Everyone keeps using "redistribution of wealth" as some code for take from the rich to give the poor. It is " This is what it is going to cost to run the goverment" Then the real question is Who has it and how can we get it? And how can we can be fair about it. The poor woman at the bottom end should give what percentage of her income and what percentage of a top earner should he give? It is really just called FAIRNESS.
October 14, 2008 12:15 PM
14 comments:
What are you talking about? This is what it will cost to run the government? You are missing the entire argument. The fact is that 40% of Americans do not pay any taxes at all. Nada, zero, the big goose egg. Another fact is many of these people also get money on top of this already in tax credits. Now Barry wants to give them even more. This has nothing to do with running the government and is certainly not fair. This is what is meant by redistribution of wealth taking money from someone who earns it and giving it to someone who does not earn it. This is also called tyranny of the majority. It is also buying votes through using dishonest labels. But then again Barry is about as dishonest as there has ever been.
Mark, Maybe I misunderstood the Obama position. My understanding is, if you pay no income tax, you will NOT be getting a check from the goverment?. What tax credits could there be for someone who has no job? I find it hard to believe that 40% of Americans pay no income tax. I know this will shock you but I believe that if you pay no taxes or as my grandmother used to say " if you put nothing into the pie, you can't tell me how to cut up the pie" so therefore this will surprise you as a Democrat and a liberal I believe you should not get to vote. Only those who contribute ala pay some sort of tax (FICA, income, property etc) should be able to vote.Obama dihonest I do not think so.
Mark, Maybe I misunderstood the Obama position. My understanding is, if you pay no income tax, you will NOT be getting a check from the goverment?. What tax credits could there be for someone who has no job? I find it hard to believe that 40% of Americans pay no income tax
Terry, God love ya, stand up, no wait that one was already taken by Joe.
This is truly one of those, I'm want to reach through the computer and strangle you moments (Blog strangle only of course), how can you not know this, I don't know...major fricking detail? And when you talk about fairness, how is being fair, by giving them just a little help, really going to help them. I am not talking, destitute need help to survive, but in a free society, behavior leads to lifestyle and reinforcing non-productive behavior just propagates the fault. For example, reducing the minimum wage just eliminates minimum wage jobs.
Yes, Rich I know:
"raising" the minimum wage
Terry,
Look at this link.
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6
It will show you who pays taxes among those who file returns. Of those who pay taxes, 50% make a little under $32,000 and those people as a group only pay 3% of all federal income tax. If you click on the link at the bottom of the page "See who doesn't pay taxes" you will see that 40 million returns out of 134 million returns PAY NO INCOME TAX. That means about 30% of all who file returns pay nothing, and another 47 million of the remaining 94 million returns pay a grand total of 3% of all income tax.
The notion that the rich aren't paying enough is sheer nonsense. Obama, Pelosi, Frank and Biden are playing a game of class warfare, pure and simple.
My career centered around turning unprofitable business into profitable business. The first step is to recognize the root of the problem. The US government does not have a revenue problem. It has a waste problem.
But career politicians know that their power is derived from growing the budget and doling out the funds. You can decide to give them more of your money and thereby give them more power, or, you can decide to keep more of your money and keep more power for yourself.
My advice is to hold onto your money. You'll do a better job of spending it.
Hags
Jim G -- I have heard this phrase before re-inforcing non-productive behavior WHAT? Are you honestly saying " these people " want to be poor and non productive. Can you show me any real proof of that! The only problem with the Great Society as Lyndon Johnson wrote was not prosecuting the people who scammed it. Put them in jail.If it such a great thing to be non productive and poor why don't more people try it?
The "H" returns and I love him.
T...gotta pay attention.
T the pay attention comment was regarding Hags response.
Fast and furious today boys and girls (where is hair anyway?) Great job all.
The onus to justify a program of "fairness" lies with you. The war on poverty has been going on for a long time and continues with unclear suscess. No, I do not think people want to be poor (and admit I was worried that might be your perception), "Helping" them by transferring wealth does no good what so ever.
Your thoughts do not consider things like "property rights" and "coercion/force of government" which are important.
Two more points, you are really talking about charity, which is great but needs to be voluntary and (and this is big) taking from one group to give to another via the government accomplishes nothing. Left with the individual, the money will get to the less well off via economic activity rather that government direction. Hag's point! So the money citizens pay in taxes.. they have no opportunity with that(their) money. It goes to government to redistribute. Money left with the citizen lets them buy boats, cars, homes and services, which creates jobs.
