even drug dealers would pay taxes.

I think you are underestimating the American public, American's are great at living paycheck to paycheck. :doh!: But if it was done this way people would truly realize how much or how little was actually taken out of your check for withholding.

A sales tax of 2 - 3 % wouldn't be bad, would it? If all other federal income tax was abolished.

[bkkcoh]

If people got a refund, when it wasn't thier money overwitheld, it would say on the check, "welfare payment".

Maybe people would understand the whole "tax cut" thing of Obama is a big fat lie.

It IS redistribution of tax increases that will be levied on "the rich".

Class warfare, income redistribution, and socialism.

Nice. Welcome to the United Socialist States of Amerika.

USSA all the way.



What are the percentage of workers that actually get all of what they have had withheld, back? I would dare say that it is truly a low number.

[Amnorix]

This begs a question: Why is it bad for a "rich" person to keep more of thiers?

You probably make more money than I do, but philosophically, I don't have a problem with "rich" people keeping more of their money.

Well, they do get to keep more actual dollars.

[Amnorix]

I think you are underestimating the American public, American's are great at living paycheck to paycheck. :doh!: But if it was done this way people would truly realize how much or how little was actually taken out of your check for withholding.

A sales tax of 2 - 3 % wouldn't be bad, would it? If all other federal income tax was abolished.

How in the world would that be enough money to fund all of the government's expenditures?

I also have a number of philosophical objections to that plan, but let's start easy.

[Amnorix]

If people got a refund, when it wasn't thier money overwitheld, it would say on the check, "welfare payment".

Maybe people would understand the whole "tax cut" thing of Obama is a big fat lie.

It IS redistribution of tax increases that will be levied on "the rich".

Class warfare, income redistribution, and socialism.

Nice. Welcome to the United Socialist States of Amerika.

USSA all the way..


Overreact much?

[Carlota69]

This begs a question: Why is it bad for a "rich" person to keep more of thiers?

You probably make more money than I do, but philosophically, I don't have a problem with "rich" people keeping more of their money.

Why is it bad not give me a break? I work hard. I EARN my money. I'm not so sure about the guy who walked into a coporation and 3 weeks later walked out with 19 million. So why is it bad to give me a break? Becasue it would take from that guy?

I guess this is my ultimate point. There's greed on both levels--the fuckers content with taking welfare and not working for anything, and then the fuckers who work, but take way more than their share (the 19 mil guy and the other thieves on Wall Street). And people like me in the middle are getting crushed.

[bkkcoh]

How in the world would that be enough money to fund all of the government's expenditures?

I also have a number of philosophical objections to that plan, but let's start easy.

Well, if everyone had to pay 2 - 3 % to the government, including business. Wouldn't that be an increase in total tax revenues? Everything that would be purchased would be partial revenue for the feds.

In 2007, the U.S. GDP (Gross Domestic Product) was some 13.794 trillion dollars ($13,794,000,000,000).
3% of that is $41,820,000,000

Ok, increase it to 10% then.

10% is 1.3 trillion.

Is there any reason why the government would truly need to have more then 1.3 trillion?

[BucEyedPea]

Is there any reason why the government would truly need to have more then 1.3 trillion?

No. Anyhow, grounds for being against an income tax, especially a progressive one, is that I don't want govt to have too much money because it also increases their power and gives them more bureaucratic control over our lives. Telling us what we can or cannot spend it on or they get to keep it. The nerve! According to Paul, the income tax only funds a third of the budget.

[Hydrae]

I have not read through the entire thread but I hope you do realize that all bonus' are taxed at the highest rate at the time of distribution, correct? This is done because otherwise the payroll department would have to look at your yearly earnings to determine what tax bracket you should fall into and do this for every individual slated to receive a bonus. Instead they just tax you as a single person with no exemptions with the expecation that it will all iron out at tax filing time. If they gave you more now you would just have to pay it later or receive a smaller return. Either way your bottom line would remain the same for the year.

[Calcountry]

What are the percentage of workers that actually get all of what they have had withheld, back? I would dare say that it is truly a low number.So that makes it o.k?

[Calcountry]

Why is it bad not give me a break? I work hard. I EARN my money. I'm not so sure about the guy who walked into a coporation and 3 weeks later walked out with 19 million. So why is it bad to give me a break? Becasue it would take from that guy?

I guess this is my ultimate point. There's greed on both levels--the ****ers content with taking welfare and not working for anything, and then the ****ers who work, but take way more than their share (the 19 mil guy and the other thieves on Wall Street). And people like me in the middle are getting crushed.If we could make a "golden parachute tax", then I am with you.

A rich person, that invests and succeeds in creating jobs, ought to be able to make a nice profit for succeeding, don't you think.

Of course, we never hear about the millions that try to succeed, fail, lose their money, sometimes their good name, but they had the chance.

They risk it all, then succeed, and have the government take most of it from theim, is simply Un American.

[Calcountry]

How in the world would that be enough money to fund all of the government's expenditures?

I also have a number of philosophical objections to that plan, but let's start easy.Perhaps the government is spending too much?

[Amnorix]

Well, if everyone had to pay 2 - 3 % to the government, including business. Wouldn't that be an increase in total tax revenues? Everything that would be purchased would be partial revenue for the feds.

In 2007, the U.S. GDP (Gross Domestic Product) was some 13.794 trillion dollars ($13,794,000,000,000).
3% of that is $41,820,000,000

Ok, increase it to 10% then.

10% is 1.3 trillion.

Is there any reason why the government would truly need to have more then 1.3 trillion?

Again, I can get into philosophical objections that I have to a sales tax, which is retrogressive, but before we even go there...

Interest on the federal deficit is $240B/year (2007)
Military spending /homeland defense was $600B/year (2007)
Social Security/Medicaid were about $550B/year (2007)

That alone eats up your entire $1.3 trillion.

The entire federal budget for 2007 was $2.7 trillion.

So you're going to fund them at half of what they currently are at. What do you plan to cut? Everything else, I guess.

[Amnorix]

They risk it all, then succeed, and have the government take most of it from theim, is simply Un American.

Actually, not most. By definition less than half.

Second, it's not UnAmerican at all. By definition the system worked for them. And we're all glad of it. And they're (deservedly) wealthy because of it. Well done, but don't mind us if you pay an amount you can easily bear.

[Amnorix]

Perhaps the government is spending too much?

