Obama's Agenda (political, of course)

[xssve]

Every time I see the highly manipulative and perjorative terms "progressive" income tax and "unearned" income my blood boils. Steve Forbes never stood a chance in hell of being elected but think how much easier life would be for virtually everybody if all income was taxed at 20%. No deductions. No earned income credits. No distinctions. No alternative minimum tax. No Form 1116. No Schedule D. No Schedules A & B. No tax avoidance shifting of income between ordinary income and capital gains.

It is, of course, completely inaccurate to assert that the U.S. has "always had a 'progressive' income tax regime." For that matter, the U.S. didn't have any income tax at all for a very substantial portion of its history.

Somebody has obviously been very successful at framing the terms of so-called debate on this issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_(U.S.)

Yes, they're called "economists".

You might want to investigate the benefits principle for example.

 

[Katyusha]

True, a lot of their income goes to investments and the like, but I have to say that a great deal of it is freely spent. I live in what has been declared the most affluent area in the country (still not sure why!). The wealthy buy expensive clothing, accessories, cars, etc. Most of the rest of us buy moderately priced items that serve the same purpose. I'm definitely not an expert on any of this, but I know that, as someone who earns on the lower end of the spectrum, it would be nice to have that money up front. I then get to decide if something is a necessary purchase or not. I don't know how most states are, but in Texas, grocery items and some other "necessities" are non-taxable.

I was not comparing the national sales tax to what we have now, but a flat income tax. I still think, when compared to a flat income tax, a national sales tax is far more equitable.

LOL, I still don't know if either will happen in my lifetime.

You might want to read about the The Fair Tax Act and the people that are trying to get Congress to pass it.

It's a regressive consumption tax that amounts to $.30 on every dollar you spend, even though they say it's a 23% consumption tax. $.30 is 23% of $1.30...but if $.30 is getting added onto every dollar you spend then it amounts to more like 30%.

They want to do monthly rebates that would help to offset that cost, and if I recall correctly those rebates would be based on income. There are an awful lot of problems with a national consumption tax though, namely the up-front cost of necessities rising sharply because of it; even with income and payroll taxes abolished this kind of tax would hurt the poor.

 

[xssve]

The concept of progressive taxation and the benefits principle have been around as long as capitalism itself, they're not some commie plot - flat tax schemes invariably end up regressive on the other hand, which Smith himself associates with impending economic collapse, and which are always being pushed by republicans on the economically unsophisticated, which ought to tell you everything you need to know about that.

Consumption taxes are particularly egregious, and in fact, many states have done away with even sales taxes on food commodities.

 

[midwestyankee]

True, a lot of their income goes to investments and the like, but I have to say that a great deal of it is freely spent. I live in what has been declared the most affluent area in the country (still not sure why!). The wealthy buy expensive clothing, accessories, cars, etc. Most of the rest of us buy moderately priced items that serve the same purpose. I'm definitely not an expert on any of this, but I know that, as someone who earns on the lower end of the spectrum, it would be nice to have that money up front. I then get to decide if something is a necessary purchase or not. I don't know how most states are, but in Texas, grocery items and some other "necessities" are non-taxable.

I was not comparing the national sales tax to what we have now, but a flat income tax. I still think, when compared to a flat income tax, a national sales tax is far more equitable.

LOL, I still don't know if either will happen in my lifetime.

I realize that your original contrast was against a proposed flat tax. But do the math with me here. How much, on a percentage basis, do you think a family of four making 22,000 per year would spend of that income on consumable items that would be hit by a sales tax? My guess is that they'd spend about 25% on rent and virtually all of the rest on consumables. So they'd be taxed on 75% of their income.

Then consider the typical wealthy family that earns a simple $1,000,000 per year. Do you honestly think that they spend as much as $750,000 per year on consumable items like food, clothing, cars etc.? I really doubt it.

 

[rgraham666]

Another problem with a sales tax is that, as was pointed out, a great deal of economic activity does not go through consumption patterns. So a sales tax will fall on those who spend most on consumption, the middle class and lower.

