PDA

View Full Version : Obama Obama is Right, we need more fairness


HonestChieffan
09-22-2011, 05:40 PM
I love when a plan comes together



President Obama is right. It is time for “fairness.” It is time to ask some Americans to do more, contribute more, sacrifice more. But like most things Mr. Obama does, he has singled out the wrong group. The rich and business owners already pay far too much in taxes. They already sacrifice too much. They already share their wealth too much. The top 1 percent of income earners (almost all of whom are small-business owners) already pay 40 percent of the personal income taxes in America, more than the bottom 95 percent combined.

The top 20 percent of income earners pay almost 100 percent of the income taxes in this country. That means 80 percent of the population pays almost no income taxes and a full 50 percent pay zero income tax.

Mr. Obama said, “Warren Buffett’s secretary shouldn’t pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett.” The problem with that statement is that it’s a lie. Let’s get the facts straight. The typical household with more than $1 million in income will pay an average of 29.1 percent in federal taxes this year. The typical household making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay 15 percent in taxes. Lower-income households (below $50,000) will pay an average of 12.5 percent in federal taxes (most in the form of Social Security taxes). In dollar terms, that means the typical millionaire will pay $290,000 in taxes and the typical middle-class family earning $50,000 will pay $7,500. But most importantly, almost all of that $7,500 is Social Security taxes, which theoretically they will get back after they retire.

Why doesn’t Mr. Obama quote the actual numbers and ask Americans if this sounds fair? One American pays $290,000 in taxes. The other pays $7,500. Mr. Obama calls this “unfair.” As you can see, he’s right. It’s definitely unfair - unfair to the 20 percent of the citizens who pay virtually 100 percent of the cost of government benefits, which are enjoyed for free by the other 80 percent of the population.

Mr. Obama purposely leaves out the fact that the rich and business owners earn their money, many by risking their life savings to start a business. In almost every case, they’ve worked long hours that most people could not tolerate. These small-business owners whose risk and sacrifice create the 9-to-5 jobs for their employees, also pay half the payroll taxes, health insurance and worker compensation costs for their employees. They also pay virtually 100 percent of the taxes in this country to support more than 21 million government employees, one-fifth of whom make more than $100,000 a year for a 9-to-5 job.

If Mr. Obama were honest, he would say, “From now on, everyone who risks their life savings and gives up the security of a five-days-a-week, 9-to-5 job, early retirement and guaranteed pension to start a business must be punished and have their earnings confiscated and redistributed to my voters.”

How would Americans feel about that statement? Sadly, many of the 50 percent who have their hands out but don’t pay taxes would applaud. Remember that famous quote from an Obama supporter: “I just want some of that Obama money.”

It isn’t just small-business owners being discriminated against. Most doctors, lawyers, accountants and other highly paid professionals also sacrifice, many investing countless dollars and hours in their education. After their years of sacrifice and investment, what right does Mr. Obama and his liberal/progressive/socialist cabal have to demonize them for paying only 29 percent in federal taxes so he can buy even more votes from the 50 percent of entitlement takers and nontaxpayers who never sacrificed or invested?

Why won’t Mr. Obama have an open and honest discussion with America about this? The answer is that the progressive left (i.e., socialists) hate facts. The facts tell the true story. The rich already are paying more than their fair share, sacrificing more, risking more, working longer hours and shouldering almost 100 percent of America’s income tax burden. Now is not the time to target, demonize and punish them. Now is the time to reward them. It’s time to stop class warfare and tell the truth.

The cold, hard truth is that the rest of America - the poor, the lower-middle class, the unions and the government employees have to pull more of the load. The reality is that Mr. Obama’s voters get a free ride as a bribe to vote, support and contribute to the president. Yes, we need more “fairness.” The problem is that Obama voters - those doing the most protesting and complaining - are the ones who need a refresher course in the definition of “fair.” They want something for nothing. It’s not just that they want it, they expect and demand it. It’s no surprise when pollsters ask Obama voters whether others should pay higher taxes, they emphatically answer “yes.” Why not? It costs them nothing, and they get 100 percent of the benefits.

So, Mr. Obama is right. Let’s make the tax system fairer. Let’s ask Mr. Obama’s voters to sacrifice, contribute and bear at least a little more of the load.