I'd agree with this, actually. We spend too much and tax too little. Or at least, we do when times are good. When we're slip-sliding into a recession it's a bit of a problem.

But our $10 trillion deficit and our $250B in annual interest payments on the federal debt are also problems.

[Carlota69]

If we could make a "golden parachute tax", then I am with you.

A rich person, that invests and succeeds in creating jobs, ought to be able to make a nice profit for succeeding, don't you think.

Of course, we never hear about the millions that try to succeed, fail, lose their money, sometimes their good name, but they had the chance.

They risk it all, then succeed, and have the government take most of it from theim, is simply Un American.


Again, I'm all for making money. I have nothing against that at all. But I work hard too. 33% of my income is a decent amout of cash. Why is it so bad to give me a break? Thats still hasnt been answered. People just jump on the "Why do you want to punish the rich" bandwagon and never really answer my question.

I'm against is the greed on both ends--welfare greed and Wall street greed. A Golden Parachute tax is one way to tax the Wall Street greed, so to speak.

[Amnorix]

Again, I'm all for making money. I have nothing against that at all. But I work hard too. 33% of my income is a decent amout of cash. Why is it so bad to give me a break? Thats still hasnt been answered. People just jump on the "Why do you want to punish the rich" bandwagon and never really answer my question.

I'm against is the greed on both ends--welfare greed and Wall street greed. A Golden Parachute tax is one way to tax the Wall Street greed, so to speak.

Keep in mind that Bush lowered, and wanted to further lower and/or eliminate, taxes on capital gains, which are passive income. The tax rate on the income you earn from working and sweating all day is higher than the tax rate your wealthy bosses get from selling stocks at a profit, or getting dividends on stocks.

It's good to be rich. Not only do you make more, when you take that money and invest it in stocks, then you pay a lower tax on the money that those investments make than the poor sucker pays on direct (sometimes backbreaking) labor.

Of course (as the right will rightly argue), the investor is risking his principal making such investments, and in theory at least the money that he puts into the market or his business may help the economy by helping businesses grow, etc.

Of course, taxes on bank deposit interest is ordinary income, and that money is used by banks to help businesses grow too, so there is a bit of a disconnect there.

[VAChief]

Is the gap widening or closing on the wealthiest Americans? Is there some reason to think there is less of an incentive now? I thought the difference between that top 1% has grown almost exponentially in the last 20-30 years. Maybe someone who knows this stuff better than I can shed some light, but it seems much ado about nothing in regards to the richest.

I am all for the innovators getting their due, but there are an awful lot of crappy, cheating CEO's benefitting from shitty job performances that would get most of us canned in our jobs.

[patteeu]

Again, I'm all for making money. I have nothing against that at all. But I work hard too. 33% of my income is a decent amout of cash. Why is it so bad to give me a break? Thats still hasnt been answered. People just jump on the "Why do you want to punish the rich" bandwagon and never really answer my question.

I'm against is the greed on both ends--welfare greed and Wall street greed. A Golden Parachute tax is one way to tax the Wall Street greed, so to speak.

Why DO you deserve it?

The reason people keep focusing on "Why do you want to punish the rich" is because that's really the only argument you've made for why you would "deserve" a handout. Your argument, which I recognize as rhetorical, is nothing more than the envy of "he gets something so why can't I?" The answer is you don't deserve a handout from the rest of us because you don't earn it through the value you add to our economy (you're paid for that already) and you aren't in a group that understandably earns our pity (e.g. the hopelessly poor and the feeble).

BTW, golden parachutes of this type are already taxed at a higher rate than you pay.

[patteeu]

Keep in mind that Bush lowered, and wanted to further lower and/or eliminate, taxes on capital gains, which are passive income. The tax rate on the income you earn from working and sweating all day is higher than the tax rate your wealthy bosses get from selling stocks at a profit, or getting dividends on stocks.

It's good to be rich. Not only do you make more, when you take that money and invest it in stocks, then you pay a lower tax on the money that those investments make than the poor sucker pays on direct (sometimes backbreaking) labor.

Of course (as the right will rightly argue), the investor is risking his principal making such investments, and in theory at least the money that he puts into the market or his business may help the economy by helping businesses grow, etc.

Of course, taxes on bank deposit interest is ordinary income, and that money is used by banks to help businesses grow too, so there is a bit of a disconnect there.

The more progressive our tax system and the higher the tax on investment income, the harder it will be for a hard worker to work her way up from the middle class to "rich", whatever your definition of that term.

And as you know, most of the money that people put into investments that will eventually result in capital gains was already taxed at least once by the income tax.

Good point on the bank interest. It ought to be treated the same as any other investment income, IMO.

[Calcountry]

Actually, not most. By definition less than half.

Second, it's not UnAmerican at all. By definition the system worked for them. And we're all glad of it. And they're (deservedly) wealthy because of it. Well done, but don't mind us if you pay an amount you can easily bear.???WTF?

I am not rich dude. Neither is Joe da pumma(boston accent). But we don't begrudge those that are. We don't like government programs either. We would prefer the government leave us to our God and Guns.

[Calcountry]

Again, I'm all for making money. I have nothing against that at all. But I work hard too. 33% of my income is a decent amout of cash. Why is it so bad to give me a break? Thats still hasnt been answered. People just jump on the "Why do you want to punish the rich" bandwagon and never really answer my question.

I'm against is the greed on both ends--welfare greed and Wall street greed. A Golden Parachute tax is one way to tax the Wall Street greed, so to speak.Why must this be "all about Carlota"?

Of course I am for letting you keep the fruits of your labor.

What does that have to do with Obama demagoguery about a "tax cut" when it is a transfer payment for those that don't pay taxes?

33% of your gross is withheld, of that 33 % how much is federal income tax?

About 8 % is your Social sec medicare etc.

[HolyHandgernade]

Why DO you deserve it?

The reason people keep focusing on "Why do you want to punish the rich" is because that's really the only argument you've made for why you would "deserve" a handout. Your argument, which I recognize as rhetorical, is nothing more than the envy of "he gets something so why can't I?" The answer is you don't deserve a handout from the rest of us because you don't earn it through the value you add to our economy (you're paid for that already) and you aren't in a group that understandably earns our pity (e.g. the hopelessly poor and the feeble).