Sales taxes are also inflationary. They have to be calculated by the seller and then remitted to the government. It turns every seller into a tax auditor. Every minute they spend on taxes is a minute not spent on something useful.

And sales taxes are extremely inefficient. To paraphrase my favorite writer, "Financing trillion and billion dollar projects by gathering a few cents on every sale is rather silly."

 

[neonlyte]

Sales Tax or Value Added Tax is a feature of all European economies. It is applied to every transaction, i.e. when a manufacturer buy raw materials, when they sells to a wholesaler, when the wholesaler sells to a distributor and finally, when the end purchaser buys the item.

As a person in the supply chain, you deduct what you pay in VAT from what you receive in VAT and remit the balance to the government, monthly, quarterly or annually depending upon the level of your turnover. In UK it is 17.5%, in Portugal 20%. Reduced rates apply to some services, like energy (5% in UK) and a 0% rate exists for certain exempt transactions. In the UK we do NOT pay VAT on food or rent, in Portugal, food is taxed at 5%.

One way of looking at it is as a tax on a significant proportion of GDP, which in the UK is eqivalent to generating approx £150bn per annum. It does not, therefore, substitute general taxation, and VAT would need to double to 35% to offset personal tax receipts.

A 35% tax on consumer expenditure is an unrealistic proposition that would induce black market trading in certain goods and services.

 

[john-the-author]

True, a lot of their income goes to investments and the like, but I have to say that a great deal of it is freely spent. I live in what has been declared the most affluent area in the country (still not sure why!). The wealthy buy expensive clothing, accessories, cars, etc. Most of the rest of us buy moderately priced items that serve the same purpose. I'm definitely not an expert on any of this, but I know that, as someone who earns on the lower end of the spectrum, it would be nice to have that money up front. I then get to decide if something is a necessary purchase or not. I don't know how most states are, but in Texas, grocery items and some other "necessities" are non-taxable.

I was not comparing the national sales tax to what we have now, but a flat income tax. I still think, when compared to a flat income tax, a national sales tax is far more equitable.

LOL, I still don't know if either will happen in my lifetime.

I'm keen on a flat income tax. The amount of money we save just from processing returns will be truly enormous. The most onerous version I've seen is, I think, 17%, but even at, oh, 20%, 22%, it's still not bad. I think we'd pay roughly the same ($40K, give or take--last year, I think it was $46K, actually), and it'd lessen the impact on people who're making a lot closer to the norm. And think of how much easier this'd be.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
Can you tell me when I have ever quoted somebody out of context or misquoted them as badly as that clip does?

At the beginning of this thread. You quoted a very badly, taken completely out of context misquote.

In the first post, I included a link to a videotape that showed Barack Obama calling for redistibution of wealth, and decrying the fact that the SCOTUS didn't vastly exceed their authority by doing so forty years ago. I don't know if the whole tape was available, but there was enough to tell what Obama's agenda was.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
Can you tell me when I have ever quoted somebody out of context or misquoted them as badly as that clip does?




In the first post, I included a link to a videotape that showed Barack Obama calling for redistibution of wealth, and decrying the fact that the SCOTUS didn't vastly exceed their authority by doing so forty years ago. I don't know if the whole tape was available, but there was enough to tell what Obama's agenda was.

You can't tell if you have the whole tape available, it is out of context. That means, yanno, that the context is missing.

 

[rgraham666]

The context is that Obama is a socialist. What more needs to be said?

 

[Belegon]

The context is that Obama is a socialist. What more needs to be said?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMfeypnAz6k

"Now, because he knows that his economic theories don't work, he's been spending these last few days calling me every name in the book. Lately he's called me a socialist for wanting to roll-back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can finally give tax relief to the middle class. I don't know what's next. By the end of the week he'll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten. I shared my peanut butter and jelly sandwich."

 

[hamiJJ]

hmmm

hmmmm

A question does anyone really vote people in due to supposed policy.

And if they do, what was the policy that had the largest impact for the last few presidents greater then non policy decesions like the War in Iraq or the Gulf War.

