Is anyone else here worried about this notion of redistribution of wealth?

[Demelza]

Am I the only one who doesn''t understand what the big fuss is? I can understand that some people are philosophically opposed to the idea of taxes in general, but the idea that Obama is proposing some revolutionary new system of taxation in order to "redistribute the wealth" is nothing more than conservative propaganda. One could argue that any system of taxation is a "redistribution of wealth" which would mean that McCain''s tax plan functions the same way. This is yet another attempt by the McCain campaign to paint Obama as some scary "other" -- a Muslim, a terrorist, or, heaven forbid, a socialist!!

 

[stone_seeker]

Date: 10/31/2008 10:41:53 AM
Author: Demelza
Am I the only one who doesn''t understand what the big fuss is? I can understand that some people are philosophically opposed to the idea of taxes in general, but the idea that Obama is proposing some revolutionary new system of taxation in order to ''redistribute the wealth'' is nothing more than conservative propaganda. One could argue that any system of taxation is a ''redistribution of wealth'' which would mean that McCain''s tax plan functions the same way. This is yet another attempt by the McCain campaign to paint Obama as some scary ''other'' -- a Muslim, a terrorist, or, heaven forbid, a socialist!!

I could be wrong but the difference is that in the case where the tax is used to fund roads and military, many find that ok. But in this case the money is being taken from Peter to pay Paul. So people who dont work or pay any taxes will get a government check thereby being a redistribution of wealth. Raising taxes across the board to fund a deficit would be ok, but raising taxes on some people while lowering/rebating another class is a redistribution.

 

[Lauren8211]

Date: 10/31/2008 10:55:33 AM
Author: stone_seeker

Date: 10/31/2008 10:41:53 AM
Author: Demelza
Am I the only one who doesn''t understand what the big fuss is? I can understand that some people are philosophically opposed to the idea of taxes in general, but the idea that Obama is proposing some revolutionary new system of taxation in order to ''redistribute the wealth'' is nothing more than conservative propaganda. One could argue that any system of taxation is a ''redistribution of wealth'' which would mean that McCain''s tax plan functions the same way. This is yet another attempt by the McCain campaign to paint Obama as some scary ''other'' -- a Muslim, a terrorist, or, heaven forbid, a socialist!!

I could be wrong but the difference is that in the case where the tax is used to fund roads and military, many find that ok. But in this case the money is being taken from Peter to pay Paul. So people who dont work or pay any taxes will get a government check thereby being a redistribution of wealth. Raising taxes across the board to fund a deficit would be ok, but raising taxes on some people while lowering/rebating another class is a redistribution.

I''m curious why that is so worrisome to people. Capitalism causes too much power for large corporations and the wealthy, and creates far too much economic inequality, which causes a LOT of societal problems.

The hurt that the rich feel from a slight increase in taxes does not provide Johnny Homeless with a brand new house and a car. It just helps to alleviate some of the burden. Of course I don''t think we should just hand out checks to everyone, but we need to get programs in place to elimate the drastic social inequality. This may be an increase in taxes for those who are more likely to afford it. I''m sure that the $250,000/yr+ crowd wouldnt be complaining if crime was significantly reduced because the economic inequality was reduced.

American society is NOT healthy when we have people struggling on the streets in the freezing cold while I watch 16 year olds have birthday parties that cost more than my me and BF make in a year.

THAT is what is not fair in society.

 

[stone_seeker]

Date: 10/31/2008 11:18:14 AM
Author: elledizzy5

Date: 10/31/2008 10:55:33 AM
Author: stone_seeker

Date: 10/31/2008 10:41:53 AM
Author: Demelza
Am I the only one who doesn''t understand what the big fuss is? I can understand that some people are philosophically opposed to the idea of taxes in general, but the idea that Obama is proposing some revolutionary new system of taxation in order to ''redistribute the wealth'' is nothing more than conservative propaganda. One could argue that any system of taxation is a ''redistribution of wealth'' which would mean that McCain''s tax plan functions the same way. This is yet another attempt by the McCain campaign to paint Obama as some scary ''other'' -- a Muslim, a terrorist, or, heaven forbid, a socialist!!

I could be wrong but the difference is that in the case where the tax is used to fund roads and military, many find that ok. But in this case the money is being taken from Peter to pay Paul. So people who dont work or pay any taxes will get a government check thereby being a redistribution of wealth. Raising taxes across the board to fund a deficit would be ok, but raising taxes on some people while lowering/rebating another class is a redistribution.

