All I'm saying is ALL federal services you receice for FREE. If it is something via the state/muni/county well how much did you pay in taxes towards them?
The source of revenue of the USA Govt is:
80% - Individual and payroll taxes
13% - Corporate Taxes
7% - excise, estate and gift taxes, custom duties and misc.
In reality though the majority of the government services you receive, on a day to day basis, are state and local. So the logic that those paying little to no federal taxes are living off the rest of us is pretty inaccurate.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
In reality though the majority of the government services you receive, on a day to day basis, are state and local. So the logic that those paying little to no federal taxes are living off the rest of us is pretty inaccurate.
Small things should be handled by state and local and hence you probably see more day to day impact of those - doesn't mean the federal govt doesn't provide a lot of services including state and local aid.
Agree to disagree - I want a fair/flat tax and you want everyone to make 50K-75K - no more and no less - or something close to that. You make 200K - well we are going to tax you at 75% because you can live on 50K.
I don't think he's saying that, and I don't want to speak for him. I think we just have to be willing to look past the paper into common sense logic, and realize that a 20% (pick your number) taxation for someone making 500,000 dollars a year is not the same as someone making 50,000 a year. If both of those individuals paid a 20% tax rate to the government (again, picking numbers out of a hat), the former individual would having 400,000 dollars after taxes. The later would have 40,000. So why do we pretend that this would truly be "equitable?" If you want to cut taxes and MASSIVELY cut spending, I don't think it would be wise in every situation, but it's far more reasonable than this idea that EVERYONE pay the same percentage. It just doesn't work.
The thing that makes this so strange, and it's something that saveuplife, another poster, made an important point about (although I think he thinks it is a good thing), is that the tax system by definition constantly redistributes wealth. Look at the wages for the middle class and those top quintiles under Reagan. Look under Bush. In comparison, the top quintiles made more because the tax breaks offered were more attractive to those quintiles. Under Obama's plan, that would be reversed; the tax breaks would be more attractive towards the middle class. Both of those are redistribution of wealth; however, they differ in that different quintiles prosper under different administrations. In the past thirty years, the middle class has struggled a bit under Republican rule (particularly under the two Bushes) while the top quintiles have prospered; it's the entire idea of trickle down economics. However, they benefit two different sections of the population. I personally err on the side of our income tax system benefitting the middle class.
Small things should be handled by state and local and hence you probably see more day to day impact of those - doesn't mean the federal govt doesn't provide a lot of services including state and local aid.
Yes the federal government does provide aid to states for roads, education, etc... but those that do not pay federal taxes still pay into these services through local taxes. So again with the exception of national security, whether it's defense, FBI or CIA, NASA and national parks they still pay into government services.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
I don't think he's saying that, and I don't want to speak for him. I think we just have to be willing to look past the paper into common sense logic, and realize that a 20% (pick your number) taxation for someone making 500,000 dollars a year is not the same as someone making 50,000 a year. If both of those individuals paid a 20% tax rate to the government (again, picking numbers out of a hat), the former individual would having 400,000 dollars after taxes. The later would have 40,000. So why do we pretend that this would truly be "equitable?" If you want to cut taxes and MASSIVELY cut spending, I don't think it would be wise in every situation, but it's far more reasonable than this idea that EVERYONE pay the same percentage. It just doesn't work.
The thing that makes this so strange, and it's something that saveuplife, another poster, made an important point about (although I think he thinks it is a good thing), is that the tax system by definition constantly redistributes wealth. Look at the wages for the middle class and those top quintiles under Reagan. Look under Bush. In comparison, the top quintiles made more because the tax breaks offered were more attractive to those quintiles. Under Obama's plan, that would be reversed; the tax breaks would be more attractive towards the middle class. Both of those are redistribution of wealth; however, they differ in that different quintiles prosper under different administrations. In the past thirty years, the middle class has struggled a bit under Republican rule (particularly under the two Bushes) while the top quintiles have prospered; it's the entire idea of trickle down economics. However, they benefit two different sections of the population. I personally err on the side of our income tax system benefitting the middle class
Very well put.
This goes back to my original post on the absurdity of Calling Obama's plan "Socialist" Under both systems we are talking about the distribution of wealth.
1. For the Middle Class
2. For the very rich.
It's 2 different theories on how that distribution of wealth will benifit or effect the economy.
I side with cutting taxes to the middle class simply because they make up a greater majority of America. Putting more money in the Middle Class will have a greater effect on the economy as it will give a vast majority of people a chance to spend money.
The rich will make out great either way because they are esentially the ones who will continue to get rich when the Middle Class have more money to spend.