These acts were not election polices but have had a larger impact on your lives then any other policy put together.

Its the man or women you vote for, policies are just window shopping, when needed the person u choose needs to lead form the heart.

 

[Belegon]

From Politifact, a fact-checking site run by the St. Petersburg Times.

Invoking the red menace

By Alexander Lane
Published on Monday, October 27th, 2008 at 07:13 p.m.

SUMMARY: The McCain campaign went from tiptoeing around allegations that Obama is a socialist, to outright calling him one.

Sen. John McCain's campaign has seized on Sen. Barack Obama's offhand remark that he wants to "spread the wealth around" to allege Obama is a socialist.

Even in the context of a heated presidential campaign, that's a remarkably incendiary accusation. It's become a standard part of the McCain campaign rhetoric, uttered by surrogates and candidates alike.

Gov. Sarah Palin's remarks in Springfield, Mo., are a good example: "Senator Obama says that he wants to spread the wealth, which means — you know what that means," she said at a rally on Oct. 24, 2008. "It means that government takes your money, (handed) out however a politician sees fit. Barack Obama calls it spreading the wealth, and Joe Biden calls higher taxes patriotic. And yet to Joe the Plumber, he said it sounded like socialism. And now is not the time to experiment with socialism."

She has repeated the line in Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado and most recently in Leesburg, Va., on Oct. 27, 2008. It consistently evokes boos and jeers from a crowd protective of the American system of government.

But is Palin stoking their anger honestly?

Socialism refers most commonly to a system in which the government owns the means of production and distribution of goods. That is, the state truly is responsible for creating and spreading the wealth. Let's look at the root of Palin's claim — Obama's Oct. 12, 2008, exchange with plumber Samuel J. Wurzelbacher, who has come to be known simply as Joe the Plumber — and see if that's what Obama was suggesting.

Wurzelbacher approached Obama on the street in his Holland, Ohio, neighborhood, and said he was close to buying a plumbing company that makes $250,000 to $280,000 a year. He complained that Obama would tax him more, punishing his success.

Obama responded that he was raising the top tax rate so he could decrease taxes for those who make less than $250,000.

"It's not that I want to punish your success," Obama said. "I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success too."

"Seems like you would be welcome to a flat tax then," Wurzelbacher said.

"You know, I would be open to it except for here's the problem with a flat tax," Obama countered. "You'd have to slap on a whole bunch of sales taxes on it. And I do believe that for folks like me who have worked hard but, frankly, also been lucky, I don't mind paying just a little bit more than the waitress who I just met over there who — things are slow, and she can barely make the rent. Because my attitude is if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's going to be good for everybody. If you've got a plumbing business, you're going to be better off if you've got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you. And right now, everybody's so pinched that business is bad for everybody. And I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

So when Wurzelbacher brought up a flat tax, Obama responded by endorsing progressive taxation – the principle of taxing those with higher incomes at a higher percentage than those with lower incomes. And it is in that context that Obama said he wanted to "spread the wealth."

Progressive taxes do indeed spread the wealth a bit. But they do so much more modestly than government owning the means of production.

Few serious policy makers — including McCain — consider progressive taxation socialist. In fact, on the Oct. 26, 2008 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, McCain stood by a comment he made in 2000 that "there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more" in taxes when you "reach a certain level of comfort."

"You put into different, different categories of wealthier people paying, paying higher taxes into different brackets," McCain told host Tom Brokaw, as if to say progressive taxes are a no-brainer.

Indeed, progressive taxation has been a cornerstone of American tax policy since the federal government first collected an income tax in 1863. It was based on the Tax Act of 1862, which President Abraham Lincoln signed, and which imposed a "duty of three per centum" on all income over $600, and five percent on income over $10,000.

Obama's proposed top tax rate of 39.6 percent, (up from today's 36 percent) is considerably higher than that. But it's not particularly high in the context of modern times; as he pointed out to Wurzelbacher, it's about what top earners paid in the Clinton years. In 1987, the top tax rate was 38.5 percent. In 1944, it was 94 percent on the top portion of the highest incomes.

