In a perhaps unintentionally revealing moment in a conversation with a plumber, Obama, yesterday: [rquoter]"Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" the plumber asked, complaining that he was being taxed "more and more for fulfilling the American dream." "It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too," Obama responded. "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around it's good for everybody."[/rquoter] and earlier this year: [rquoter]GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton," which was 28 percent. It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent. But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent. OBAMA: Right. GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent. OBAMA: Right. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected? OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.[/rquoter] so the question is, is greater tax revenue more fair or does Obama's concept of "fairness" in fact punish us all, out of some misguided attempt to "share the wealth?"
Definitely more fair. Furthermore, 2/3 of the economy is driven by consumer spending. Concentrating the wealth in the top 5% definitely hurts the economy. It doesn't help it as you imply. Next question?
Really stupid to start this thread against the backdrop of a $700 billion government-funded bailout of investment banks. Reminiscent of official McCain campaign strategy.
more examples of Obama's sleight of hand: [rquoter]Obama's 95% Illusion It depends on what the meaning of 'tax cut' is. One of Barack Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today. It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut." For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals: - A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple. - A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition. - A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies). - A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000. - An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support. - A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year. - A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles. Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut. The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS. The total annual expenditures on refundable "tax credits" would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as "tax credits," the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is. The political left defends "refundability" on grounds that these payments help to offset the payroll tax. And that was at least plausible when the only major refundable credit was the earned-income tax credit. Taken together, however, these tax credit payments would exceed payroll levies for most low-income workers. It is also true that John McCain proposes a refundable tax credit -- his $5,000 to help individuals buy health insurance. We've written before that we prefer a tax deduction for individual health care, rather than a credit. But the big difference with Mr. Obama is that Mr. McCain's proposal replaces the tax subsidy for employer-sponsored health insurance that individuals don't now receive if they buy on their own. It merely changes the nature of the tax subsidy; it doesn't create a new one. There's another catch: Because Mr. Obama's tax credits are phased out as incomes rise, they impose a huge "marginal" tax rate increase on low-income workers. The marginal tax rate refers to the rate on the next dollar of income earned. As the nearby chart illustrates, the marginal rate for millions of low- and middle-income workers would spike as they earn more income. Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory. The tax credits are sold in the name of "making work pay," but in practice they can be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you're a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year. One mystery -- among many -- of the McCain campaign is why it has allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered.[/rquoter]
You may be misunderstanding "fairness". The question is what is the ideal tax structure? You can't start from the current structure and say "raising taxes on one section is unfair" - because that assumes that the current structure is the ideally fair system. For example, with Cap Gains, why is it that you essentially pay a lower tax rate investing in other people's businesses as opposed to investing money into your own sole proprietorship? Is that fair? Is it fair that when you include all taxes coming out of income, the poor often pay a higher percentage than others (due to SS/Medicare)? On the "share the wealth" thing - this is a weird attempt at criticism. Isn't the whole trickle-down economic concept a share-the-wealth concept? We give tax cuts to the wealthy and everyone will share in the prosperity created? The quote - if you look at the part immediately before what you cited - clearly shows he's talking about the idea of trickle-up economics where if you give the tax cuts to the poor, they will spend it and everyone will share in the prosperity created.
Now you are reposing articles that were already debunked in another thread? Sloppy and lazy, basso. I still hold out hope that one day you will actually learn to respond to other people’s posts, instead of using this BBS like a cheapskate’s blog.
I don't read basso's posts. It's not that hard to not do. Given that apparently he is still stuck in the "I'll post all the r****ded **** I read in wingnut blogs on the clutchfans bbs" modus operandi - I highly recommend ya'll do the same. For serious. I don't even find enjoyment in the mocking posts from SamFisher in basso's threads anymore. It's just lame. Last post in a basso-started blog-reposting -er... I mean thread - for me. I swears it on the precious.
On Capital Gains Taxes for the umpteenth time, the reason tax revenues go up immediately after a decrease is because instead of cashing out in the year before, people will wait till the taxes are decreased, thus skewing the data and the exact opposite is true for an increase, everyone will cash out the year before taxes go up thus skewing the data red herring
Maybe because other people's businesses have already been taxed? Some could argue being taxed once is enough........in which case your scenario above would only be "fair" if there was NO tax when you invest in someone elses business. Who derives the most benefit from SS/Medicare? Of all tax dollars collected, where does the lion's share come from? Is that rate flat, or does something happen to it as income increases. Could I benefit from a redistribution of wealth if all of the uber rich people had their income taxed at an even higher rate? