H2O MAN
 
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2008 06:27 am


2001 Obama Redistribution of Wealth Audio
 
Woiyo9
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2008 07:01 am
Excessive taxation is a barrier to success.

Excessive taxation will limit job growth.

Obama, in conjunction with Bella Pelosi and Hairy Reed, will more than likely reduce the benchmark in Obama's plan to encompass the middle class.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2008 07:04 am
@Woiyo9,
Define excessive.

GDP has grown well with 22% of GDP taxation. The present tax rate is about 18% of GDP. There is plenty of room to raise taxes without it being "excessive."
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2008 07:07 am
@Woiyo9,
Yea, and excessive tax cuts have been so helpful to job growth and the economy. Rolling Eyes
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2008 07:45 am
@H2O MAN,
Differentially targetting the wealthy for much higher taxes is a typical indication of what freedom, fairness, and the American way of life mean to liberals.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2008 07:53 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
Differentially targetting the wealthy for much higher taxes is a typical indication of what freedom, fairness, and the American way of life mean to liberals.

I prefer a flat-tax which takes the same percentage from everyone, unfortunately that's not on the table.

In the mean time, we have a tax code which is riddled with loopholes which allow the wealthy (dis-proportionally) to pay less than their fair share. The existing tax code is already inequitable, so I see nothing wrong with trying to readjust it to bring it back as close to "flat" as possible.
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2008 08:02 am
@Brandon9000,
And you forgot to mention the critically important bit about, over the period of time that New Deal legislation was in place, how the US devolved from a status of broad citizen wealth and world economic dominance it enjoyed (back in the glorious thirties) to third world poverty (in the terrible seventies).
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2008 08:07 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

And you forgot to mention the critically important bit about, over the period of time that New Deal legislation was in place, how the US devolved from a status of broad citizen wealth and world economic dominance it enjoyed (back in the glorious thirties) to third world poverty (in the terrible seventies).

Granting that, for the sake of argument, what does it have to do with my comment?
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2008 08:09 am
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:

Quote:
Differentially targetting the wealthy for much higher taxes is a typical indication of what freedom, fairness, and the American way of life mean to liberals.

I prefer a flat-tax which takes the same percentage from everyone, unfortunately that's not on the table.

In the mean time, we have a tax code which is riddled with loopholes which allow the wealthy (dis-proportionally) to pay less than their fair share. The existing tax code is already inequitable, so I see nothing wrong with trying to readjust it to bring it back as close to "flat" as possible.


Neither do I, and I'm all for closing most loopholes, as you say. What I object to is the word I hear from Obama and the liberals about cutting taxes on the middle class and raising them on the rich, as though success deserved to be met with confiscation of profits for re-distribution to the rest of us.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2008 08:14 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
Neither do I, and I'm all for closing most loopholes, as you say. What I object to is the word I hear from Obama and the liberals about cutting taxes on the middle class and raising them on the rich, as though success deserved to be met with confiscation of profits for re-distribution to the rest of us.

I object to that basic philosophy as well. But the reality of the situation is that we are currently saddled with an inequitable tax code which redistributes wealth upward. We can either elect someone who wants to continue the current policy, or someone who doesn't.
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2008 08:20 am
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:

Quote:
Neither do I, and I'm all for closing most loopholes, as you say. What I object to is the word I hear from Obama and the liberals about cutting taxes on the middle class and raising them on the rich, as though success deserved to be met with confiscation of profits for re-distribution to the rest of us.

I object to that basic philosophy as well. But the reality of the situation is that we are currently saddled with an inequitable tax code which redistributes wealth upward. We can either elect someone who wants to continue the current policy, or someone who doesn't.

Agreed again, but the person we elect should want to fix what's wrong, e.g. the loopholes, rather than having a basic philosophy of making the successful pay for everything society needs. He shouldn't advocate putting the wealthy in a much higher bracket. He should advocate making them pay taxes according to the bracket that they are in. Advocating dragging the wealthy down to the level of the rest of us is very disturbing because it suggests a very unfair attitude.
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2008 08:23 am
@Brandon9000,
Re: blatham (Post 3452018)
Quote:
blatham wrote:

And you forgot to mention the critically important bit about, over the period of time that New Deal legislation was in place, how the US devolved from a status of broad citizen wealth and world economic dominance it enjoyed (back in the glorious thirties) to third world poverty (in the terrible seventies).


Quote:
Granting that, for the sake of argument, what does it have to do with my comment?


Here's what you wrote:
Quote:
Differentially targetting the wealthy for much higher taxes is a typical indication of what freedom, fairness, and the American way of life mean to liberals.


Was that period of time (with a progressive tax structure) unfree? Were the forties, fifties and sixties an un-american period?

You could argue that progressive taxation is 'unfair' (though there are counter arguments easily as coherent and compelling) but what is the rest of that stuff above doing in your claim?
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2008 11:23 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Re: blatham (Post 3452018)
Quote:
blatham wrote:

And you forgot to mention the critically important bit about, over the period of time that New Deal legislation was in place, how the US devolved from a status of broad citizen wealth and world economic dominance it enjoyed (back in the glorious thirties) to third world poverty (in the terrible seventies).