Keeping the money at the top and hoping and praying that it will magically flow down from the troths to everyone else is a bit of a "pipe dream".
Even as a net beneficiary of taxes, I have trouble understanding how everyone so casually discusses taking other peoples' property. "We should do this" and "we should do that"--like it's no big deal at all.
I don't think he's saying that, and I don't want to speak for him. I think we just have to be willing to look past the paper into common sense logic, and realize that a 20% (pick your number) taxation for someone making 500,000 dollars a year is not the same as someone making 50,000 a year. If both of those individuals paid a 20% tax rate to the government (again, picking numbers out of a hat), the former individual would having 400,000 dollars after taxes. The later would have 40,000. So why do we pretend that this would truly be "equitable?" If you want to cut taxes and MASSIVELY cut spending, I don't think it would be wise in every situation, but it's far more reasonable than this idea that EVERYONE pay the same percentage. It just doesn't work.
The thing that makes this so strange, and it's something that saveuplife, another poster, made an important point about (although I think he thinks it is a good thing), is that the tax system by definition constantly redistributes wealth. Look at the wages for the middle class and those top quintiles under Reagan. Look under Bush. In comparison, the top quintiles made more because the tax breaks offered were more attractive to those quintiles. Under Obama's plan, that would be reversed; the tax breaks would be more attractive towards the middle class. Both of those are redistribution of wealth; however, they differ in that different quintiles prosper under different administrations. In the past thirty years, the middle class has struggled a bit under Republican rule (particularly under the two Bushes) while the top quintiles have prospered; it's the entire idea of trickle down economics. However, they benefit two different sections of the population. I personally err on the side of our income tax system benefitting the middle class.
I think 20% (or whatever number we use) for each level is the same and very fair. In fact, it would be one of the fairest things out there. Think of it this way - the 20% across the board with taxes is much fairer for all then even common consumer goods such as gas or milk or bread, etc. The cost of a gallon of gas for someone who is poor is a much higher percentage of their income than it is for someone who is rich.
Where he's muddying the water is bringing in all this talk about loopholes and essentially saying the rich wouldn't even pay the 20%. If we can have everyone pay the 20% that would work the best, imo.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I can definitely understand where both indifference and gonzo are coming from on this issue. While a flat tax does seem fair it will affect people of different income levels in different ways. As digster pointed out a 20% flat tax will definitely affect a person making $50,000 a whole lot more than someone making $500,000. This is why i think a national sales tax, Fair Tax, is a better solution.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
I can definitely understand where both indifference and gonzo are coming from on this issue. While a flat tax does seem fair it will affect people of different income levels in different ways. As digster pointed out a 20% flat tax will definitely affect a person making $50,000 a whole lot more than someone making $500,000. This is why i think a national sales tax, Fair Tax, is a better solution.
I actually prefer the "fair tax" to flat tax. Was just taking the other side of a discussion. Prefer both to what is currently in place and what is planned.
I think 20% (or whatever number we use) for each level is the same and very fair. In fact, it would be one of the fairest things out there. Think of it this way - the 20% across the board with taxes is much fairer for all then even common consumer goods such as gas or milk or bread, etc. The cost of a gallon of gas for someone who is poor is a much higher percentage of their income than it is for someone who is rich.
Where he's muddying the water is bringing in all this talk about loopholes and essentially saying the rich wouldn't even pay the 20%. If we can have everyone pay the 20% that would work the best, imo.
Get rid of the loopholes and then you may be on to something with your 20%.
w/ Tax Umbrellas, Capital Gains, Equity Witholds, ect ect
You're not playing on a level field plain and simple.
I think 20% (or whatever number we use) for each level is the same and very fair. In fact, it would be one of the fairest things out there. Think of it this way - the 20% across the board with taxes is much fairer for all then even common consumer goods such as gas or milk or bread, etc. The cost of a gallon of gas for someone who is poor is a much higher percentage of their income than it is for someone who is rich.
Where he's muddying the water is bringing in all this talk about loopholes and essentially saying the rich wouldn't even pay the 20%. If we can have everyone pay the 20% that would work the best, imo.
That's the opposite point of the one I am trying to make; the point is that a 20% flat tax would NOT be the same. Someone trying to support a family with 10,000 in tax taken from a 50,000 dollar salary is not the same as someone with a 500,000 dollar salary who gives 100,000 to taxes, and is left with 400,000 to support his family. It's unrealistic to treat such a result as 'equitable' when it would only be equitable in the abstraction.
