For all of you thinking of voting for Obama:
Redistribution of wealth is just a fancy way of saying "tax the ones that work and give it to the ones that don't"
Take money from the middle class and give it to the entitlement crowd. Tax and spend, just what the democrats do best.
Excuse me if I don't participate.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
I don't consider myself an expert on politics, but from what I understand, nobody who makes under 250k/year will see any additional taxes. The entire point is about helping the middle class, not taking money away from them.
I'm less clear on this next part, but there was a figure that of all the people that will be helped by taxed breaks, 98% are working families while the other 2% would be those entitlement crowds you're mentioning. But I think once that came out and got public attention, they added a "working" requirement to knock out that 2%.
I fail to see how increasing taxes (by 3%, mind you) on those who make over 250K can be construed as "taking money from the middle class."
And, sure, the middle class has done wonderfully under the past 8 years of Republican leadership.
As far as "what the Democrats do best", please remember that GWB took over the presidency with a budget surplus . . . and squandered it. Talk about superlatives!
Ok lets get this straight...Nobody that you would consider as middle class "makes" $250,000 a year. What urkal er obama was talking about was NOT taxing people that make $250,000 per year but taxing ANYTHING that makes $250,000 per year.
He is using that number to make it seem like "yeah, some dood is makin sssoooo much money, he deserves to be taxed."
When in actuality urkal er obama is proposing to over tax ANY ENTITY that makes $250,000 or more per year.
So Joe the Furniture store man makes $2,000,000 per year...oh my gawd isn't he being greedy...lets tax that selfish person!!!
What urkal er obama doesn't tell you is Joe the Furniture store man has to pay his store rent, the electricity, his property taxes, HIS EMPLOYEES, etc out of that $2,000,000. AND THEN HE PAYS HIMSELF!!!!
So all you socialist out there...how much should Joe the Furniture store owner pay himself? Do you think, for all of the problems that he as a business owner has, he is entitled to maybe 10% of the GROSS amount that the store makes? So that would be $200,000. Or how about 5% of the gross=$100,000. And with that %5 payback the owner now has to pay for his house mortgage, lights at home, insurance etc. And remember...this person runs a business that EMPLOYS 6-7 people..that are making a good wage for their work. What if urkal er obama decides that the store owner is selfish and needs to disperse some of that cash. And taxes his ass about 50%?
Do you think Joe the Furniture store owner is going to keep his store open, employ 6-7 people AND pay property taxes for a long time...or do you think he is going to say screw this....where do I sign up for all those freebies the lunatic left wants to shower on the masses?
I work with a nurse whose husband said, screw it and closed up his furniture store...thereby putting 6-7 people out of work, boarding up a business and eliminating cash flow to the city for property taxes. This fellow is the typical business owner. Not the giant corps that urkal er obama would have you think he is going to tax.
So all you folks that want to get something for nothing.....remember this....small businesses CREATE wealth in a community. They don't rip it off the backs of the poor downtrodden.
Oh...and tell me this if the democrat party is the party of the poor and downtrodden....how do you think they continue to keep their base of power IF THEY DIDN'T KEEP YOU POOR AND DOWNTRODDEN!!??!?!
Steve
ERNursey and Steve, you are right on, of course. However, those who want something for nothing (even if they deny this) will not see your excellent points.
I am an ER Nurse and nursing instructor; my husband has a small business, smaller than the one you describe Steve. bho will destroy our business...oh well, we only have one part-time and one other full-time employee...they can do something else when we have to lay them off, right?
When I was young, Democrats wanted to increase the deficit and Republicans wanted to increase taxes because "the country can't spend money it doesn't have."
Now I'm an adult and somehow the idea of making the money first, then spending it is called Marxism. Marx is rolling over in his grave.
Destroying the economy to pay for a war half way around the world is OK. Telling people that they need to actually spend money on their own community is considered Anti-American.
When did this country become a vassal state of Gengis Khan?
(this is the first anonymous poster)
Steve, why are you throwing out that made-up figure of a 50% tax hike when it's really 3%? And acting like 100k/year isn't enough to live on when most of the middle class makes only half that?
Also, "Joe the Furniture Maker" is going to have far fewer customers as more and more of the middle class are already losing their jobs and getting thrown out into the street. It's already happening, tons of companies are having to drop their employees or slash their prices because people just aren't buying anything. Appliances, cars, electronics, everything's going to start going down the tube unless something gets done.
McCain giving COMPANIES tax breaks isn't going to change the fact that consumers just don't have the money to spend.