Quote:
Granting that, for the sake of argument, what does it have to do with my comment?


Here's what you wrote:
Quote:
Differentially targetting the wealthy for much higher taxes is a typical indication of what freedom, fairness, and the American way of life mean to liberals.


Was that period of time (with a progressive tax structure) unfree? Were the forties, fifties and sixties an un-american period?

You could argue that progressive taxation is 'unfair' (though there are counter arguments easily as coherent and compelling) but what is the rest of that stuff above doing in your claim?

I would prefer a flat tax, but, at the very least, I don't want it to be steeply graduated. I've seen Obama talk about tax cuts for the middle and tax increases for the rich. What am I to conclude? I've had discussions here recently with board liberals who advocate, in no uncertain terms, putting most of the burden for fixing the country on the rich financially. Making the rich pay a much bigger share of their income in terms of percent, is unfair and contrary to the American Dream, which consists basically of the idea that if you work hard and are clever, you can make a lot of money.
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2008 11:31 am
@Brandon9000,
What you consider as the defining characteristic(s) of 'the American dream' or what you consider as 'fair' may not be subject to negotiation with other Americans' ideas about these two things. I don't know. But no one else needs to accept your notions about them.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2008 11:33 am
@Brandon9000,

Quote:

I would prefer a flat tax, but, at the very least, I don't want it to be steeply graduated. I've seen Obama talk about tax cuts for the middle and tax increases for the rich. What am I to conclude? I've had discussions here recently with board liberals who advocate, in no uncertain terms, putting most of the burden for fixing the country on the rich financially. Making the rich pay a much bigger share of their income in terms of percent, is unfair and contrary to the American Dream, which consists basically of the idea that if you work hard and are clever, you can make a lot of money.


It is not inconsistent; b/c, after taxation, you realize that the those who work hard, are clever, and make it in America, still have made a lot of money.

The idea that anyone is being taxed into the poorhouse is a joke.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2008 11:33 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

What you consider as the defining characteristic(s) of 'the American dream' or what you consider as 'fair' may not be subject to negotiation with other Americans' ideas about these two things. I don't know. But no one else needs to accept your notions about them.

I thought the idea of the board was that we compared our ideas, gave arguments about which ideas were best, etc. Don't you guys have any capacity at all to actually argue your positions? Is "I don't have to accept what you say" the best you can do?
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2008 11:41 am
@Brandon9000,
The point is that "the american dream" has no objective reality. Nor does such a concept as "fairness". Like any such concepts, they are evolving and variable notions. Feel free to forward your own personal feelings about these things but preface them with, "to my mind" or some such.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2008 11:57 am
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:

Quote:
Differentially targetting the wealthy for much higher taxes is a typical indication of what freedom, fairness, and the American way of life mean to liberals.

I prefer a flat-tax which takes the same percentage from everyone, unfortunately that's not on the table.

In the mean time, we have a tax code which is riddled with loopholes which allow the wealthy (dis-proportionally) to pay less than their fair share. The existing tax code is already inequitable, so I see nothing wrong with trying to readjust it to bring it back as close to "flat" as possible.


I'm with you on the flat tax--I think everybody from the poorest to the richest should pay the exact same percentage after a reasonable standard exemption and perhaps some socially responsible deductions applied equally to everybody. That way nobody is unduly burdened who earns little and nobody is punished or penalized for achieving success.

The more people we can encourage to become financially successful, the more jobs there will be for poorer people, the more money will be invested to help everybody's 401ks grow, the more money will be in banks for people to borrow as needed, the more grants and contributions will be available for new library and hospital wings, etc. Confiscate more and more wealth from the rich folks though and the less of everything there will be for the poor folks.

If we've learned anything yet, we should have learned that you cannot enrich poor people by making rich people poorer. Any attempt to penalize the rich for their success will invariably hurt the poor.

When you talk about loopholes, are these really unfair if everybody has the right to qualify for them? Is it unfair to give a tax deduction for home mortgage insurance and not to renters who can't afford to buy a house yet? Or is it a good thing to encourage home ownership that, when responsibly done, also helps people become more prosperous and also supports the schools and other things that property owners support?

McCain likes the progressive tax code as it currently exists and says he won't mess with that. Obama wants to significantly raise the upper end.

I personally think they're both wrong.
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2008 12:26 pm
@revel,
revel wrote:

Yea, and excessive tax cuts have been so helpful to job growth and the economy. Rolling Eyes


They would have helped if it were not for uncontrolled spending and growth of the government.

McCain's plan to freeze all non-essential spending and eliminating pork is a good start to getting our economy back on track.


Obama's plan to spend more $$ and expand government is nothing more than en extension of Bush's economic reality.
Factor in Obama's plan to raise taxes and you have the formula to destroy our economy rather quickly.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  3  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2008 12:54 pm
@Woiyo9,
woiyo wrote:
Excessive taxation is a barrier to success.

Excessive taxation will limit job growth.

By that definition, letting the Bush tax cuts expire is not excessive taxation -- as shown by job growth during the Clinton administration.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama "spread the wealth"
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 10/03/2024 at 11:24:02