That's the opposite point of the one I am trying to make; the point is that a 20% flat tax would NOT be the same. Someone trying to support a family with 10,000 in tax taken from a 50,000 dollar salary is not the same as someone with a 500,000 dollar salary who gives 100,000 to taxes, and is left with 400,000 to support his family. It's unrealistic to treat such a result as 'equitable' when it would only be equitable in the abstraction.
BINGO! give that man a prize.
somehow this simple concept eludes so many. tell me it's not a fuck of a lot easier to raise a family on 400k/yr than on 40k/yr.
people who claim to not see the problem, ARE the problem.
"Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
somehow this simple concept eludes so many. tell me it's not a fuck of a lot easier to raise a family on 400k/yr than on 40k/yr.
people who claim to not see the problem, ARE the problem.
I don't believe people should be 'punished' for accumulating wealth. The point of striking out on your own is supposed to be that you can become successful. However, I think it's a little far-fetched to claim that a so-called 'equitable' flat tax is equal for those who are making less. 10,000 dollars for someone who makes 40,000 before taxes could be the dividing line between middle-class and poverty. Someone making 500,000 before taxes who is taxed a larger amount, although it is a far larger amount, is in no such danger. If a tax break is going to be given somewhere (as it has been in the past five Presidential administrations, if not longer), then I want it going to the former.
I actually prefer the "fair tax" to flat tax. Was just taking the other side of a discussion. Prefer both to what is currently in place and what is planned.
The Fair Tax is by far the better of the three. It allows for taxes to be collected from everyone who is an active consumers, even visitors from other countries.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
The Fair Tax is by far the better of the three. It allows for taxes to be collected from everyone who is an active consumers, even visitors from other countries.
In theory, the Fair Tax appeals to me, but isn't there a danger of that leading to decreased consumption?
Also, how would it be administered? Would people be taxed on the basis of their income? On the basis of how much the item costs? How would that aspect of it work?
That's the opposite point of the one I am trying to make; the point is that a 20% flat tax would NOT be the same. Someone trying to support a family with 10,000 in tax taken from a 50,000 dollar salary is not the same as someone with a 500,000 dollar salary who gives 100,000 to taxes, and is left with 400,000 to support his family. It's unrealistic to treat such a result as 'equitable' when it would only be equitable in the abstraction.
Trying to support a family is a lot different concept than trying to determine a fair tax system.
Why do you even focus on taxes? Heck, it's a lot more difficult to support that family with the income of $50K than it is with $500K even if both sides DON'T PAY ANY TAXES. In other words, taxes aren't the issue, there.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Get rid of the loopholes and then you may be on to something with your 20%.
w/ Tax Umbrellas, Capital Gains, Equity Witholds, ect ect
You're not playing on a level field plain and simple.
That's why I support the consumption tax. It's pretty straightforward. You buy, you pay. (I know you claim that the rich would just buy foreign to avoid tax, but I have to think that a sales tax could still be applied for at least most purchases.)
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Trying to support a family is a lot different concept than trying to determine a fair tax system.
Why do you even focus on taxes? Heck, it's a lot more difficult to support that family with the income of $50K than it is with $500K even if both sides DON'T PAY ANY TAXES. In other words, taxes aren't the issue, there.
Of course it has something to do with taxes. You yourself were talking about the hypothetical 20% rate, where 'everyone pays' 20%. You said that was the right approach, that it was equitable when it is not. That's what the focus of this whole discussion was, what tax system or amount would be 'fair'; why would I focus on something else?
The rich make such a severe case out of their taxes being raised. Yet as I've stated before, a large portion of their income remains tax free or exempt.
In the long run it will not change the volume or definition of their weatlh by bumping their taxes; especially with Obama's plan which in the long run only equates to a few percentage points.
The richest 1% in this country are not exactly going to be headed for the Wealfare Office with Obama's plan.
I just don't see how taxing the middle class and continuing to raise their taxes is going to stimulate the economy.
When you raise taxes on the Middle Class, you're putting a heavy tax burden on the portion of the country where a couple of percentage points DO MATTER.
It just doesn't make sense.
The Middle Class WORKING FAMILIES are the ones struggling most in this economy that's who we need to help.
It's not a handout either as some have stated.
It's more a means of working with the income of the Middle Class America in order to stimulate the economy by affording them the opportunity to get out there and buy.
A boost to the Middle Class historically has helped the market. Again you just need to go back to the Clinton 90's where the Middle Class was given a boost. It sparked the economy and led to new jobs and a growth in the economy and small business thrived.
It's kind of a no-brainer if you really think this thing out.
Trying to support a family is a lot different concept than trying to determine a fair tax system.....