I think it's a little unfair to refer to the Democrats as "Tax and Spend" when the Bush administration simply spent, leaving us with a huge bill from the war and deficit budget spending. We had to borrow money from China to fund the budget under Bush.
Now, if the Democrats do have to raise taxes at some point, or are unable to grant the size tax cuts proposed, it will be to clean up the mess left by the Republicans.
BTW, On the financial bailout of banks? At least three banks have set aside between 6-7 billion tax dollars each to pay bonuses to their employees this year. The average check will be somewhere between $110,000 and $220,000, depending on the bank.
IOW the banks are taking the tax payers' hard-earned money and redistributing it to wealthy individuals. Explain how that's not an example of socialism, per the Republican party.
Also, the banks that are being bailed out are currently hoarding money, not making it available to small businesses and individuals for loans, as was intended. This is causing small businesses, which rely on short-term loans for operating capital, to lay off people in order to keep their doors open. My husband's company laid off half its workforce for this reason.
You are just repeating the party line without bothering to check facts. Take a look at (nonpartisan) Factcheck.org to see what's really happening.
This is from the anon who wrote the most recent previous post:
"McCain giving COMPANIES tax breaks isn't going to change the fact that consumers just don't have the money to spend."
Especially when McCain wants to give most of the tax cuts to large companies that have already outsourced their jobs overseas. How can anyone justify that as fair?
I honestly don't think Obama will advocate raising taxes for the middle class (ie up to about 100K) - in fact, many in this range will have their taxes cut. Also, your assumption that most people who are poor are that way because they "don't work" is just plain wrong - and the stats show that. Of course there are lazy people that game the system and there always will be but they are simply not the majority of poor people. Appealing to middle class voter's fears for tax increases is all that McCain can do at this point to get voters to his side. My two cents.
There came a time in my life when I realized that the presidency is larger than one man and the problems are larger than one man can change. Any man who claims that he is the answer to the problems is either lying or naive, but either way, it will not happen.
Throwing money willy nilly at any problem is not the answer, it is going to require some true change on the part of the people and the American people are not ready to make those changes. They may say they are, just like Obama says he is ready, but when push comes to shove, we wait to see others change before we are willing to step out on that limb alone.
Lemmings. We have become a country of lemmings, and sooner or later, we will go off that cliff together.
To some extent I agree, people need to change and live inside their means, stop ramping up their credit card debt, etc. For some people, it's their own darn fault that they're in the mess they're in.
But on the other side of things, the government wanted to make sure more people had homes and encouraged the banks to give out more "subprime" loans. Not a bad idea in theory, but in execution, since the government promised banks some level of protection of mortgages defaulted, the banks really lowered their standards and gave loans to people who couldn't afford it. Or at least, they could afford their adjustable rate mortgage until the economy went bust and their payment amount tripled.
You could blame that on any party or politician that you want to, but really, banks were just going for their profits.
It doesn't really matter whether we're ready to change or not. Circumstances, like the bad economy, lack of jobs, healthcare crisis, budgetary deficit and national debt, cost of goods and oil (assuming it goes back up once the world economies start improving), depressed GDP, wars and so on are going to force change on us. I'm afraid this isn't a case where we get to pick and choose.
The disingenuous piece to this is: A small, sole proprieter company that employs two other workers will probably easily "make" $250K in a year. DO NOT confuse that with the actual net profit for the company owner...it's nowhere near that $250K mark. Now, if Obama wants to tax someone making a NET profit of $250K a year (after taxes, payroll, etc., etc.) that's one thing. But if he's predicating his tax on a gross income of $250K, it will absolutely screw the small business owner. Mike in NY
The investment class (those who will see the higher tax rates) are losing assloads of money in the stock market right now along with everyone else.
This alone kills economic growth...add on less money to put back into investments and you have a worse situation for the entire NATION. It's not about what is best for the middle class, it's about what is best for everyone. If you allow the rich to keep what they've fairly earned, they invest in business through stocks/mutual funds which gives jobs to shmucks like us. Keep taking for those who have the most ability to grow the economy and you will fuck over the middle class eventually.
The inherent fairness of taxing a group who will always be in the minority (the upper class) is questionable as well.
Tax rates going up is not the same as a policeman taking money out of your wallet and giving to a crack addict with chest pain in the ER.
We already treat people for free; treat first, find the money later.
We already give benefits like food stamps to people we define as poor.
That won't change no matter who is elected.
What else we do with our money might. Do we want to invest in America, building boring things like facories, bridges, hospitals and schools or would we prefer to keep borrowing money from other countries like China to boost their economy instead?
The sad fact of this entire discussion is that NOONE seems to question the morality of "taking from Peter to pay Paul".