I''m curious why that is so worrisome to people. Capitalism causes too much power for large corporations and the wealthy, and creates far too much economic inequality, which causes a LOT of societal problems.

The hurt that the rich feel from a slight increase in taxes does not provide Johnny Homeless with a brand new house and a car. It just helps to alleviate some of the burden. Of course I don''t think we should just hand out checks to everyone, but we need to get programs in place to elimate the drastic social inequality. This may be an increase in taxes for those who are more likely to afford it. I''m sure that the $250,000/yr+ crowd wouldnt be complaining if crime was significantly reduced because the economic inequality was reduced.

American society is NOT healthy when we have people struggling on the streets in the freezing cold while I watch 16 year olds have birthday parties that cost more than my me and BF make in a year.

THAT is what is not fair in society.

So you prefer a society where everyone''s income is capped? Where does the redistribution stop? How low does the threshold go? Its a dangerous path to go down when we set these arbitrary levels as to what is considered "rich". Here in NYC, $250K gets you the ability to rent a 500 square foot apartment. There is not much left over for someone earning 250k and living in NYC. Why not make it $100K and up, you pay more? Who determines what is fair? Or is it that there are more votes if I pick $250K as the threshold.

Do you think it lowers incentives for people to work harder? Or should people not work as hard?

Why is it unfair that a 16 year old spends $30K on a party? Should we make that illegal? How about the people hired for those events and the people who make the goods used in such parties?

I dont know the answers to these but FAIR is a relative term. I''m sure you have more than some people in this world and if you were forced to give up half of that to give to someone less fortunate, it may not seem fair.

 

[Lauren8211]

Date: 10/31/2008 11:50:03 AM
Author: stone_seeker

Date: 10/31/2008 11:18:14 AM
Author: elledizzy5

Date: 10/31/2008 10:55:33 AM
Author: stone_seeker

Date: 10/31/2008 10:41:53 AM
Author: Demelza
Am I the only one who doesn''t understand what the big fuss is? I can understand that some people are philosophically opposed to the idea of taxes in general, but the idea that Obama is proposing some revolutionary new system of taxation in order to ''redistribute the wealth'' is nothing more than conservative propaganda. One could argue that any system of taxation is a ''redistribution of wealth'' which would mean that McCain''s tax plan functions the same way. This is yet another attempt by the McCain campaign to paint Obama as some scary ''other'' -- a Muslim, a terrorist, or, heaven forbid, a socialist!!

I could be wrong but the difference is that in the case where the tax is used to fund roads and military, many find that ok. But in this case the money is being taken from Peter to pay Paul. So people who dont work or pay any taxes will get a government check thereby being a redistribution of wealth. Raising taxes across the board to fund a deficit would be ok, but raising taxes on some people while lowering/rebating another class is a redistribution.

I''m curious why that is so worrisome to people. Capitalism causes too much power for large corporations and the wealthy, and creates far too much economic inequality, which causes a LOT of societal problems.

The hurt that the rich feel from a slight increase in taxes does not provide Johnny Homeless with a brand new house and a car. It just helps to alleviate some of the burden. Of course I don''t think we should just hand out checks to everyone, but we need to get programs in place to elimate the drastic social inequality. This may be an increase in taxes for those who are more likely to afford it. I''m sure that the $250,000/yr+ crowd wouldnt be complaining if crime was significantly reduced because the economic inequality was reduced.

American society is NOT healthy when we have people struggling on the streets in the freezing cold while I watch 16 year olds have birthday parties that cost more than my me and BF make in a year.

THAT is what is not fair in society.

So you prefer a society where everyone''s income is capped? Where does the redistribution stop? How low does the threshold go? Its a dangerous path to go down when we set these arbitrary levels as to what is considered ''rich''. Here in NYC, $250K gets you the ability to rent a 500 square foot apartment. There is not much left over for someone earning 250k and living in NYC. Why not make it $100K and up, you pay more? Who determines what is fair? Or is it that there are more votes if I pick $250K as the threshold.

Do you think it lowers incentives for people to work harder? Or should people not work as hard?

Why is it unfair that a 16 year old spends $30K on a party? Should we make that illegal? How about the people hired for those events and the people who make the goods used in such parties?