But that problem has nothing to do with taxes. Not sure why people can't understand this simple concept.
In theory, the Fair Tax appeals to me, but isn't there a danger of that leading to decreased consumption?
Also, how would it be administered? Would people be taxed on the basis of their income? On the basis of how much the item costs? How would that aspect of it work?
Well based on the Fair Tax proposal it would be a 26% national sales tax on all new goods. Certain basic essentials, such as milk and bread, would not be taxed or based on your family size and income you would receive a monthly rebate for these things (I prefer that they not tax such basic essentials). The theory of the Fair Tax is that every item already contains an imbedded tax. That is that through each stage, from manufactoring to the time it hits the shelf, the different hands that touch the product are tacking on what ever tax they have to pay for their role in the process to the cost of that item. For example a dairy farmer will charge the wholesaler a price for his product that covers expenses plus any taxes he incurred during the process of making his product. The wholesaler will them sell it to the retailer and in the cost we be the inclusion of any taxes he incurred and so on. The people behind the Fair Tax estimate that this embedded tax can be up 22-24%. So without the overall cost of item will maintain relatively the same with a national sales tax since the different enttities associated with the product will no longer be including the numerious taxes they incur into the price of the item. Used items are not subject to the tax since the Fair tax on that item has already been paid.
As far as decreased consumption I don't see why that would happen. As long as the tax was not too steep and the cost of good and services remained within an acceptable range I would think that consumption would not be affected. Of course the first step, with any tax plan, is to control government spending. At 26% the Fair Tax would be able to fund our government and would not have a negative affect on our economy but with uncontrolled government spending the sales tax can and would be raised.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
[size=+2]Is Barack Obama a socialist?[/size]
If he is, then so is John McCain. But the charge is just a racial dog whistle anyway. Can you say "welfare queen"?
By Michael Lind
Nov. 01, 2008 |
John McCain, struggling to catch up with Barack Obama in the last days of the campaign, has finally found a theme for a campaign that until now has lacked one. He is running for the White House to defend capitalism against socialism. Because Barack Obama in an unguarded moment to Joe the Plumber said he wanted to "spread the wealth," McCain and Palin are painting the senator from Illinois as a "redistributionist" or "redistributor" (they can't decide on the appropriate term), a subversive and sinister figure who is peddling "socialism." It's not enough for McCain to run against Obama as though he were George McGovern. McCain is trying to equate Obama with Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas, the socialist candidates for the presidency of yesteryear. Never mind that Jonah Goldberg has spent a couple of years denouncing liberal fascism. Fascists last week, progressives like Obama are now socialists. Which is to say, "commies."
McCain's desperate use of the socialist smear is particularly shameless, given the dubiousness of his own conservative credentials. The left's chant of "McSame" to the contrary, McCain and Rudy Giuliani were the (relative) moderates among the 2008 Republican contenders. Most conservatives in the GOP primaries voted against McCain, who won the nomination only because of the support of moderate Republicans and independents and the mutual annihilation of the real conservatives -- Romney, the business right's candidate, and Huckabee, the religious right's candidate. The radical right can be counted on to know its own. On March 12, 2007, the Club for Growth wrote of McCain, "his overall record is tainted by a naked antipathy towards the free market and individual freedom." Like George Herbert Walker Bush in 1988 and 1992, McCain, the rich and establishmentarian son and grandson of admirals, has had to overcome the suspicion of the Republican base. This dynamic explains the decisions of his campaign, from his choice of right-wing heroine Sarah Palin as his running mate to his charges that Obama is a socialist and redistributionist.
In a country in which substantial numbers believe that space aliens crashed at Roswell, it would be foolish for Obama supporters to let the socialist charge go unanswered. Fortunately, conservative and libertarian heroes like Friedrich von Hayek, Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan and John McCain himself can be called by the Obama team as witnesses for the defense.
McCain and Palin claim that Obama's proposed healthcare system is socialist. It is nothing of the sort. It is a variant of the employer-friendly, insurance-friendly "play-or-pay" scheme discussed in the 1990s. Employers will be given the choice of providing tax-favored health insurance to their employees or being taxed to support a public insurance system. Over time the latter might expand, but for the foreseeable future our dysfunctional private insurance system will survive.
But what if Obama had proposed a single-payer system of "socialized medicine" instead? The bible of free-market libertarians is Friedrich von Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" (1946), which, like the other Bible, few acolytes appear to have read. In his masterpiece, von Hayek attacked central planning, but made it clear that his arguments did not apply to government-run healthcare systems like that of postwar Britain.