NEITHER party wants to cut SPENDING.
Nobody wants to encourage SAVINGS - Come on people!! Where the hell do you think "capital" in "Capitalism" comes from? From debt?!!
If you ran your household the way government managed it's finances, you'd be in the poorhouse long before you finished reading this sentence!
McCain promises deficits.
Obama promises higher taxes.
Excuse me while I go puke...
I won't be voting this election. "Choosing the lesser of two evils is STILL evil".
Turd sandwich or Douche bag?
How about neither?
Actually, both candidates have promised to cut spending. Obama said he was going to go through every program line by line and cut the unnecessary ones, and McCain talked a lot about getting rid of earmarks.
As for the morality of taking money from person A and giving it to person B...well, there's really no way to put a good spin on it, person A is human and is going to be pissed no matter what. I know I would be, if I was person A. But what's going to happen to person B if he doesn't get help? What if he loses his house and can't help drive the economy that fills person A's salary?
It's not like they're trying to penalize the rich for being rich. Upper, middle, and lower classes all have to survive if the economy is going to get back on track. If you have someone in an administration role who sees some people with tons of money and others who can no longer handle the increasing prices of gas/food/insurance, what do you think is the right thing to do?
The top income tax rate is historically quite low. And yet, we are sinking into a world recession brought on by an ever increasing amount of consumer debt.
Demand is driven by consumers. The best consumers are the middle class. The only way this country gets back on track is if the middle-class can see some relief.
That means that Haliburton, Exxon and the people making more than a quarter of a million dollars a year are going to have to step up to the plate and give more in taxes.
They benefit the most from this country, they should have to pick up some more of the tab.
Hmm, as one of the upper class, making about 400k a year, I must object to this whole line of thought. I will be hit hard by even a 3pct increase in taxes, which are high enough as it is. to give you an idea, on a gross income of 400k, i gave 120k to fed taxes last year, and another 30 to state and local. so that leaves 250k. sounds like a lot, right? deduct 14k+ that healthcare costs, another 40k for retirement savings (no 401k if you are self employed), another 40k for student loan repayments and you are at 156k. out of this comes business operating costs, CME (required by the govt to practice) and you are left with something around 100k, but then factor in the 240 hours a month I work for this, with no paid vacation and it hardly becomes worth the 12 plus years of school it took to get to this point. oh, and btw, under obama I will be taking a pay cut as a health care worker.
I will leave the field and go back to school to become someone who does not work, gets paid a lot, and contributes little. what are the admission req's for law school thsse days anyway? I know that a lot of my colleges are in the same place I am.
We dont overspend, and lead relatively modest lives, but work hard for what we have, and the thought that obama is going to make it harder for us to do what we do, and make sure we get paid less and taxed more is just obscene.
Pffft. Last anonymous, I guess your entitled ass is too young to remember that in the early 1960s, the tax rate for the wealth was around 91%, then it dropped to 70%, and was finally reduced to a fair rate under Reagan.
All the Dems want to do is roll the tax rate back ONE administration to the Clinton days. You will still have plenty of money. Consider that you got an undeserved gift under Bush, and now the party's over.
Even classical capitalist economists, such as Adam Smith, expected the wealthy to pay a higher tax rate than those with less income.
entitled, f==k you. I work very hard, and dont feel entitled to anything. you go to school for 12 years after high school, study and work weekends, then finnaly get out at 31, and start a career. Workig lmost 2x the weekly average plus call, making hard decisions, lefe and death all dy long. then have to worry about some lawyer comng after you.
Question. Are you at risk of losing your home or is your budget crippled by higher gas and food prices?
(different anonymous here)
"Unearned gift?" It's their own money they're being allowed to keep. You must be thinking of the money that government spends on people who don't pay so much in taxes.
"Question. Are you at risk of losing your home or is your budget crippled by higher gas and food prices?" So you only deserve to keep your own money if you haven't managed to provide well for yourself?
And yes, stealing money from some people to give it to others is completely unethical.
As for Adam Smith, he only favored it because he thought it would go towards common goods that everyone, including the rich, used. Welfare checks would not fall into that category.
I'm not sure what to think of all this stuff. I have a 32 year old son who now lives with me due to losing his legs in Iraq. He collects SSDI and tax-free Veteran Disability Compensation. So he's what a lot of you would call a welfare case. I get it that it's unfair to take money from the producers and give it to the "leeches," but my son would probably be in a shelter or a group home without those benefits. It's not a lot of money...not enough to pay for the care that he needs, so he lives with me. I just don't know what to think!
Post a Comment