Well, how about this, the rich are able to afford the services and counsel of persons who look to continually mitigate their loss while maximizing their gains, often employing lobbyists who seek to further tweak the system to gain more and more benefits. So, if the rich have been manipulating government for quite some time to their benefit over the middle class and poor, why is it so wrong to have an advocate for the middle class and poor to benefit them?

Why is it just fine for the rich to be able to manipulate the system due to their connections and capital but so wrong for a person who will claim to fight for the middle class and poor a sin beyond compare? This is hardly a handout. Why is it evil when unions organize for their betterment, but the American way when the wealthy do the same for their own benefit? Isn't it an infringement on the "free market" when the wealth generators and protections favor the upper class?

That's what I don't understand. If the tax system is already set up to be adjustable (and I'm not arguing whether that is fair or not), I see no reason why I, as a member of the middle class, cannot have an advocate for a tax system adjusted to favor me a little! I heard a good analogy which was thrown out during the Great Depression as to the cause. If, in a poker game, all the chips are in the possession of one person, the other players have to end up borrowing from that person in order to keep playing, which in the end, benefits no one. The game can no longer continue. This, of course, is fine in poker, because poker needs a final winner. But if the game is the economy, you want the game to continue, therefore, redistributing the chips amongst the players allows that to happen.

So all you "don't penalize the rich" crowd out there need to realize, money means crap, if the economy doesn't value it. That's why things need to be shaken up, the wealthy are top heavy in wealth distribution relative to the population.

-HH

[talastan]

God nothing like watching the nation and its people turn its back on captialism and the founding principles of our founding fathers!!:shake:

[Iowanian]

Counting my own company, the contract work, the other 2 jobs I pay taxes on...I pay taxes for 4 jobs at this time and average 60hrs per week plus, to make my company work and get where I want to be.

When the lazy douchebags sucking welfare and content with minimum wage employment work as hard as I do, they're entitled to more money.

Would I like tax relief? Like everyone else...hell yes. Do I think non-producer Americans deserve more of my money than they currently get? Hell effing No.

[BucEyedPea]

Well, how about this, the rich are able to afford the services and counsel of persons who look to continually mitigate their loss while maximizing their gains, often employing lobbyists who seek to further tweak the system to gain more and more benefits. So, if the rich have been manipulating government for quite some time to their benefit over the middle class and poor, why is it so wrong to have an advocate for the middle class and poor to benefit them?

Why is it just fine for the rich to be able to manipulate the system due to their connections and capital but so wrong for a person who will claim to fight for the middle class and poor a sin beyond compare? This is hardly a handout. Why is it evil when unions organize for their betterment, but the American way when the wealthy do the same for their own benefit? Isn't it an infringement on the "free market" when the wealth generators and protections favor the upper class?
As far as I know no one on the right is backing up the idea of using lobbyists to work the system to their benefit. But such actions are due to the rise of big govt and the welfare state. Sometimes merely to protect themselves. If we weren't handing out money for programs, research, subsidies to business ( Like ADM on ethanol) there'd be far less need of such activity. That's the problem not who is taxed at what which is what we're discussing.

I can't believe you're a member of that small govt social group here. What a joke.

[BucEyedPea]

God nothing like watching the nation and its people turn its back on captialism and the founding principles of our founding fathers!!:shake:

Yup! The best system for those with less to move up. Too bad a lot of it is mercantilism instead.

[Programmer]

What is this arguement truly about anyways? Redistributing the wealth? As oposed to what, flat out distributing to the wealthy only? I really dont get the repubs arguement on this isssue. We are currently distributing it to the rich only. Why is it so wrong to give back to the middle and lower class?

The concept is to keep those that use the money to continue growth.

You and I probably are in the same neighborhood money wise, I can get a 75% reduction in my taxes and the gains will give me a little more ready cash to put into a CD or into savings, but it would not have an impact on the economy nor would it enable me to add jobs for anyone in the country.

The top5% of taxpayers are the ones that reinvest the money into their businesses and add jobs.

The business I contract with was jut bought by a company that has nearly a $40 Billion annual gross. I would think they would be more inclined to add jobs than anyone on this board.

[Chief Henry]

Counting my own company, the contract work, the other 2 jobs I pay taxes on...I pay taxes for 4 jobs at this time and average 60hrs per week plus, to make my company work and get where I want to be.

When the lazy douchebags sucking welfare and content with minimum wage employment work as hard as I do, they're entitled to more money.

Would I like tax relief? Like everyone else...hell yes. Do I think non-producer Americans deserve more of my money than they currently get? Hell effing No.


You slacker. Why aren't you working 4 partime jobs and running your company ? Don't you know the other slackers across the country need more free stuff ?

[Iowanian]

I would but Its taking some time on the side to remodel our house and spend time with my kids.

[Chief Henry]

The concept is to keep those that use the money to continue growth.

You and I probably are in the same neighborhood money wise, I can get a 75% reduction in my taxes and the gains will give me a little more ready cash to put into a CD or into savings, but it would not have an impact on the economy nor would it enable me to add jobs for anyone in the country.

The top5% of taxpayers are the ones that reinvest the money into their businesses and add jobs.

The business I contract with was jut bought by a company that has nearly a $40 Billion annual gross. I would think they would be more inclined to add jobs than anyone on this board.



Spot on...rep heading your way

[Earthling]

Just a question that came to mind..

If middle class has more money in their pockets, wouldn't that stimulate the economy as they spent this..and would not this also work into the pockets of the business owners as more goods and services were purchased?

[HolyHandgernade]

God nothing like watching the nation and its people turn its back on captialism and the founding principles of our founding fathers!!:shake:

What principles from which founders?

[HolyHandgernade]

Counting my own company, the contract work, the other 2 jobs I pay taxes on...I pay taxes for 4 jobs at this time and average 60hrs per week plus, to make my company work and get where I want to be.

When the lazy douchebags sucking welfare and content with minimum wage employment work as hard as I do, they're entitled to more money.

Would I like tax relief? Like everyone else...hell yes. Do I think non-producer Americans deserve more of my money than they currently get? Hell effing No.

Yes, wouldn't it be just god awful if the top priorities of our government were making sure each citizen was as educated and healthy as possible. A volcanic military budget, nothing wrong there. Make sure my fellow citizen is healthy so as to reduce overall health costs. Not on my dime! Oh yeah, I forgot, we can throw sick poor people away, who will miss them. Educate them? On my dime? Sure, it might reduce crime and increase production, but why bother with such long term plans. The antipathy we have developed towards our fellow human beings is deplorable. Jesus would be so proud of these wonderful Americans!