I dont know the answers to these but FAIR is a relative term. I''m sure you have more than some people in this world and if you were forced to give up half of that to give to someone less fortunate, it may not seem fair.

I wouldn''t say that a society where income is capped is necessarily optimal. I''m not even saying I have an ideal answer for all of this. I guess I''m just trying to say that the way society is set up is not fair, and I don''t understand why a small increase for taxes for people who make a LOT of money is such a huge issue. It doesn''t affect most people under Obama''s plan.

I do not think higher taxes would lower incentives for people to work, because overall you''re STILL making more money. People are still going to strive to make more money, it''s not like if you move from making 500,000 to 600,000 that you''d end up making less at 600 than you would at 500. You''re still overall making more money, and I don''t think people are going to stop working as hard. We''re too selfish a country. Besides the fact that if you''re making that much, you''d never be OK with living a minimalist lifestyle on a government handout, scraping to get by. Its not like the government-assisted live glamorous lives. No one is about to give up their flashy cars to live off the government.

I absolutely dont think huge expensive parties for 16 year olds should be illegal. I think it''s unfair that their is such income disparity in our society. My point is that we should level the playing field. If you can spend 30K on your kids birthday, a small hike in taxes to help out the disadvantaged is really just a drop in the bucket.

Capitalism and socially-based ideas can work together (NOT socialism). I don''t think we do nearly enough in this country to make things more equal.

 

[movie zombie]

stop worrying about socialism: its here already. the US government just gave a big fat load of $ to the banks because they were desparate and it was necessary because of the economy, right?

that $ had to be borrowed and our great grandchildren will be paying that loan off.

now the banks are using that $ to pay dividends to the shareholders!!!

talk about a transfer of wealth once again to those at the highest earning levels!

is everyone here at pricescope multimillionaires and receiving the benefits of the wealth distribution occuring right now?

if not, then i think it would be better to be worrying about the real wealth transfer using the $ of our children''s children future.


movie zombie

 

[MoonWater]

If people think that simply taking from one group and giving to another is all there is to socialism, then this country has been socialist for a couple hundred years already. Don''t try to blame Obama for what''s been happening since before any of your parents were born.

And kudos to MZ!

 

[Ellen]

Date: 10/31/2008 12:14:03 PM
Author: movie zombie
stop worrying about socialism: its here already. the US government just gave a big fat load of $ to the banks because they were desparate and it was necessary because of the economy, right?

that $ had to be borrowed and our great grandchildren will be paying that loan off.

now the banks are using that $ to pay dividends to the shareholders!!!

talk about a transfer of wealth once again to those at the highest earning levels!

is everyone here at pricescope multimillionaires and receiving the benefits of the wealth distribution occuring right now?

if not, then i think it would be better to be worrying about the real wealth transfer using the $ of our children''s children future.


movie zombie

A.MEN.


And I looked up the history on progressives income taxes after hearing Obama tell Rachel Maddow''s last night, that it started with Teddy Roosevelt. Which he also said was "supposedly one of McCains''s heros". For being around as long as it has, you''d think it was something new.

http://www.tax.org/Museum/1901-1932.htm

 

[Demelza]

Date: 10/31/2008 10:55:33 AM
Author: stone_seeker

Date: 10/31/2008 10:41:53 AM

Author: Demelza

Am I the only one who doesn't understand what the big fuss is? I can understand that some people are philosophically opposed to the idea of taxes in general, but the idea that Obama is proposing some revolutionary new system of taxation in order to 'redistribute the wealth' is nothing more than conservative propaganda. One could argue that any system of taxation is a 'redistribution of wealth' which would mean that McCain's tax plan functions the same way. This is yet another attempt by the McCain campaign to paint Obama as some scary 'other' -- a Muslim, a terrorist, or, heaven forbid, a socialist!!

I could be wrong but the difference is that in the case where the tax is used to fund roads and military, many find that ok. But in this case the money is being taken from Peter to pay Paul. So people who dont work or pay any taxes will get a government check thereby being a redistribution of wealth. Raising taxes across the board to fund a deficit would be ok, but raising taxes on some people while lowering/rebating another class is a redistribution.