One last thought: If Warren Buffett and his jet-set billionaire crowd don’t like the 15 percent capital gains rate, instead of lying about the facts and hurting the small-business owners who create almost all the jobs, they can simply reclassify all their capital gains as regular income and pay the full 35 percent tax rate. If they still think that’s too low, the superrich liberals of the world can voluntarily pay 100 percent of their income as a gift to the poor. No one is stopping them. Let’s see them put their money where their mouths are. Unfortunately, that’s not Mr. Buffett’s agenda. His agenda is keeping taxes so high on the rest of us that we can never compete with him. He’s already got his $45 billion.

Wayne Allyn Root is a former Libertarian vice-presidential nominee and author of “The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution With God, Guns, Gold, Gambling & Tax Cuts” (Wiley, 2009). He writes at RootforAmerica.com.

Jaric
09-22-2011, 06:11 PM
We could take all of the poor people's money, that entire bottom 50%, and it still wouldn't solve anything.

We aren't going to be able to tax ourselves into prosperity by either taking from the rich or the poor or both.

This is no different than the democrats version of class warfare (sorry direckshun) except it's targeting a different group.

The problem is Government. It's too big and spending money we don't have.

HonestChieffan
09-22-2011, 06:13 PM
We could take all of the poor people's money, that entire bottom 50%, and it still wouldn't solve anything.

We aren't going to be able to tax ourselves into prosperity by either taking from the rich or the poor or both.

This is no different than the democrats version of class warfare (sorry direckshun) except it's targeting a different group.

The problem is Government. It's too big and spending money we don't have.


Stop it. Government must grow till all resources are confiscated

RedNeckRaider
09-22-2011, 06:14 PM
In tough economic times, it’s good to know that the federal government is making do with only 73% more limos than they had in 2008~
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/how-many-limos-does-the-government-need/

suzzer99
09-23-2011, 12:44 AM
CLASS WARFARE itt

Also please tell me how it helps small business owners to not be able to get health insurance. It doesn't. It only helps corporations who have an unfair advantage in the sweetheart deals they get from insurance companies, while small businesses and entrepreneurs either have to go w/o or pay exorbitant rates.

And God forbid someone in a small group plan actually gets seriously ill. Welcome to exponentially increasing insurance premiums until you fire that person. I know small business owners who live in deathly fear of this happening. But they have to offer benefits to compete with large corporations. Plus it's the right thing to do.

And forget about becoming self-employed when you're 50, unless you're married to someone with good health insurance. Someone please tell me how exactly that's supposed to better than Obamacare under the republican entrepreneur-a-topia?

Yeah, republicans love small business and entrepreneurs. True champions of them.

HonestChieffan
09-23-2011, 07:27 AM
CLASS WARFARE itt

Also please tell me how it helps small business owners to not be able to get health insurance. It doesn't. It only helps corporations who have an unfair advantage in the sweetheart deals they get from insurance companies, while small businesses and entrepreneurs either have to go w/o or pay exorbitant rates.

And God forbid someone in a small group plan actually gets seriously ill. Welcome to exponentially increasing insurance premiums until you fire that person. I know small business owners who live in deathly fear of this happening. But they have to offer benefits to compete with large corporations. Plus it's the right thing to do.

And forget about becoming self-employed when you're 50, unless you're married to someone with good health insurance. Someone please tell me how exactly that's supposed to better than Obamacare under the republican entrepreneur-a-topia?

Yeah, republicans love small business and entrepreneurs. True champions of them.

1) Small Business owners can get Health Insurance. Google Health Insurance Providers and call one. They will help you out. Rates are what they are and differ based on coverage.

2) Rates under ObamaCare are going to rise dramatically for many who have insurance now and many small businesses will not offer any coverage and will be forced to not expand or will operate under multiple business names so they can stay in business.

3) Your understanding of business, self employment, and insurance is dazzling.

patteeu
09-23-2011, 09:38 AM
We could take all of the poor people's money, that entire bottom 50%, and it still wouldn't solve anything.

We aren't going to be able to tax ourselves into prosperity by either taking from the rich or the poor or both.

This is no different than the democrats version of class warfare (sorry direckshun) except it's targeting a different group.

The problem is Government. It's too big and spending money we don't have.