-HH

[HolyHandgernade]

As far as I know no one on the right is backing up the idea of using lobbyists to work the system to their benefit. But such actions are due to the rise of big govt and the welfare state. Sometimes merely to protect themselves. If we weren't handing out money for programs, research, subsidies to business ( Like ADM on ethanol) there'd be far less need of such activity. That's the problem not who is taxed at what which is what we're discussing.

I can't believe you're a member of that small govt social group here. What a joke.

Backing up the idea? Are you serious? I guess, if you mean, in lieu of getting the same things without having to lobby, then yes, I'm sure that's exactly what they would want. I can't believe you are bringing up a hypothetical campaign and mixing it as some personal attack for addressing things how they are. That's the only joke. The genie has been out of the bottle for quite some time. You can't have a global power, a huge population, and a small government. It is a pipe dream, non realistic, yearn for some idealized past philosophy that never existed except in your fantasy.

Here's the way things progress: families - tribes - city-states - kingdoms - nation-states - globals

Believe it or not, as the natural progression continues, the problems for keeping it orderly and prosperous depend upon a governing body that incorporates larger and broader ideas. IT DOESN'T WORK THE OTHER WAY unless you also de-evolve the level of society you want to achieve. You don't progress by going backward to some ideal time that never existed. The goal is how do we maximize the most liberty while maintaining an orderly society to support it. Simply saying "less government" doesn't say anything because individuals cannot solve national or global problems by themselves. But, by all means, pretend that they do so you continue to nurse your outrage! Continue to feed your narcissism. Most of the people who pine for this idealization would probably never survive the environment that would actually accompany it.

-HH

[Adept Havelock]

What principles from which founders?

Please. :shake:

You know the founders were a hive mind. There was no dissension or competing ideals.

[patteeu]

Just a question that came to mind..

If middle class has more money in their pockets, wouldn't that stimulate the economy as they spent this..and would not this also work into the pockets of the business owners as more goods and services were purchased?

Are they spending their money on 100% American products or are they buying foreign oil and imports from low cost third world producers?

IMO, demand side stimulus is growing increasingly inefficient as the American market becomes an ever smaller fraction of the total global market and as foreign products become a larger part of our supply.

[BucEyedPea]

Please. :shake:

You know the founders were a hive mind. There was no dissension or competing ideals.

They agreed on the basics and disagreed over details. Big difference.
They all rejected every single one of Hamilton's ( big govt) ideas.
And how 'bout this for a dissenting idea: a lot of them didn't want the Constitution as they
thought THAT was still too much power. Like Patrick Henry for one. The state of RI and there was another state too.
Then there was opposition inside state's where it passed too. So if there was dissension because there was too
much power being granted, can you imagine how all of them would look at things today? I'd say they'd be shocked. Yup!

[BucEyedPea]

What principles from which founders?

What founders? How 'bout Jefferson, Washington, Hancock, Adams, Franklin etc. Ya' know those guys who wrote our Constitution with restricted Fed govt power? Those guys.

[HolyHandgernade]

What founders? How 'bout Jefferson, Washington, Hancock, Adams etc.

And the associated principles......? I can list Founders as well.

[BucEyedPea]

And the associated principles......? I can list Founders as well.

It was stated above. Post #109. The most basic principle.
If you could get the founders, then why did you ask what ones? Were you referring to Marx and Engles? Or Dewey?

[HolyHandgernade]

Let's recap to make sure we know what we are commenting on. I commented on this:

God nothing like watching the nation and its people turn its back on captialism and the founding principles of our founding fathers!!

This thread is about wealth distribution, so linking "capitalism" with "founding principles" and "founding fathers" is what we are talking bout here. So, I want to know what bill, law, manifesto was adopted into our founding principles concerning capitalism and by extension, wealth distribution. Because that was the tie being made, so I want to know what it is so I'm not arguing from ignorance. What founding principle by what founding father?

-HH

[BucEyedPea]

Let's recap to make sure we know what we are commenting on. I commented on this:



This thread is about wealth distribution, so linking "capitalism" with "founding principles" and "founding fathers" is what we are talking bout here. So, I want to know what bill, law, manifesto was adopted into our founding principles concerning capitalism and by extension, wealth distribution. Because that was the tie being made, so I want to know what it is so I'm not arguing from ignorance. What founding principle by what founding father?

-HH
Yup! And that's a loaded question that would take hours to answer and back up. So for a pity answer I gave it to you. I will say it another way. The Constitution was written primarily as a restraint on govt power. It was intended to be a document of "specific and enumerated" powers. And if certain powers were not delegated to it, then they don't exist. It's really very simple.

These things came later part from the revolution in the courts in the 1930s with the Butler case for one and 16th Amendment from the Progressive aka socialist era. Those were not the principles of our Founders.

That and the fact that there were what our Founders called "levelers" at their time who they spoke disparagingly about. Levelers were wealth redistributionists.

[HolyHandgernade]

Yup! And that's a loaded question that would take hours to answer and back up. So for a pity answer I gave it to you. I will say it another way. The Constitution was written primarily as a restraint on govt power. It was intended to be a document of "specific and enumerated" powers. And if certain powers were not delegated to it, then they don't exist. It's really very simple.

These things came later part from the revolution in the courts in the 1930s with the Butler case for one and 16th Amendment from the Progressive aka socialist era. Those were not the principles of our Founders.

That and the fact that there were what our Founders called "levelers" at their time who they spoke disparagingly about. Levelers were wealth redistributionists.

So, in other words, you don't have one, or can think of one at this moment. Tell you what, let me give you an example of what I'm fishing for here.

Madison anonymously penned a pamphlet he distributed between sessions of the Virginia Legislature entitled:

Memorial and Remonstrance Against Monopolies, Perpetuities, Corporations, Ecclesiastical Endowments

He wrote this in regards to his position on a bill that would decide the nature of the State's relationship to religion, advocating Jefferson's Statute for Religious Freedom. The pamphlet was influential gaining the victory for Madison, and helping shape his views when co-chaired the comittee to draft the religion and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment.

See that. Principle (Memorial and Remonstrance) Founder (Madison) Codifiyng Significance (1st Amendment to the Constitution).

See, it doesn't have to be long and drawn out manifesto. Just tell me what principle by what founder reflected in what document?