Are you opposed to any government-funded social welfare program? It isn't like our taxes are currently only used to fund infrastructure and defense; even under Bush, taxes are used to fund all sorts of social welfare programs. Do you see the current system as a "redistribution of wealth"? Neither candidate is proposing a flat tax, so it's really just a matter of shifting priorities. Obama wants the top earners to share a bit more of the tax burden, but, again, I don't seem him proposing something new and revolutionary. Frankly, what he's proposing seems very fair.

 

[Demelza]

Date: 10/31/2008 12:30:43 PM
Author: MoonWater
If people think that simply taking from one group and giving to another is all there is to socialism, then this country has been socialist for a couple hundred years already. Don''t try to blame Obama for what''s been happening since before any of your parents were born.


And kudos to MZ!

Ditto! That''s exactly what I was trying to say!

 

[HollyS]

Date: 10/31/2008 9:47:17 AM
Author: rob09

Date: 10/31/2008 9:34:30 AM
Author: stone_seeker

I''m glad so many have strong opinions on this issue because it is important. This is an email I received from someone the other day:


In a local restaurant my server had on a ''Obama 08'' tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference--just imagine the coincidence.

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I''ve decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.

So you are rewarding people who are too lazy to work and burden us taxpayers who have to fork over money for shelters, soup kitchens, social and medical services for the uninsured? Good move. If I had been the waiter I would have gladly redistributed my excess energy to your behind. Maybe you can spend a minute to think about why a waiter would vote for Obama and not for McCain. Oooops! Same reason as you pry would vote for McCain! Taxes!!! Punishing someone who looks out for his own financial interest? That is so un-Republican. And not giving a waiter his tip because of your political beliefs? That is simply being an jerk. Hope your experiment made you feel good. I''ll feel better on election day.

Uh, hello? Excercise in irony is lost on you? C''mon.

There are a great many people ''too lazy to work'' who would benefit from Obama''s proposals. There are a lot of hard-working taxpayers who will be further burdened taking care of those ''too lazy to work''. Remember, those are your words I accentuated.

 

[luckystar112]

Date: 10/31/2008 10:08:50 AM
Author: neatfreak

Date: 10/31/2008 9:50:35 AM
Author: stone_seeker
Rob,


You sadly miss the point. The point being a redistribution of money earned by one and given to another. Doesnt feel good when you are the one not getting the benefit. And I never said I was voting for McCain. So please direct your anger elsewhere.

No, YOU sadly miss the point. Obama''s tax policies are not taking money out of the pockets of those who make $2 something per hour before tips...

There would be nothing to take anyway. 9 times out of 10 a server''s paycheck is void.

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 10/31/2008 10:41:53 AM
Author: Demelza
Am I the only one who doesn't understand what the big fuss is? I can understand that some people are philosophically opposed to the idea of taxes in general, but the idea that Obama is proposing some revolutionary new system of taxation in order to 'redistribute the wealth' is nothing more than conservative propaganda. One could argue that any system of taxation is a 'redistribution of wealth' which would mean that McCain's tax plan functions the same way. This is yet another attempt by the McCain campaign to paint Obama as some scary 'other' -- a Muslim, a terrorist, or, heaven forbid, a socialist!!

No you aren't the only one...I've been saying that neither of the new policies really change much for a few pages now...but for some reason people are still scared. Who knows why...

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 10/31/2008 10:26:05 AM
Author: vespergirl


Actually, we are paying about 35%. I am including our state and property taxes in the quotient. It really depends where you live.

Honestly, the candidate that I would be most excited to vote for is any one who ever gets the guts to promote the flat tax. I guess the fact that I don''t see much difference between McCain & Obama is that for the middle class (including upper-middle) our tax rates never end up changing that much, because the government gets the bulk of its cash from the middle classes. I would personally feel much better about paying a flat tax that EVERYONE (including the poor) would have to pay for the privilege of living in this country. I think that the govt. would have more $ to balance the budget, and it would reduce the animosity amongst the classes to know that everyone has to pay their fair share.

 

[777_LDY]

Date: 10/31/2008 9:31:34 AM
Author: Ellen

Date: 10/31/2008 7:31:38 AM
Author: 777_LDY

We pay about 35% and because we are in the highest bracket we do not get the privilege of having many deductions.