This is incorrect, IMO. Taxing the poor and reducing the progressivity in our tax code would be a big step toward solving our spending problem. The most important thing it would do is reduce the us vs. them dynamic of our current tax debates by putting all citizens in the same (or at least a similar) political boat. It's really easy to buy the idea that raising taxes on the other guy is the best way to pay for more benefits for me even if those benefits aren't something I'd pay to get for myself. It's a lot harder to buy the idea that my own taxes should be raised for those same benefits. In fact, more people will decide that those benefits aren't really worth it after all.

patteeu
09-23-2011, 09:44 AM
Oh, and btw, this is indeed class warfare. But the difference between this kind of class warfare and the kind that Barack Obama practices is the same as the difference between the warfare practiced by the British and Germany during the Battle of Britain.

Jaric
09-23-2011, 10:58 AM
This is incorrect, IMO. Taxing the poor and reducing the progressivity in our tax code would be a big step toward solving our spending problem. The most important thing it would do is reduce the us vs. them dynamic of our current tax debates by putting all citizens in the same (or at least a similar) political boat. It's really easy to buy the idea that raising taxes on the other guy is the best way to pay for more benefits for me even if those benefits aren't something I'd pay to get for myself. It's a lot harder to buy the idea that my own taxes should be raised for those same benefits. In fact, more people will decide that those benefits aren't really worth it after all.

Well, first off, I think you misundestood what I was saying. Second off, I'm not sure I follow what you're saying here.

My point was that if you took all the money that the bottom 50% have, it wouldn't fix our problems (much like if we took all the rich people's money it would fix our problems either) because we owe far more than they have.

As to your post, If I read this correctly you are suggesting if we implemented some kind of flat tax it would reduce spending? I'm not willing to say your wrong, but I'm not following your logic here. Is the point that if poor people have to start paying for their programs they won't want the programs anymore?

Jaric
09-23-2011, 10:59 AM
Oh, and btw, this is indeed class warfare. But the difference between this kind of class warfare and the kind that Barack Obama practices is the same as the difference between the warfare practiced by the British and Germany during the Battle of Britain.

Pretend I don't know anything about the Battle of Britain (other than it involved a lot of planes). What do you mean here?

patteeu
09-23-2011, 11:46 AM
Well, first off, I think you misundestood what I was saying. Second off, I'm not sure I follow what you're saying here.

My point was that if you took all the money that the bottom 50% have, it wouldn't fix our problems (much like if we took all the rich people's money it would fix our problems either) because we owe far more than they have.

Unlike democrats who resist almost any spending cut that doesn't have to do with defense, conservatives want smaller government even if they recognize that the current tax code creates roadblocks for our economy, sets up bad political incentives, and is inefficient in it's main purpose, i.e. raising revenue. Arguing that changing the tax code to make it less progressive than it is rather than more doesn't mean you're trying to say that we can solve all of our problems by simply raising taxes on the poor.

But I will say this about raising revenue. I bet you'd raise a lot more revenue by raising the 0% bracket to 5% than by raising the 35% bracket to 40%.

As to your post, If I read this correctly you are suggesting if we implemented some kind of flat tax it would reduce spending? I'm not willing to say your wrong, but I'm not following your logic here. Is the point that if poor people have to start paying for their programs they won't want the programs anymore?

I'm saying that people would be more reluctant to raise their own taxes to pay for program X than they would be to raise taxes on the so-called fat cats or big oil/pharma/tobacco/etc. The people really benefited by program X might still decide it's worth the tax increase, but the people who think that program X sounds like a lovely way to help the little guy without having to dig into their own pockets might not.

patteeu
09-23-2011, 11:48 AM
Pretend I don't know anything about the Battle of Britain (other than it involved a lot of planes). What do you mean here?

One is an offensive war of choice and one is a defensive war of necessity.

NaptownChief
09-23-2011, 12:18 PM
This is incorrect, IMO. Taxing the poor and reducing the progressivity in our tax code would be a big step toward solving our spending problem.



Agreed...It is very easy to speak for your neighbor's wallet, much tougher to offer up your own.

vailpass
09-23-2011, 12:43 PM
CLASS WARFARE itt

Also please tell me how it helps small business owners to not be able to get health insurance. It doesn't. It only helps corporations who have an unfair advantage in the sweetheart deals they get from insurance companies, while small businesses and entrepreneurs either have to go w/o or pay exorbitant rates.