-HH

[Amnorix]

The more progressive our tax system and the higher the tax on investment income, the harder it will be for a hard worker to work her way up from the middle class to "rich", whatever your definition of that term.

And as you know, most of the money that people put into investments that will eventually result in capital gains was already taxed at least once by the income tax.

Good point on the bank interest. It ought to be treated the same as any other investment income, IMO.

The tax system, at it's most basic level, is pretty simple. If you somehow get a dollar that you didn't have before, then you get taxed on that dollar. There are some obvious exceptions (gifts, up to a certain amount), and a whole bunch of exemptions, deductions, etc. ad infinitum.

But the premise remains -- if you make a profit, whether by the sweat of your labor or wise investing, you pay TAX on the money that you got as a result of your efforts.

It's not a double tax, nor is it illogical in any way.

[Amnorix]

???WTF?

I am not rich dude. Neither is Joe da pumma(boston accent). But we don't begrudge those that are. We don't like government programs either. We would prefer the government leave us to our God and Guns.

By "you", I mean the hypothetical wealthy person I was referring to. Not YOU BunnyMan. :D

And $250,000 per year is, to be blunt, wealthy. It's whatever, top 1 or 2% of income earners.

[Amnorix]

Just a question that came to mind..

If middle class has more money in their pockets, wouldn't that stimulate the economy as they spent this..and would not this also work into the pockets of the business owners as more goods and services were purchased?

Potentially, yes, but it's hard to quantify these things.

[Amnorix]

They agreed on the basics and disagreed over details. Big difference.
They all rejected every single one of Hamilton's ( big govt) ideas.

Really? That's why George freaking Washington backed him damn near EVERY time when he disagreed with Jefferson and Madison?

That's why he was the leader of the entire Federalist Party?

Your fantasies do not work to rewrite history.

And how 'bout this for a dissenting idea: a lot of them didn't want the Constitution as they
thought THAT was still too much power. Like Patrick Henry for one.

True, but they LOST. So tough. They had their chances, and the Constitution was passed. This goes to undermine your first point that they even agreed on broad-brush matters.

Besides, by 5 years into it, it was PAINFULLY obvious that even the two most instrumental individuals in ratifying the Constitution (Hamilton and Madison) were at serious odds over absolutely everything.

[Swanman]

The top5% of taxpayers are the ones that reinvest the money into their businesses and add jobs.



But are they? There seem to be a ton of US jobs shipped overseas so these companies can make even more money not by upping revenue, but by cutting expenses. So in those cases, they are not creating jobs, but doing the opposite. Also, the gap between CEO and regular worker income has increased something like 10-fold in the last 10-15 years if I remember right. Such an extreme gap in the economy between the top 1% or so and the middle 80% is not good.

[Amnorix]

They agreed on the basics and disagreed over details. Big difference.!

Further to my last:

1. they argued over whether the PResident had the Constitutional authority to buy Louisiana from the French. Heck, even Jefferson wasn't sure.

2. they argued whether the individual states could interpret the federal Constitution for themselves, without being subject to SC review.

3. they argued over whteher succession was allowed.

4. they argued over whether a national bank was permitted to exist.

"Agreed on the basics." Yeah, right.

[Amnorix]

Yup! And that's a loaded question that would take hours to answer and back up. So for a pity answer I gave it to you. I will say it another way. The Constitution was written primarily as a restraint on govt power. It was intended to be a document of "specific and enumerated" powers. And if certain powers were not delegated to it, then they don't exist. It's really very simple.

These things came later part from the revolution in the courts in the 1930s with the Butler case for one and 16th Amendment from the Progressive aka socialist era. Those were not the principles of our Founders.

That and the fact that there were what our Founders called "levelers" at their time who they spoke disparagingly about. Levelers were wealth redistributionists.

So would it be Constitutional for Congress and the President to prohibit absolutely any and all trade by any person or company in the United States with any foreign country, in your view? Completely prohibit all foreign trade, in other words.

[jidar]

I hate wealth redistribution.

It's what GWB did when he came in and lowered rich peoples taxes a whole lot and middle class taxes just a bit.

A nice evenly sloped progressive tax makes a lot more sense to me.

[Programmer]

But are they? There seem to be a ton of US jobs shipped overseas so these companies can make even more money not by upping revenue, but by cutting expenses. So in those cases, they are not creating jobs, but doing the opposite. Also, the gap between CEO and regular worker income has increased something like 10-fold in the last 10-15 years if I remember right. Such an extreme gap in the economy between the top 1% or so and the middle 80% is not good.

Are you employed? Are you making more than $250K? If not the positive in your tax cut won't amount to a hill of beans and you will definitily not add to the job market.

As stated before, the rich people when making money tend to add back to the business for growth. You adding your tax cut back to the economy might net you some goods, but most times the goods we would by with a tax refund/less taxes are goods we would buy anyway.

If obama is elected you will see that you are no better off and you will be paying more taxes regardless of what tax bracket you are in.

[patteeu]

I hate wealth redistribution.

It's what GWB did when he came in and lowered rich peoples taxes a whole lot and middle class taxes just a bit.

A nice evenly sloped progressive tax makes a lot more sense to me.

You've got it backwards. What you describe is a reduction in the redistribution of income not an example of it. :rolleyes:

[KILLER_CLOWN]

What is this arguement truly about anyways? Redistributing the wealth? As oposed to what, flat out distributing to the wealthy only? I really dont get the repubs arguement on this isssue. We are currently distributing it to the rich only. Why is it so wrong to give back to the middle and lower class?

You bring up a good point, why is it ok to take more money from the poor/middle class to give to the rich? Socialism for the rich IS worse than Socialism for the poor. Either way taking money from one group who earned it and giving it to another is a bad way and exactly the reason i don't like either candidate.

[Amnorix]

Are you employed? Are you making more than $250K? If not the positive in your tax cut won't amount to a hill of beans and you will definitily not add to the job market.

As stated before, the rich people when making money tend to add back to the business for growth. You adding your tax cut back to the economy might net you some goods, but most times the goods we would by with a tax refund/less taxes are goods we would buy anyway.

If obama is elected you will see that you are no better off and you will be paying more taxes regardless of what tax bracket you are in.

The less wealthy, when they have more money in their pocket, can buy goods and services that also helps keep the economy going.

Your final sentence makes no sense whatsoever.

[Carlota69]

Why must this be "all about Carlota"?

Of course I am for letting you keep the fruits of your labor.