Last year we had to pay nearly 30k on top of what was being already taken out weekly, which we thought would cover us. I guess I could understand having to give so much back if my husband made twice what he does, but when you are a young hard working family with small children and you are at the lower end of the ''wealthy'' class it just doesn''t make sense. And like I mentioned earlier, my husband has what I would call a small business that will get hit very hard under Obama. For what is he working so hard for?

No comment, just wanted to say it''s good to see you. You are missed! Hope everything is well.

* teeny threadjack over*

Thank you so much Ellen, that smiley cheered me up! I do miss PS, but had to take a little break. I have been so busy with the boys, and hubby has been so stressed at work, which is why I had to speak up on this thread. My little fixer upper home is falling apart all around me, and I feel like I can never get enough done in one day. This topic really has me heated up IRL I guess.

I hope you have a very happy Halloween! I just love all the excitement that the children have in them today. It''s like they don''t have a care in the world...sigh.

 

[icekid]

Date: 10/31/2008 1:57:49 PM
Author: neatfreak

Date: 10/31/2008 10:41:53 AM
Author: Demelza
Am I the only one who doesn''t understand what the big fuss is? I can understand that some people are philosophically opposed to the idea of taxes in general, but the idea that Obama is proposing some revolutionary new system of taxation in order to ''redistribute the wealth'' is nothing more than conservative propaganda. One could argue that any system of taxation is a ''redistribution of wealth'' which would mean that McCain''s tax plan functions the same way. This is yet another attempt by the McCain campaign to paint Obama as some scary ''other'' -- a Muslim, a terrorist, or, heaven forbid, a socialist!!

No you aren''t the only one...I''ve been saying that neither of the new policies really change much for a few pages now...but for some reason people are still scared. Who knows why...

I will say it makes *me* a bit "scared" (and by scared, I mean it causes me to think of the consequences). This is secondary to the fact that I do not believe Obama''s current plan in tax hikes will not generate enough revenue to cover all of the things he is proposing (not to mention pay down the debt!), so I can only see our debt continuing to grow, or alternatively my taxes continuing to grow. More likely, both.

I see so much talk of fair and equal... and let''s be real. LIFE IS NOT FAIR. Nothing about life is fair. Some people are born with good looks, some are born with brains, some are born with parents who have done well for themselves. We cannot control these things. Shall we handicap the athletic kids on the playing field so it''s fair for everyone? Maybe tie a heavy weight to each of their ankles? Who decided that we had to make everything fair? It''s not possible. And it is certainly not my ideal. I suspect that is how many "wealthy" folks feel, like they are being tied down.

Everyone continues to roll their eyes about people working hard to earn a nice living. Most of them DO work incredibly hard. My background certainly wasn''t privileged, but it was full of parents who loved me and always wanted me to accomplish my goals. I don''t doubt that teachers work hard; my mother is one. Many people out there work hard. Me? I''ve taken on a school debt of $250,000. I''ve given up my late teens and twenties to studying and (finally) now working for a pittance. I won''t have a real job until I hit the age of 33. I regularly work 30 hour shifts, 100 hour weeks. I have lives in my hands everyday. I will be sued multiple times. Stressful? Just a bit. Do I believe I deserve to be rewarded for my hard work and dedication? HELL YEAH. Will I be less motivated to work hard when the financial incentive is less? Absolutely. To be sure, I love my job- but I do not relish working 70 hours/week forever. Not everyone who makes a decent wage was handed a cush job by daddy.

I will still put my children through college though. If that means we scrape by with one or two fewer office employees, then that is what will happen. I don''t truly believe that *I* will really suffer because of higher taxes. I''m not one to need fancy cars, pretty bags. I just want a stable life for my family where money is not a worry. If that means I don''t have the disposable income for extra employees, things, dinners out, vacations, I''ll still be fine! But that may very well mean fewer jobs out there for others.

For the record, I think the "socialist" bank bailout is a train wreck. And if I were actually going to vote, I would vote for Obama. But that doesn''t mean I''m basking in the prospect of continually higher and higher taxes either. It''s so funny that those who are not in that so wealthy tax bracket are more than willing to volunteer me to donate my money (which to be fair, I am not earning yet!). I do not have a problem with using some of my money to help people to get onto their feet, as long as they are willing to help themselves as well. But I also believe we need to become much more efficient in this process.

 

[luckystar112]

Great post, icekid!!!