Another champion of healthcare socialism was the late Milton Friedman, the Nobel Prize-winning libertarian economist who popularized free-market fundamentalism in tracts like "Free to Choose." While he favored individual health savings accounts for minor expenses, Friedman proposed that major costs be paid for by mandatory catastrophic healthcare coverage run by the federal government. Ronald Reagan -- yet another socialist like Obama, it appears -- liked this redistributionist idea so much he proposed its enactment.
Milton Friedman's socialism did not end with healthcare. McCain and Palin claim that Obama is a socialist because he supports various refundable tax credits for the poor. A refundable tax credit is a government payment to those who make too little to pay income taxes, in the amount of the credit they could have claimed against their income taxes if they were more affluent. In the 1970s, Friedman pushed the granddaddy of all refundable tax credits, the Negative Income Tax, which would have replaced most in-kind welfare benefits with checks to the poor. Friedman's Negative Income Tax was proposed by that well-known leftist radical Richard Nixon.
The negative income tax went nowhere, but another refundable tax credit became the favorite tool of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush in combating poverty -- the earned income tax credit (EITC), which is paid to workers with low wages. Conservative Republicans favor the EITC because it is a subsidy to sleazy low-wage employers. They also believe it averts political pressure for a decent, which is to say much higher, minimum wage. In other words, the EITC so beloved by Reagan and Bush is not only socialism but also corporate welfare.
Obama favors more progressive income and capital gains taxation. In spreading this kind of socialism and redistributionism, he was until recently allied with his fellow member of the U.S. Senate, John Sidney McCain of Arizona. McCain was one of only two Republicans to vote against Bush's 2001 tax cuts and one of only three to vote against his 2003 tax cuts. McCain, sounding suspiciously Bolshevik, explained why: "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the more fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief." What a commie.
Finally, Obama has been attacked by the right for proposing to lift the cap on how much income is subject to the Social Security payroll tax. On July 23, 2005, John McCain, asked by Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" whether he could accept lifting the cap on payroll taxation, replied, "As part of a compromise I could ..."
Without exception, all of the policies supported by Obama belong to broad categories of public policies that have been supported, in one form or another, by conservative-libertarian thinkers like Friedman and von Hayek and conservative politicians like Reagan, George W. Bush and McCain himself. The differences between them and Obama are differences of degree, not of kind.
But while this is true it may not matter, if McCain's last-minute clarion call is really a racial "dog whistle." The McCain campaign may appear to be debating public philosophy, when in fact it is making a disguised appeal to white racism. If that is the case, then "redistributionist" and "socialist" may be intended to be understood by white swing voters as code words that function the way that "welfare queen" did for the Reagan campaign. A "socialist" or "redistributionist" is a politician who taxes white people like Joe the Plumber and gives money to ... you know who.
If this is the tactic, then it might be working. The polls are tightening in the final days of the campaign. Should McCain surprise the pundits and pull off a victory, historians may judge that it was because of his desperate insinuation that white people would be taxed to pay for welfare for Latinos and blacks. And if he should lose, conservative operatives planning for the next cycle may decide that this was the right tactic, pursued too late. Whether he wins or loses, by using "socialist" and "redistributionist" in an environment in which they were likely to be interpreted as racially charged smears, John McCain may have damaged not only his reputation but our society.
-- By Michael Lind
"Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
Comments
In reality though the majority of the government services you receive, on a day to day basis, are state and local. So the logic that those paying little to no federal taxes are living off the rest of us is pretty inaccurate.
Small things should be handled by state and local and hence you probably see more day to day impact of those - doesn't mean the federal govt doesn't provide a lot of services including state and local aid.
SHOW COUNT: (164) 1990's=3, 2000's=53, 2010/20's=108, US=118, CAN=15, Europe=20 ,New Zealand=4, Australia=5
Mexico=1, Colombia=1
I guess you don't have an accountant.
I don't think he's saying that, and I don't want to speak for him. I think we just have to be willing to look past the paper into common sense logic, and realize that a 20% (pick your number) taxation for someone making 500,000 dollars a year is not the same as someone making 50,000 a year. If both of those individuals paid a 20% tax rate to the government (again, picking numbers out of a hat), the former individual would having 400,000 dollars after taxes. The later would have 40,000. So why do we pretend that this would truly be "equitable?" If you want to cut taxes and MASSIVELY cut spending, I don't think it would be wise in every situation, but it's far more reasonable than this idea that EVERYONE pay the same percentage. It just doesn't work.