What does that have to do with Obama demagoguery about a "tax cut" when it is a transfer payment for those that don't pay taxes?

33% of your gross is withheld, of that 33 % how much is federal income tax?

About 8 % is your Social sec medicare etc.

Becasue I can only speak for myself and my experiences.

[Programmer]

The less wealthy, when they have more money in their pocket, can buy goods and services that also helps keep the economy going.

Your final sentence makes no sense whatsoever.

If you feel that Obama is going to lower taxes in any manner you are going to be surprised.

The little bit of goods bought will only keep existing businesses going, it will do nothing to provide incentive for businesses to grow and add jobs to the market.

[Carlota69]

You bring up a good point, why is it ok to take more money from the poor/middle class to give to the rich? Socialism for the rich IS worse than Socialism for the poor. Either way taking money from one group who earned it and giving it to another is a bad way and exactly the reason i don't like either candidate.

Bingo.

I never truly believe a politican is going to give me a break. I remember the "Read my Lips" G H Bush statment back in the 80's. I dont truly think Obama or Mccain can give me a break, not with whats going on in the world. And I certianly dont think McCain can balance the budget in his first term. Thats another load of shit being fed to us. But, rhetorically, my question is-- Arent we always redistributig the wealth from one end to the other?

[jidar]

You've got it backwards. What you describe is a reduction in the redistribution of income not an example of it. :rolleyes:


Hey I'm on your side. I agree that taxing one group more than another is wealth redistribution in a sense.

I just think you have the facts wrong.

The wealthy are taxed less than the middle class.

[alanm]

Counting my own company, the contract work, the other 2 jobs I pay taxes on...I pay taxes for 4 jobs at this time and average 60hrs per week plus, to make my company work and get where I want to be.

When the lazy douchebags sucking welfare and content with minimum wage employment work as hard as I do, they're entitled to more money.

Would I like tax relief? Like everyone else...hell yes. Do I think non-producer Americans deserve more of my money than they currently get? Hell effing No.
After Jan 20 Crack addicts will be able to afford a higher grade of product thanks to you, Congress and Barry. :thumb:

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Bingo.

I never truly believe a politican is going to give me a break. I remember the "Read my Lips" G H Bush statment back in the 80's. I dont truly think Obama or Mccain can give me a break, not with whats going on in the world. And I certianly dont think McCain can balance the budget in his first term. Thats another load of shit being fed to us. But, rhetorically, my question is-- Arent we always redistributig the wealth from one end to the other?

surely you jest... and yes!

[Swanman]

Are you employed? Are you making more than $250K? If not the positive in your tax cut won't amount to a hill of beans and you will definitily not add to the job market.

As stated before, the rich people when making money tend to add back to the business for growth. You adding your tax cut back to the economy might net you some goods, but most times the goods we would by with a tax refund/less taxes are goods we would buy anyway.

If obama is elected you will see that you are no better off and you will be paying more taxes regardless of what tax bracket you are in.

I am employed and make more than $250k per year, so I stand to be hurt a little financially by Obama's plan as it is written right now. However, my parents are firmly in the middle class, and if they get a tax break, then I'm happy with the compromise.

[patteeu]

Hey I'm on your side. I agree that taxing one group more than another is wealth redistribution in a sense.

I just think you have the facts wrong.

The wealthy are taxed less than the middle class.

Ok, I'll bite. What are you talking about? The wealthy as a group, pay far more tax per capita than the middle class does.

[Programmer]

I am employed and make more than $250k per year, so I stand to be hurt a little financially by Obama's plan as it is written right now. However, my parents are firmly in the middle class, and if they get a tax break, then I'm happy with the compromise.

Look out for #1 and screw the rest of the country ... right?

I honestly doubt that you make more than $250,000 a year. If that were true what the hell are you doing on a bulletin board?

[jidar]

Ok, I'll bite. What are you talking about? The wealthy as a group, pay far more tax per capita than the middle class does.

The percentage of personal income paid by wealthy people is significantly lower than that paid by the middle class.

Yes the actual dollar amount ends up being higher, but that's not the point, the point is how it affects you.
For example I pay a bit over 30% of my income to taxes, whereas the people on the Forbes 400 pay a lot less than that. It's not even close in fact, they probably are under 20% to the man.

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/taxes-warren-buffett-and-paying-my-fair-share/


Taxes, Warren Buffett, and Paying My Fair Share

By Justin Wolfers

This week many of you will receive tax rebate checks from the I.R.S. Yes, that $600 you are receiving is meant to help kick start the economy.

The government tried the same thing in 2001, sending out $300 checks. But this time, there’s a difference — not all of us are getting a check. In fact, those earning six figures or more won’t be seeing any check this week.

So that got me to thinking about how fair the tax system really is. Do the well-off pay their fair share, or do they also deserve a tax break?

Well, let’s start with the ultra-rich. Bajillionaire Warren Buffett has argued that he isn’t being asked to pay his share. He went around his office, asking people what share of their income they pay in income taxes. Buffett’s 17.7 percent tax rate compared a bit too favorably with the 30 percent tax rate paid by his secretary.

So it appears that the tax system favors the super-rich over working stiffs.

And Buffett went a step further, putting his money where his mouth is. Last November he issued a challenge to his fellow billionaires:

I’ll bet a million dollars against any member of the Forbes 400 who challenges me that the average (federal tax rate including income and payroll taxes) for the Forbes 400 will be less than the average of their receptionists.

So far, no-one has taken him up on this bet.

What about those of us who are merely among the well-off, and not in the Buffett-stratosphere?

Now, I’m no Warren Buffett (believe me!), but I’ve just finished figuring out my federal taxes for the year. I live comfortably (one of the virtues of teaching in a business school), but was dismayed to learn that my federal taxes for 2007 amount to only 16 percent of my income.

This strikes me as astonishingly low. And it’s not like I have a fancy approach to tax minimization; I just write off a bunch of business-related expenses, and benefit enormously from deductions for mortgage interest and charitable giving. Obviously city and state taxes drive my total tax bill up a bit further, as do payroll taxes, although I plan on getting some of that back as social security in my old age.

But the point remains: I had never quite realized that the Warren Buffett problem extends far enough down the income distribution that even folks like myself aren’t paying their fair share.