I just wanted to respond to this:

Date: 10/31/2008 2:36:48 PM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 10/31/2008 10:26:05 AM
Author: vespergirl




Actually, we are paying about 35%. I am including our state and property taxes in the quotient. It really depends where you live.

Honestly, the candidate that I would be most excited to vote for is any one who ever gets the guts to promote the flat tax. I guess the fact that I don''t see much difference between McCain & Obama is that for the middle class (including upper-middle) our tax rates never end up changing that much, because the government gets the bulk of its cash from the middle classes. I would personally feel much better about paying a flat tax that EVERYONE (including the poor) would have to pay for the privilege of living in this country. I think that the govt. would have more $ to balance the budget, and it would reduce the animosity amongst the classes to know that everyone has to pay their fair share.

If I''m not mistaken, I believe a flat tax would put even more of a burden on the middle class, and it is far from fair.
Perhaps someone else can expand on this (or correct me if I''m wrong)?

 

[Allisonfaye]

Date: 10/31/2008 11:50:03 AM
Author: stone_seeker

Date: 10/31/2008 11:18:14 AM
Author: elledizzy5

Date: 10/31/2008 10:55:33 AM
Author: stone_seeker

Date: 10/31/2008 10:41:53 AM
Author: Demelza
Am I the only one who doesn''t understand what the big fuss is? I can understand that some people are philosophically opposed to the idea of taxes in general, but the idea that Obama is proposing some revolutionary new system of taxation in order to ''redistribute the wealth'' is nothing more than conservative propaganda. One could argue that any system of taxation is a ''redistribution of wealth'' which would mean that McCain''s tax plan functions the same way. This is yet another attempt by the McCain campaign to paint Obama as some scary ''other'' -- a Muslim, a terrorist, or, heaven forbid, a socialist!!

I could be wrong but the difference is that in the case where the tax is used to fund roads and military, many find that ok. But in this case the money is being taken from Peter to pay Paul. So people who dont work or pay any taxes will get a government check thereby being a redistribution of wealth. Raising taxes across the board to fund a deficit would be ok, but raising taxes on some people while lowering/rebating another class is a redistribution.

I''m curious why that is so worrisome to people. Capitalism causes too much power for large corporations and the wealthy, and creates far too much economic inequality, which causes a LOT of societal problems.

The hurt that the rich feel from a slight increase in taxes does not provide Johnny Homeless with a brand new house and a car. It just helps to alleviate some of the burden. Of course I don''t think we should just hand out checks to everyone, but we need to get programs in place to elimate the drastic social inequality. This may be an increase in taxes for those who are more likely to afford it. I''m sure that the $250,000/yr+ crowd wouldnt be complaining if crime was significantly reduced because the economic inequality was reduced.

American society is NOT healthy when we have people struggling on the streets in the freezing cold while I watch 16 year olds have birthday parties that cost more than my me and BF make in a year.

THAT is what is not fair in society.

So you prefer a society where everyone''s income is capped? Where does the redistribution stop? How low does the threshold go? Its a dangerous path to go down when we set these arbitrary levels as to what is considered ''rich''. Here in NYC, $250K gets you the ability to rent a 500 square foot apartment. There is not much left over for someone earning 250k and living in NYC. Why not make it $100K and up, you pay more? Who determines what is fair? Or is it that there are more votes if I pick $250K as the threshold.

Do you think it lowers incentives for people to work harder? Or should people not work as hard?

Why is it unfair that a 16 year old spends $30K on a party? Should we make that illegal? How about the people hired for those events and the people who make the goods used in such parties?

I dont know the answers to these but FAIR is a relative term. I''m sure you have more than some people in this world and if you were forced to give up half of that to give to someone less fortunate, it may not seem fair.

Everyone wants to live the American dream, but by god, they get angry when someone else is.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 10/31/2008 10:55:33 AM
Author: stone_seeker

I could be wrong but the difference is that in the case where the tax is used to fund roads and military, many find that ok. But in this case the money is being taken from Peter to pay Paul. So people who dont work or pay any taxes will get a government check thereby being a redistribution of wealth. Raising taxes across the board to fund a deficit would be ok, but raising taxes on some people while lowering/rebating another class is a redistribution.

All movement of money or goods in exchange for goods or service in an economy is a redistribution of wealth. Redistribution of wealth is what happens in a healthy economy. Ours is sick. There is not enough movement right now. I'd like to see Detroit make some more cars and be able to sell them to some more people and then have the plant workers be able to take their kids out to McDonald's or to buy them some healthy apples (grown in America, of course) as treats if you prefer.