The thing that makes this so strange, and it's something that saveuplife, another poster, made an important point about (although I think he thinks it is a good thing), is that the tax system by definition constantly redistributes wealth. Look at the wages for the middle class and those top quintiles under Reagan. Look under Bush. In comparison, the top quintiles made more because the tax breaks offered were more attractive to those quintiles. Under Obama's plan, that would be reversed; the tax breaks would be more attractive towards the middle class. Both of those are redistribution of wealth; however, they differ in that different quintiles prosper under different administrations. In the past thirty years, the middle class has struggled a bit under Republican rule (particularly under the two Bushes) while the top quintiles have prospered; it's the entire idea of trickle down economics. However, they benefit two different sections of the population. I personally err on the side of our income tax system benefitting the middle class.
Yes the federal government does provide aid to states for roads, education, etc... but those that do not pay federal taxes still pay into these services through local taxes. So again with the exception of national security, whether it's defense, FBI or CIA, NASA and national parks they still pay into government services.
Very well put.
This goes back to my original post on the absurdity of Calling Obama's plan "Socialist" Under both systems we are talking about the distribution of wealth.
1. For the Middle Class
2. For the very rich.
It's 2 different theories on how that distribution of wealth will benifit or effect the economy.
I side with cutting taxes to the middle class simply because they make up a greater majority of America. Putting more money in the Middle Class will have a greater effect on the economy as it will give a vast majority of people a chance to spend money.
The rich will make out great either way because they are esentially the ones who will continue to get rich when the Middle Class have more money to spend.
Keeping the money at the top and hoping and praying that it will magically flow down from the troths to everyone else is a bit of a "pipe dream".
I think 20% (or whatever number we use) for each level is the same and very fair. In fact, it would be one of the fairest things out there. Think of it this way - the 20% across the board with taxes is much fairer for all then even common consumer goods such as gas or milk or bread, etc. The cost of a gallon of gas for someone who is poor is a much higher percentage of their income than it is for someone who is rich.
Where he's muddying the water is bringing in all this talk about loopholes and essentially saying the rich wouldn't even pay the 20%. If we can have everyone pay the 20% that would work the best, imo.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
That doesn't answer my question - what loopholes do the rich have that the poor do not?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
is that a serious question?
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
I actually prefer the "fair tax" to flat tax. Was just taking the other side of a discussion. Prefer both to what is currently in place and what is planned.
SHOW COUNT: (164) 1990's=3, 2000's=53, 2010/20's=108, US=118, CAN=15, Europe=20 ,New Zealand=4, Australia=5
Mexico=1, Colombia=1
Get rid of the loopholes and then you may be on to something with your 20%.
w/ Tax Umbrellas, Capital Gains, Equity Witholds, ect ect
You're not playing on a level field plain and simple.
That's the opposite point of the one I am trying to make; the point is that a 20% flat tax would NOT be the same. Someone trying to support a family with 10,000 in tax taken from a 50,000 dollar salary is not the same as someone with a 500,000 dollar salary who gives 100,000 to taxes, and is left with 400,000 to support his family. It's unrealistic to treat such a result as 'equitable' when it would only be equitable in the abstraction.
BINGO! give that man a prize.
somehow this simple concept eludes so many. tell me it's not a fuck of a lot easier to raise a family on 400k/yr than on 40k/yr.
people who claim to not see the problem, ARE the problem.
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
I don't believe people should be 'punished' for accumulating wealth. The point of striking out on your own is supposed to be that you can become successful. However, I think it's a little far-fetched to claim that a so-called 'equitable' flat tax is equal for those who are making less. 10,000 dollars for someone who makes 40,000 before taxes could be the dividing line between middle-class and poverty. Someone making 500,000 before taxes who is taxed a larger amount, although it is a far larger amount, is in no such danger. If a tax break is going to be given somewhere (as it has been in the past five Presidential administrations, if not longer), then I want it going to the former.
The Fair Tax is by far the better of the three. It allows for taxes to be collected from everyone who is an active consumers, even visitors from other countries.
In theory, the Fair Tax appeals to me, but isn't there a danger of that leading to decreased consumption?
Also, how would it be administered? Would people be taxed on the basis of their income? On the basis of how much the item costs? How would that aspect of it work?
Possibly, but not necessarily. My state has no income tax, but does have a sales tax. People here still buy cars, big screen TVs, etc...
The real danger is that people will feel themselves being taxed every single day, rather than just on April 15th.
Trying to support a family is a lot different concept than trying to determine a fair tax system.