So I repeated Warren Buffett’s experiment here at Wharton. And it appears that I’m paying lower taxes than the administrative staff in my department. And if it is true here, I suspect the same goes equally for most folks in the top 10 percent of income earners. (Incidentally, according to Piketty and Saez, around half of all income in the U.S. goes to those of us in the top decile — roughly anyone with a family income of six figures or more.)

Warren Buffett’s approach to casual empiricism is quite instructive. He just took a survey around the office of people’s average tax rates, finding that he paid the lowest share. Here’s a thought:

Why not run a similar survey in your own office, or among your circle of friends? It will be interesting to learn the extent to which Warren Buffett’s findings generalize.

Please post your findings in the comments.

[Garcia Bronco]

What is this arguement truly about anyways? Redistributing the wealth? As oposed to what, flat out distributing to the wealthy only? I really dont get the repubs arguement on this isssue. We are currently distributing it to the rich only. Why is it so wrong to give back to the middle and lower class?

This is a lie. The "Wealthy" pay more money and as much of a percentage if not more than anyone in the lower. And many in the middle class.

All we need is a flat tax. No credits, deductions, or anything else. Then Congress has to live within it's budget.

[jidar]

This is a lie. The "Wealthy" pay more money and as much of a percentage if not more than anyone in the lower. And many in the middle class.

All we need is a flat tax. No credits, deductions, or anything else. Then Congress has to live within it's budget.

It's not a lie.

The wealthy do not pay a larger percentage. The tax brackets say they should, but through exemptions that middle class people don't get they reduce that amount by more than half.

Flat tax is fine. Let's make everyone pay 27% across the board. I guess we exempt people under the poverty level since they gotta live. I'm fine with that.

If we can't do that though, then lets start closing loopholes to at least get the real tax figure the wealthy pay somewhere up around what us folks in the middle class are paying.

[patteeu]

The percentage of personal income paid by wealthy people is significantly lower than that paid by the middle class.

Yes the actual dollar amount ends up being higher, but that's not the point, the point is how it affects you.
For example I pay a bit over 30% of my income to taxes, whereas the people on the Forbes 400 pay a lot less than that. It's not even close in fact, they probably are under 20% to the man.

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/taxes-warren-buffett-and-paying-my-fair-share/

First of all, the fact that the wealthy pay more in dollar terms (rather than percentage terms) *is* redistribution from the wealthy to everyone else.

But beyond that, the rate should be based on taxable income not gross income. Taxable income isn't the before expenses number that this author is apparently using for his calculation, it's the after expense number. Deductible expenses are deductible because they are a cost of generating income. This guy's calculation is like basing a tax rate on a business's gross receipts rather than it's profit. Without knowing the details behind these calculations we can't know whether Warren Buffet really pays a lower rate than his secretary. Even if he does, it's not obvious that that result is transferable to other people who find themselves in the top tax bracket.

Leaving aside AMT considerations, wealthy people can choose to invest in tax free municipal bonds to avoid federal taxes (like Ross Perot did in the early 90's). This effectively drops their tax rate in a way that isn't economical for people in lower tax brackets, but that is an artifact of the progressive tax system. Tax free bond issuers offer an after tax interest rate that is attractive only to the top tax bracket (the folks whose deductions are worth the most) so people in lower tax brackets are better off after tax when they invest in taxable bonds. This reduces the tax burden on the wealthy, but the tax benefit mostly goes to the municipalities that issue these bonds not the wealth investor.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

It's not a lie.

The wealthy do not pay a larger percentage. The tax brackets say they should, but through exemptions that middle class people don't get they reduce that amount by more than half.

Flat tax is fine. Let's make everyone pay 27% across the board. I guess we exempt people under the poverty level since they gotta live. I'm fine with that.

If we can't do that though, then lets start closing loopholes to at least get the real tax figure the wealthy pay somewhere up around what us folks in the middle class are paying.

Agreed!

[jidar]

First of all, the fact that the wealthy pay more in dollar terms (rather than percentage terms) *is* redistribution from the wealthy to everyone else.

But beyond that, the rate should be based on taxable income not gross income. Taxable income isn't the before expenses number that this author is apparently using for his calculation, it's the after expense number. Deductible expenses are deductible because they are a cost of generating income. This guy's calculation is like basing a tax rate on a business's gross receipts rather than it's profit. Without knowing the details behind these calculations we can't know whether Warren Buffet really pays a lower rate than his secretary. Even if he does, it's not obvious that that result is transferable to other people who find themselves in the top tax bracket.

I think Warren Buffett and in turn the rest of the Forbes richest knows the difference between income and gross revenue. You'd think someone would take him up on the $1million bet if it was that simple right?


Leaving aside AMT considerations, wealthy people can choose to invest in tax free municipal bonds to avoid federal taxes (like Ross Perot did in the early 90's). This effectively drops their tax rate in a way that isn't economical for people in lower tax brackets, but that is an artifact of the progressive tax system. Tax free bond issuers offer an after tax interest rate that is attractive only to the top tax bracket (the folks whose deductions are worth the most) so people in lower tax brackets are better off after tax when they invest in taxable bonds. This reduces the tax burden on the wealthy, but the tax benefit mostly goes to the municipalities that issue these bonds not the wealth investor.

Okay so that's an example of a loophole. I said they used loopholes to get the total down, so I don't see what your point is.

[Swanman]

First of all, the fact that the wealthy pay more in dollar terms (rather than percentage terms) *is* redistribution from the wealthy to everyone else.

But beyond that, the rate should be based on taxable income not gross income. Taxable income isn't the before expenses number that this author is apparently using for his calculation, it's the after expense number. Deductible expenses are deductible because they are a cost of generating income. This guy's calculation is like basing a tax rate on a business's gross receipts rather than it's profit. Without knowing the details behind these calculations we can't know whether Warren Buffet really pays a lower rate than his secretary. Even if he does, it's not obvious that that result is transferable to other people who find themselves in the top tax bracket.

Leaving aside AMT considerations, wealthy people can choose to invest in tax free municipal bonds to avoid federal taxes (like Ross Perot did in the early 90's). This effectively drops their tax rate in a way that isn't economical for people in lower tax brackets, but that is an artifact of the progressive tax system. Tax free bond issuers offer an after tax interest rate that is attractive only to the top tax bracket (the folks whose deductions are worth the most) so people in lower tax brackets are better off after tax when they invest in taxable bonds. This reduces the tax burden on the wealthy, but the tax benefit mostly goes to the municipalities that issue these bonds not the wealth investor.