Deborah

 

[vespergirl]

Date: 10/31/2008 3:01:07 PM
Author: luckystar112
Great post, icekid!!!


I just wanted to respond to this:

Date: 10/31/2008 2:36:48 PM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 10/31/2008 10:26:05 AM
Author: vespergirl





Actually, we are paying about 35%. I am including our state and property taxes in the quotient. It really depends where you live.

Honestly, the candidate that I would be most excited to vote for is any one who ever gets the guts to promote the flat tax. I guess the fact that I don''t see much difference between McCain & Obama is that for the middle class (including upper-middle) our tax rates never end up changing that much, because the government gets the bulk of its cash from the middle classes. I would personally feel much better about paying a flat tax that EVERYONE (including the poor) would have to pay for the privilege of living in this country. I think that the govt. would have more $ to balance the budget, and it would reduce the animosity amongst the classes to know that everyone has to pay their fair share.

If I''m not mistaken, I believe a flat tax would put even more of a burden on the middle class, and it is far from fair.
Perhaps someone else can expand on this (or correct me if I''m wrong)?

Hey there, I''m by no means a tax expert, but from what I understand of the flat tax, everyone pays the same percentage from their salary. Which means that the poor will be paying taxes that they are not paying now, for the middle class it will be split - some will pay less, some more, and for the most part, the rich will pay more than they pay now. I think that the graduated tax system that we have now in a way penalizes people for succeeding and earning more, but for those of us who fall into upper-middle class brackets and live in expensive urban areas (because our jobs require us to), even with a lot of cash coming in, taxes eat up so much of our paychecks that there is very little left over to save, even with a high salary. Whereas the poor can keep underachieving, because all you get is a tax penalty when you make more money. The very rich pay low taxes right now, which is not necessarily fair. Warren Buffet often talks about how his receptionist pays a higher percentage of taxes on her salary than he does, which is outrageous to me. The middle class always gets squeezed the worst. Say if the flat tax is 10%, then everyone knows that you pay 10% of your salary, and that''s it, whether you earn $20,000 per year or $20 billion.

Like I said, I am also not an expert, but this is my understanding of how it would work. I would also love to hear more about it if there are any experts out there ...

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 10/31/2008 4:57:49 PM
Author: AGBF

All movement of money or goods in exchange for goods or service in an economy is a redistribution of wealth. Redistribution of wealth is what happens in a healthy economy. Ours is sick. There is not enough movement right now. I''d like to see Detroit make some more cars and be able to sell them to some more people and then have the plant workers be able to take their kids out to McDonald''s or to buy them some healthy apples (grown in America, of course) as treats if you prefer.


Deborah

The movement of wealth is a good thing in an economy but our economy is not based on moving wealth anymore.
That no longer happens it is money that moves and the richest people are the ones that move money.
Moving money creates no wealth.
The problem with the US economy is the over supply of money and the lack of wealth.
A mutual back scratching society can not survive because it does not create wealth.
Creating wealth increases the wealth of the people, creating money decreases the wealth of the country.
Our economy is based on creating money and debt instead of creating wealth.

When it comes to creating wealth taxes are a leach on the creation of wealth.
Every part the government takes can not be used to create wealth.
It is impossible for any government to create wealth they can only create debt and money.

 

[zhuzhu]

Date: 10/31/2008 5:35:18 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 10/31/2008 4:57:49 PM

Author: AGBF


All movement of money or goods in exchange for goods or service in an economy is a redistribution of wealth. Redistribution of wealth is what happens in a healthy economy. Ours is sick. There is not enough movement right now. I''d like to see Detroit make some more cars and be able to sell them to some more people and then have the plant workers be able to take their kids out to McDonald''s or to buy them some healthy apples (grown in America, of course) as treats if you prefer.



Deborah

The movement of wealth is a good thing in an economy but our economy is not based on moving wealth anymore.

That no longer happens it is money that moves and the richest people are the ones that move money.

Moving money creates no wealth.

The problem with the US economy is the over supply of money and the lack of wealth.

A mutual back scratching society can not survive because it does not create wealth.

Creating wealth increases the wealth of the people, creating money decreases the wealth of the country.