And God forbid someone in a small group plan actually gets seriously ill. Welcome to exponentially increasing insurance premiums until you fire that person. I know small business owners who live in deathly fear of this happening. But they have to offer benefits to compete with large corporations. Plus it's the right thing to do.

And forget about becoming self-employed when you're 50, unless you're married to someone with good health insurance. Someone please tell me how exactly that's supposed to better than Obamacare under the republican entrepreneur-a-topia?

Yeah, republicans love small business and entrepreneurs. True champions of them.

Spoken like a true liberal Kalifornian. How's that welfare-state ideology working our for your state?

suzzer99
09-23-2011, 01:34 PM
1) Small Business owners can get Health Insurance. Google Health Insurance Providers and call one. They will help you out. Rates are what they are and differ based on coverage.

2) Rates under ObamaCare are going to rise dramatically for many who have insurance now and many small businesses will not offer any coverage and will be forced to not expand or will operate under multiple business names so they can stay in business.

3) Your understanding of business, self employment, and insurance is dazzling.

1) No shit. Which is why I mentioned small group plans. If you have 10 employees and one gets sick, your rates shoot through the stratosphere. Like I said, I know small business owners who live in deathly fear of this happening. Under Obamacare they won't have to. "Rates are what they are"? Deep stuff man.

My friend who is a juvenile diabetic got hired by a small business. For 6 months they don't have to put her on their group plan and she had to get the equivalent of private insurance. Her insurance premiums were going to be equal to her salary. She didn't take the job needless to say. How the hell is this promoting small business. She's better off to just become poor and go in medicaid, or risk it and have everyone else end up paying through higher health care costs and premiums when she inevitably winds up in the hospital.

We have the most FUBARed system in the world when it comes to this stuff. Which is why the republicans themselves proposed insurance mandates in 1994 and kept promoting them until 2008. Until Obama endorsed them and they instantly become the job-killing abomination root of all evil. Which is also why the republicans need to make repealing Obamacare their top priority. If it actually kicks in and people realize all their baseless fears were just the result of republican scare-mongering partisan politics, they're going to remember who tried to **** them out of a normal healthcare system like the rest of the first world countries. At least for a little while.


2) Strong baseless assertions. What in the hell about Obamacare is going to stop them from expanding, especially when they won't have to live in fear of their small group plan shooting through the roof like they do now? Germany has the oldest UHC system in the world, and the strongest economy in the world right now. How the hell do they make it work? Who do you think our work ethic resembles more - Germany or Greece?


3) No yours is. Tell me what is going to happen to a 50-year-old with a pre-existing condition who wants to be self-employed under the current system, and then under Obamacare. Now tell me if any other developed nation on earth functions like this. Do only healthy 25-year-olds have all the good ideas? Why do we give corporations such a huge advantage in this area over entrepreneurs, when no other even semi-wealthy country does so?

NaptownChief
09-23-2011, 01:44 PM
Why do we give corporations such a huge advantage in this area over entrepreneurs



If I understand your point correctly, they aren't given a "huge advantage" they just happen to have a "huge" pool of employees that spreads out and balances the risks thus removing the volatility. In in a large corporation you are going to have several catastrophic claims but they are going to be offset by tons of premium paying policy holders that don't have any claims.

That is just the natural laws of pooling risk. Nobody is giving that to them, just a natural advantage of their size.

I'm a small business owner so I certainly understand the challenges of being a "small" business oh too well but I don't begrudge anyone or expect them to lose money and carry undue risk as a favor to me.

suzzer99
09-23-2011, 01:55 PM
It's not the natural law of spreading risk in any other developed country but the US. They have all determined that universal health care is a much more equitable and fair system.

Why is the US such a special snowflake in this area? Are we kicking so much ass that we know our way must be best? Our healthcare costs are the highest in the world, and our satisfaction and quality of care ratings are below most of those other countries.