Why do you even focus on taxes? Heck, it's a lot more difficult to support that family with the income of $50K than it is with $500K even if both sides DON'T PAY ANY TAXES. In other words, taxes aren't the issue, there.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
But that problem has nothing to do with taxes. Not sure why people can't understand this simple concept.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
That's why I support the consumption tax. It's pretty straightforward. You buy, you pay. (I know you claim that the rich would just buy foreign to avoid tax, but I have to think that a sales tax could still be applied for at least most purchases.)
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Of course it has something to do with taxes. You yourself were talking about the hypothetical 20% rate, where 'everyone pays' 20%. You said that was the right approach, that it was equitable when it is not. That's what the focus of this whole discussion was, what tax system or amount would be 'fair'; why would I focus on something else?
In the long run it will not change the volume or definition of their weatlh by bumping their taxes; especially with Obama's plan which in the long run only equates to a few percentage points.
The richest 1% in this country are not exactly going to be headed for the Wealfare Office with Obama's plan.
I just don't see how taxing the middle class and continuing to raise their taxes is going to stimulate the economy.
When you raise taxes on the Middle Class, you're putting a heavy tax burden on the portion of the country where a couple of percentage points DO MATTER.
It just doesn't make sense.
The Middle Class WORKING FAMILIES are the ones struggling most in this economy that's who we need to help.
It's not a handout either as some have stated.
It's more a means of working with the income of the Middle Class America in order to stimulate the economy by affording them the opportunity to get out there and buy.
A boost to the Middle Class historically has helped the market. Again you just need to go back to the Clinton 90's where the Middle Class was given a boost. It sparked the economy and led to new jobs and a growth in the economy and small business thrived.
It's kind of a no-brainer if you really think this thing out.
Wow. People really never cease to amaze me. :(
Well based on the Fair Tax proposal it would be a 26% national sales tax on all new goods. Certain basic essentials, such as milk and bread, would not be taxed or based on your family size and income you would receive a monthly rebate for these things (I prefer that they not tax such basic essentials). The theory of the Fair Tax is that every item already contains an imbedded tax. That is that through each stage, from manufactoring to the time it hits the shelf, the different hands that touch the product are tacking on what ever tax they have to pay for their role in the process to the cost of that item. For example a dairy farmer will charge the wholesaler a price for his product that covers expenses plus any taxes he incurred during the process of making his product. The wholesaler will them sell it to the retailer and in the cost we be the inclusion of any taxes he incurred and so on. The people behind the Fair Tax estimate that this embedded tax can be up 22-24%. So without the overall cost of item will maintain relatively the same with a national sales tax since the different enttities associated with the product will no longer be including the numerious taxes they incur into the price of the item. Used items are not subject to the tax since the Fair tax on that item has already been paid.
As far as decreased consumption I don't see why that would happen. As long as the tax was not too steep and the cost of good and services remained within an acceptable range I would think that consumption would not be affected. Of course the first step, with any tax plan, is to control government spending. At 26% the Fair Tax would be able to fund our government and would not have a negative affect on our economy but with uncontrolled government spending the sales tax can and would be raised.
[size=+2]Is Barack Obama a socialist?[/size]
If he is, then so is John McCain. But the charge is just a racial dog whistle anyway. Can you say "welfare queen"?
By Michael Lind
Nov. 01, 2008 |
John McCain, struggling to catch up with Barack Obama in the last days of the campaign, has finally found a theme for a campaign that until now has lacked one. He is running for the White House to defend capitalism against socialism. Because Barack Obama in an unguarded moment to Joe the Plumber said he wanted to "spread the wealth," McCain and Palin are painting the senator from Illinois as a "redistributionist" or "redistributor" (they can't decide on the appropriate term), a subversive and sinister figure who is peddling "socialism." It's not enough for McCain to run against Obama as though he were George McGovern. McCain is trying to equate Obama with Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas, the socialist candidates for the presidency of yesteryear. Never mind that Jonah Goldberg has spent a couple of years denouncing liberal fascism. Fascists last week, progressives like Obama are now socialists. Which is to say, "commies."
McCain's desperate use of the socialist smear is particularly shameless, given the dubiousness of his own conservative credentials. The left's chant of "McSame" to the contrary, McCain and Rudy Giuliani were the (relative) moderates among the 2008 Republican contenders. Most conservatives in the GOP primaries voted against McCain, who won the nomination only because of the support of moderate Republicans and independents and the mutual annihilation of the real conservatives -- Romney, the business right's candidate, and Huckabee, the religious right's candidate. The radical right can be counted on to know its own. On March 12, 2007, the Club for Growth wrote of McCain, "his overall record is tainted by a naked antipathy towards the free market and individual freedom." Like George Herbert Walker Bush in 1988 and 1992, McCain, the rich and establishmentarian son and grandson of admirals, has had to overcome the suspicion of the Republican base. This dynamic explains the decisions of his campaign, from his choice of right-wing heroine Sarah Palin as his running mate to his charges that Obama is a socialist and redistributionist.