Our economy is based on creating money and debt instead of creating wealth.


When it comes to creating wealth taxes are a leach on the creation of wealth.

Every part the government takes can not be used to create wealth.

It is impossible for any government to create wealth they can only create debt and money.

I agree that it is not the tax itself and the government that "create wealth". It is the wisely implemented policies that ENABLE the freedom for you and I to create wealth.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 10/31/2008 5:35:17 PM
Author: vespergirl

Hey there, I''m by no means a tax expert, but from what I understand of the flat tax, everyone pays the same percentage from their salary. Which means that the poor will be paying taxes that they are not paying now, for the middle class it will be split - some will pay less, some more, and for the most part, the rich will pay more than they pay now. I think that the graduated tax system that we have now in a way penalizes people for succeeding and earning more, but for those of us who fall into upper-middle class brackets and live in expensive urban areas (because our jobs require us to), even with a lot of cash coming in, taxes eat up so much of our paychecks that there is very little left over to save, even with a high salary. Whereas the poor can keep underachieving, because all you get is a tax penalty when you make more money. The very rich pay low taxes right now, which is not necessarily fair. Warren Buffet often talks about how his receptionist pays a higher percentage of taxes on her salary than he does, which is outrageous to me. The middle class always gets squeezed the worst. Say if the flat tax is 10%, then everyone knows that you pay 10% of your salary, and that''s it, whether you earn $20,000 per year or $20 billion.


Like I said, I am also not an expert, but this is my understanding of how it would work. I would also love to hear more about it if there are any experts out there ...

A flat tax with large standard deductions is the fairest tax out there.
Make the deductions 30k adjusted for inflation every year, 60k for couples and add 5k per dependent.
Then set a flat rate above that.
Absolutely no deductions above and beyond that and all income from all sources is taxed at that level.
That would be the best tax system for America until we can eliminate the income tax.

 

[strmrdr]

Then to take it to the next level do the same flat tax for business profits.
With the the only deductions allowed are capital expenditures(depreciation) and business expenses.
That will eliminate a lot of the accounting BS that is going on also.
$500k adjusted for inflation no tax above that a flat tax.

 

[Skippy123]

eta: Karl, are you proposing something like this? http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1866.cfm

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 10/31/2008 6:03:49 PM
Author: Skippy123
eta: Karl, are you proposing something like this? http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1866.cfm

similar but they left too many loopholes and the deductions are not high enough.
To clarify....
no taxes on:
$30k for individuals.
$60k for couples
$60k + $5k per dependent for traditional families.

Then a flat tax % over that amount for everyone.

Adjust the deductions for inflation.

The entire tax code for non-corporations would be 100 words long compared to several 10s of millions it is now.

 

[miraclesrule]

It is my opinion that most people are going to project their fears regardless of the reality of the situation, which is fluid. These are merely words, which usually become meaningless in actual practice.

I wonder how many people are really "too lazy to work" as opposed to "unable to work based on mental and physical disaibilities". I doubt we have an overwhelming number of "too lazy to work" people on the "money for nothing" gravytrain.

How many of you know the requirements in order to receive "Aid for Dependant Children"?
Do you know the how much money you can receive if you don''t have dependant children but you are just too lazy to work?
Do you know how much money the government pays a person to take in a foster child?

Do you know how many people do go to work and then fake a disability that the company and/or insurance company pays out? The endless medical and legal mills that fabricate claims by using immigrants as pawns in order to enrich themselves, usually by fraudulent means, that bilk the resources that would otherwise be available for hard working Americans?

The issues we are talking about drive me insane because they are so narrow. I have yet to hear from a candidate that actually knows the detailed policies and cost drivers that effect labor, business, health care system, social services, local government. GAH!!!

 

[Harriet]

Does anyone agree with me that money has marginal utility? In other words, to whom does a dollar mean more? A poor person or a rich person?

 

[miraclesrule]

Date: 10/31/2008 9:50:22 PM
Author: Harriet
Does anyone agree with me that money has marginal utility? In other words, to whom does a dollar mean more? A poor person or a rich person?

Damn Good question. Is "rich" the same as "wealthy"?

 

[Harriet]

Miraclesrule,
Are you making fun of me?

Let me rephrase my question: "A person with less money or one with more?"

777 LDY,
It''s good to have you back.