Maybe we ought to look more to them to figure out a better way than our current cluster**** system that has people stiffing their emergency room bill, getting denied for pre-existing conditions, getting their coverage rescinded when they are in the fight of their life with cancer, and going bankrupt over medical bills. Not to mention corporations paying a fraction of what small business owners and entrepreneurs pay for health insurance (subsidized by a huge costly federal tax break). Do we really think we've got a better system here?

patteeu
09-23-2011, 02:14 PM
If I understand your point correctly, they aren't given a "huge advantage" they just happen to have a "huge" pool of employees that spreads out and balances the risks thus removing the volatility. In in a large corporation you are going to have several catastrophic claims but they are going to be offset by tons of premium paying policy holders that don't have any claims.

That is just the natural laws of pooling risk. Nobody is giving that to them, just a natural advantage of their size.

I'm a small business owner so I certainly understand the challenges of being a "small" business oh too well but I don't begrudge anyone or expect them to lose money and carry undue risk as a favor to me.

No, I think "huge advantage" describes it correctly even though what you say is basically true. There's absolutely no good reason why insurance pools should be based on employment from the point of view of someone trying to create a rational insurance system. It makes all kinds of sense from the point of view of someone trying to sell insurance in a world where tax laws created an incentive for employers to provide health insurance as a part of their compensation package. We desperately need to sever health insurance from employment.

Please note that I'm 100% against government health care for the general working population. But I do believe some incentive for people to join the system (mandates or otherwise) is necessary.

HonestChieffan
09-23-2011, 02:20 PM
It's not the natural law of spreading risk in any other developed country but the US. They have all determined that universal health care is a much more equitable and fair system.

Why is the US such a special snowflake in this area? Are we kicking so much ass that we know our way must be best? Our healthcare costs are the highest in the world, and our satisfaction and quality of care ratings are below most of those other countries.

Maybe we ought to look more to them to figure out a better way than our current cluster**** system that has people stiffing their emergency room bill, getting denied for pre-existing conditions, getting their coverage rescinded when they are in the fight of their life with cancer, and going bankrupt over medical bills. Not to mention corporations paying a fraction of what small business owners and entrepreneurs pay for health insurance (subsidized by a huge costly federal tax break). Do we really think we've got a better system here?



Much better. No doubt.

KC-TBB
09-23-2011, 02:50 PM
We could take all of the poor people's money, that entire bottom 50%, and it still wouldn't solve anything.

We aren't going to be able to tax ourselves into prosperity by either taking from the rich or the poor or both.

This is no different than the democrats version of class warfare (sorry direckshun) except it's targeting a different group.

The problem is Government. It's too big and spending money we don't have.

OR quit spending/wasting so much money on gimme programs...tell the U.N to pound sand and quit helping every mother loving nation when they have a disaster...they don't help us and we can't afford it anymore.

Amnorix
09-23-2011, 02:51 PM
One is an offensive war of choice and one is a defensive war of necessity.



I hope they fit comfortably...


http://www.brianjamesnyc.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/rose-colored-glasses.jpg

patteeu
09-23-2011, 02:53 PM
I hope they fit comfortably...


http://www.brianjamesnyc.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/rose-colored-glasses.jpg

You know more about WWII than I do. Are you suggesting that the British brought the Battle of Britain on themselves?

Amnorix
09-23-2011, 02:53 PM
No, I think "huge advantage" describes it correctly even though what you say is basically true. There's absolutely no good reason why insurance pools should be based on employment from the point of view of someone trying to create a rational insurance system. It makes all kinds of sense from the point of view of someone trying to sell insurance in a world where tax laws created an incentive for employers to provide health insurance as a part of their compensation package. We desperately need to sever health insurance from employment.
Please note that I'm 100% against government health care for the general working population. But I do believe some incentive for people to join the system (mandates or otherwise) is necessary.


Wow. Agreed 100%. That was unexpected... :D

Amnorix
09-23-2011, 02:54 PM
You know more about WWII than I do. Are you suggesting that the British brought the Battle of Britain on themselves?


It's your analogy I question, not the accuracy of your description of the roles of Germany and Britain during the Battle of Britain.

patteeu
09-23-2011, 02:57 PM
It's your analogy I question, not the accuracy of your description of the roles of Germany and Britain during the Battle of Britain.

Oh, I see. Well it seems to me that the move from head taxes to proportional taxes to progressive taxes is movement in one direction and pushback against that ought to be seen as resistance not aggressiveness.