In a country in which substantial numbers believe that space aliens crashed at Roswell, it would be foolish for Obama supporters to let the socialist charge go unanswered. Fortunately, conservative and libertarian heroes like Friedrich von Hayek, Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan and John McCain himself can be called by the Obama team as witnesses for the defense.
McCain and Palin claim that Obama's proposed healthcare system is socialist. It is nothing of the sort. It is a variant of the employer-friendly, insurance-friendly "play-or-pay" scheme discussed in the 1990s. Employers will be given the choice of providing tax-favored health insurance to their employees or being taxed to support a public insurance system. Over time the latter might expand, but for the foreseeable future our dysfunctional private insurance system will survive.
But what if Obama had proposed a single-payer system of "socialized medicine" instead? The bible of free-market libertarians is Friedrich von Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" (1946), which, like the other Bible, few acolytes appear to have read. In his masterpiece, von Hayek attacked central planning, but made it clear that his arguments did not apply to government-run healthcare systems like that of postwar Britain.
Another champion of healthcare socialism was the late Milton Friedman, the Nobel Prize-winning libertarian economist who popularized free-market fundamentalism in tracts like "Free to Choose." While he favored individual health savings accounts for minor expenses, Friedman proposed that major costs be paid for by mandatory catastrophic healthcare coverage run by the federal government. Ronald Reagan -- yet another socialist like Obama, it appears -- liked this redistributionist idea so much he proposed its enactment.
Milton Friedman's socialism did not end with healthcare. McCain and Palin claim that Obama is a socialist because he supports various refundable tax credits for the poor. A refundable tax credit is a government payment to those who make too little to pay income taxes, in the amount of the credit they could have claimed against their income taxes if they were more affluent. In the 1970s, Friedman pushed the granddaddy of all refundable tax credits, the Negative Income Tax, which would have replaced most in-kind welfare benefits with checks to the poor. Friedman's Negative Income Tax was proposed by that well-known leftist radical Richard Nixon.
The negative income tax went nowhere, but another refundable tax credit became the favorite tool of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush in combating poverty -- the earned income tax credit (EITC), which is paid to workers with low wages. Conservative Republicans favor the EITC because it is a subsidy to sleazy low-wage employers. They also believe it averts political pressure for a decent, which is to say much higher, minimum wage. In other words, the EITC so beloved by Reagan and Bush is not only socialism but also corporate welfare.
Obama favors more progressive income and capital gains taxation. In spreading this kind of socialism and redistributionism, he was until recently allied with his fellow member of the U.S. Senate, John Sidney McCain of Arizona. McCain was one of only two Republicans to vote against Bush's 2001 tax cuts and one of only three to vote against his 2003 tax cuts. McCain, sounding suspiciously Bolshevik, explained why: "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the more fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief." What a commie.
Finally, Obama has been attacked by the right for proposing to lift the cap on how much income is subject to the Social Security payroll tax. On July 23, 2005, John McCain, asked by Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" whether he could accept lifting the cap on payroll taxation, replied, "As part of a compromise I could ..."
Without exception, all of the policies supported by Obama belong to broad categories of public policies that have been supported, in one form or another, by conservative-libertarian thinkers like Friedman and von Hayek and conservative politicians like Reagan, George W. Bush and McCain himself. The differences between them and Obama are differences of degree, not of kind.
But while this is true it may not matter, if McCain's last-minute clarion call is really a racial "dog whistle." The McCain campaign may appear to be debating public philosophy, when in fact it is making a disguised appeal to white racism. If that is the case, then "redistributionist" and "socialist" may be intended to be understood by white swing voters as code words that function the way that "welfare queen" did for the Reagan campaign. A "socialist" or "redistributionist" is a politician who taxes white people like Joe the Plumber and gives money to ... you know who.
If this is the tactic, then it might be working. The polls are tightening in the final days of the campaign. Should McCain surprise the pundits and pull off a victory, historians may judge that it was because of his desperate insinuation that white people would be taxed to pay for welfare for Latinos and blacks. And if he should lose, conservative operatives planning for the next cycle may decide that this was the right tactic, pursued too late. Whether he wins or loses, by using "socialist" and "redistributionist" in an environment in which they were likely to be interpreted as racially charged smears, John McCain may have damaged not only his reputation but our society.
-- By Michael Lind
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7