So no, Obama's tax increase on those making more than $250,000 would not represent a transformation of the U.S. system of government. His desire to "spread the wealth" through progressive taxation makes him no less a capitalist than McCain, or Lincoln. Palin's allegation that Obama wants to "experiment with socialism" seems designed less to inform than to inflame.

 

[epiphany65]

At a rally in North Carolina today, Obama said "Lately, he's called me a socialist for wanting to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can finally give tax relief to the middle class. I don't know what's next. By the end of the week, he’ll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten."

 

[Stella_Omega]

At a rally in North Carolina today, Obama said "Lately, he's called me a socialist for wanting to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can finally give tax relief to the middle class. I don't know what's next. By the end of the week, he’ll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten."

and now they'll say that he's insulted McCain...

 

[trysail]

It's a bit difficult to imagine that interest rates are likely to decline from their current level.

It's also very easy to see that what Alan Greenspan did from 2001-2004 was essentially comparable to providing drink to a drunk. The potential future consequences of current monetary policy are frightening to contemplate (see Weimar Republic). For your consideration:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3250/2984820513_7444f783fa.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3244/2984822153_1ace32e52d.jpg

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by epiphany65
At a rally in North Carolina today, Obama said "Lately, he's called me a socialist for wanting to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can finally give tax relief to the middle class. I don't know what's next. By the end of the week, he’ll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten."

and now they'll say that he's insulted McCain...

Obama supporters insult Palin and McCain all the time. That's normal. As for calling Obama a Socialist, that is the result of his using Marxist-like terms, especially Redistribution of Wealth, and decries the fact that the SCOTUS didn't do so forty yeas ago. He then goes on to point out that it is the duty of the Legislature and the Administation to do so.

The problem with this kind of thing is that people will not be rewarded sufficiently for excellence or diligence or hard work. Why should people sweat through four or five or eight years of higher education when they and their families will not be materially better off than high school dropouts?

 

[cloudy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by epiphany65
At a rally in North Carolina today, Obama said "Lately, he's called me a socialist for wanting to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can finally give tax relief to the middle class. I don't know what's next. By the end of the week, he’ll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten."




Obama supporters insult Palin and McCain all the time. That's normal. As for calling Obama a Socialist, that is the result of his using Marxist-like terms, especially Redistribution of Wealth,[/I and decries the fact that the SCOTUS didn't do so forty yeas ago. He then goes on to point out that it is the duty of the Legislature and the Administation to do so.

The problem with this kind of thing is that people will not be rewarded sufficiently for excellence or diligence or hard work. Why should people sweat through four or five or eight years of higher education when they and their families will not be materially better off than high school dropouts?

Please grow up. Please. I'm afraid you'll hurt yourself.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

In 1944, it was 94 percent on the top portion of the highest incomes.

Wow.

Just. Wow.

 

[Shwenn]

As for calling Obama a Socialist, that is the result of his using Marxist-like terms, especially Redistribution of Wealth,[/I and decries the fact that the SCOTUS didn't do so forty yeas ago.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/23/population-egalitarian-cities-urban-growth

 

[trysail]

In 1944, it was 94 percent on the top portion of the highest incomes.

Wow.

Just. Wow.

Which is exactly and precisely why members of my family retired from working— it was a waste of time.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Please grow up. Please. I'm afraid you'll hurt yourself.

What do you mean by that? I am just citing the man you and many others seem to idolize.

 

[Shwenn]

What do you mean by that? I am just citing the man you and many others seem to idolize.

I hate it when cloudy and I agree.

Makes me feel dirty.

 

[epiphany65]

The problem with this kind of thing is that people will not be rewarded sufficiently for excellence or diligence or hard work. Why should people sweat through four or five or eight years of higher education when they and their families will not be materially better off than high school dropouts?

I think what you meant to say was "Work will set you free."

 

[trysail]

I think what you meant to say was "Work will set you free."

Penalty flag— unsportsmanlike conduct.