Our friend Rich, Mr. Deficit, comments little about "social justice", instead is under the illusion that higher taxes will be directly applied to the debt and not used for increased spending on "social justice". Baloney.
Hags thanks for your thought and I did view the site.I was surprised to see how many do not pay taxes. But the question remains is the one I first brought up. I have not heard that Obama plans to give a check to those who pay no income taxes. Is that true and where can I view that? specifically? Yes we the citizens can handle our money better. no argument. I happen to believe Goverment is not some evil empire, wasteful at times, but i diagree it is not about power for congressman, as you state, or class warfare. I would ask anyone who has kids did you not help them with their first car, first home, what is the difference? because the goverment does it it is now wrong and will promote lazy, non productive citizen's. Yes to some it happens, but not all. Many have had a hand up at times and changed their lives oh I am sorry that is the Obama story, a mother who at times had food stamps, but then look what he has done with his life! love
Forgive me for correcting the record:
The 40% that Mark refers to saying they "do not pay any taxes at all. Nada, zero..." is factually incorrect. They pay no INCOME TAXES. They pay PAYROLL TAXES and they pay them at a far higher tax rate than do those who make over $100K per year.
To say they pay nada, zero, goose eggs in taxes is a big, fat fib.
Warren Buffet offered $1mm to any Fortune 500 exec who paid a higher percentage of his income in taxes than his secretary. So far, he hasn't had to pay a dime.
All that said - I would set the minimum income tax at 1% - we all need to contribute. It will also influence the "tyranny of the majority" mentality that was earlier mentioned.
Finally - I am not in favor of enhancing the earned income tax credits, a program that President Reagan initiated. We simply can't afford it. It was meant to make work more attractive than welfare and that has been accomplished through the existing EITC as well as the Gingrich/Clinton welfare reform.
Terry (and Baxter),
I do not question that there is a legitimate role for government, and, consequently, there is a reason for some level of taxation. If you want to defend the borders, ya gotta have some troops.
But, where does it end. Obama, Pelosi, et. al. talk of people earning "unconscionable" amounts of money. Do you really want government officials deciding what is a "fair" amount a person should earn? Does the person who funds the start up of Google earn too much? Is Congress capable of deciding what the fair value of innovation is?
Mark my words: when Obama talks about The System being Unfair, he means that the innovators, and capitalists who fund them, are over-paid, and he wants to take a larger chunk and give it to the followers and non-participants in the name of Fairness. I call that the Road To Hell, paved with good intentions.
Should we look after those who cannot look after themselves? Absolutely. Should we give a hand up to those overcome by natural disasters or the ever-increasing rate of economic change? Absolutely.
Are we responsible for those who simply don't want to work hard enough to get ahead? NFW.
Obama has never been responsible for creating a dimes worth of taxable income. He is a product of our generosity, and he feels we aren't doing enough. He is a fabulous communicator and an empty Chicago-politician's suit (that means empty except for the profits of crooked dealings). When you elect him, and you will, we will get the smoother version of Jimmy Carter Part Deax. Stand by Hillary, your turn is coming!!!
There. That was fun!
Hags
Hags:
Except for your ad hominem comments regarding Pelosi and Obama, I agree with much of what you said. I think you are mistaken about the coming Democratic Period and I hope to compare notes this time next year.
I am all for people making as much money as possible. I preferred the Clinton tax rates - you remember - when we had a surplus. Why can't the right wing acknowledge that Bush made a mistake with the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts? Isn't it obvious?
I think American CEOs are earning ridiculous sums, especially when compared to their counterparts in Europe and Japan. Any way you measure it, we're off the charts and we were in synch with the rest of the free world as recently as the '70's.
At the end of the day, it is a matter for shareholders and not for government. I just want 39.6% of their take headed to the US Treasury.
No doubt that most people who work pay some form of taxes be they FICA or the fund that teachers use for retirement, etc. But the major focus of this thread has been Income Taxes. Lets not lose sight of the ball because then we can get totally distracted with Property Taxes, State Income Taxes, Inheritance Taxes, Gift Taxes, Telecommunications Taxes, Federal Universal Service Fund, and on and on and on.
Mark:
You hurt your position when you exaggerate. Your 7-2 claim vs the 5-4 "stop the counting" reality comes to mind.
The 7.65% payroll tax is very relevant to the income tax, no so much property taxes or telecommunications taxes and YOU KNOW IT.
In the future, you probably need to be more specific with respect to taxation.
Post a Comment