Tax-free municipal bonds are only a piece of why the wealthy's tax rates are low. Tax-free municipal bonds should only be purchased when the after-tax interest rate is less than the interest rate offered by the muni bond. It seems to be usually pretty close, depending on the riskiness of the muni bond.

The main reason the ultra-rich have low average tax rates is because long-term gains are taxed at a much lower percentage, either 10% or 15%, I can't remember. Warren Buffett has a $100,000 salary but generates millions, maybe billions in long term gains, depending on the year, so he has a very low tax rate. It's just the way the tax code is written, no "loophole" to be found.

[patteeu]

I think Warren Buffett and in turn the rest of the Forbes richest knows the difference between income and gross revenue. You'd think someone would take him up on the $1million bet if it was that simple right?

I agree that he knows the difference. He's also smart enough to know how to manipulate numbers to tell the story he wants to tell.

His bet includes payroll taxes, not just income taxes, and it is based on whatever methodology he used to calculate his numbers in the first place so that doesn't get us very far. In addition to this, he is limiting his bet to billionaires. There are way more non-billionaire taxpayers in the top bracket than billionaires.

Okay so that's an example of a loophole. I said they used loopholes to get the total down, so I don't see what your point is.

I brought it up because it's the kind of deduction that isn't a cost of generating income so in a sense it tends to support your argument (at least for those wealthy tax payers who actually invest heavily in such things), but the point is that it's not the wealthy who are benefiting from this income redistribution. It's the municipalities who are able to borrow money (i.e. issue bonds) at a much lower rate than they would be able to if the bonds were taxable that benefit.

[patteeu]

Tax-free municipal bonds are only a piece of why the wealthy's tax rates are low. Tax-free municipal bonds should only be purchased when the after-tax interest rate is less than the interest rate offered by the muni bond. It seems to be usually pretty close, depending on the riskiness of the muni bond.

Right. This is why the tax benefit should be seen as largely going to the municipality not the investor.

The main reason the ultra-rich have low average tax rates is because long-term gains are taxed at a much lower percentage, either 10% or 15%, I can't remember. Warren Buffett has a $100,000 salary but generates millions, maybe billions in long term gains, depending on the year, so he has a very low tax rate. It's just the way the tax code is written, no "loophole" to be found.

Fair enough. But yet he still feels the need to include payroll taxes in his challenge and to limit the challenge to billionaires rather than all "rich" ($250k and up or whatever it is that Obama has been talking about).

[VAChief]

We certainly have had redistribution since the "trickle down" policies were started in the early 80's. The following snippet is from a Times article in 2007.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html

Income inequality grew significantly in 2005, with the top 1 percent of Americans — those with incomes that year of more than $348,000 — receiving their largest share of national income since 1928, analysis of newly released tax data shows.

The new data also shows that the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

We certainly have had redistribution since the "trickle down" policies were started in the early 80's. The following snippet is from a Times article in 2007.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html

Income inequality grew significantly in 2005, with the top 1 percent of Americans — those with incomes that year of more than $348,000 — receiving their largest share of national income since 1928, analysis of newly released tax data shows.

The new data also shows that the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980.

Good find there.

[jidar]

We certainly have had redistribution since the "trickle down" policies were started in the early 80's. The following snippet is from a Times article in 2007.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html

Income inequality grew significantly in 2005, with the top 1 percent of Americans — those with incomes that year of more than $348,000 — receiving their largest share of national income since 1928, analysis of newly released tax data shows.

The new data also shows that the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980.

Yeah.

I'm a capitalist, I like free market, but at the top it's hardly a free market any more. Those guys are getting every bit of help they can get from the government at the expense of the middle class.

Those guys get bailouts, no bid government contracts, and subsidized industries from the federal government, and then I pay 35% of my income to taxes to cover that crap while they pay a measly 17%. And how do they get to that 17%? With their tax shelters and donations to non-profit organizations set up in their name and staffed by their family members and friends who are paid handsomely for it.

You want to talk about class warfare, wealth redistribution and welfare? Wake the hell up America! The class being warred against is the middle class, the wealth is being redistributed up, the only thing trickling down is our 401ks, and the worst kind of welfare going on is corporate welfare.

It's bullshit, and I'm tired of it.

[Velvet_Jones]

Or not. I doubt you could give me much of a lesson on economics, and yet I'm going to vote for Obama, so...

You are so full of yourself. You have no idea what I know and what I do for a living. I know you are a piece of sh!t lawyer which is exactly why you are voting for Obama. It will be good for you're business. Your chosen profession is is slimy and mostly dishonest. My profession is not. Data does not lie.

I honestly think you are a pompous ass.

[patteeu]

We certainly have had redistribution since the "trickle down" policies were started in the early 80's. The following snippet is from a Times article in 2007.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html

Income inequality grew significantly in 2005, with the top 1 percent of Americans — those with incomes that year of more than $348,000 — receiving their largest share of national income since 1928, analysis of newly released tax data shows.

The new data also shows that the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980.

That's income distribution not income redistribution.

[jidar]

That's income distribution not income redistribution.

hahahaha

You've got to be kidding me.

[VAChief]

That's income distribution not income redistribution.

I guess with that logic it all depends on your perspective. You think it is coincidence that the last time the ratios were this high for the wealthiest was right before the depression? You think this makes for a healthy economy? It would appear history suggests otherwise, ideologies aside.

[jidar]

I guess with that logic it all depends on your perspective. You think it is coincidence that the last time the ratios were this high for the wealthiest was right before the depression? You think this makes for a healthy economy? It would appear history suggests otherwise, ideologies aside.

It's wealth distribution when the tax balance favors the wealthy, it's wealth re-distribution if it doesn't.

[patteeu]

I guess with that logic it all depends on your perspective. You think it is coincidence that the last time the ratios were this high for the wealthiest was right before the depression? You think this makes for a healthy economy? It would appear history suggests otherwise, ideologies aside.

Ideologies aside, history also suggests that high top marginal tax rates are bad for the economy. Let's limit the purpose of the tax code to revenue generation not social experimentation or economic micromanagement.

[patteeu]

It's wealth distribution when the tax balance favors the wealthy, it's wealth re-distribution if it doesn't.

I disagree. It's redistribution if the government takes from one person to give to another regardless of which direction it goes. That fact is that government is currently taking from the wealthy to give to the poor. Obama wants to increase that flow.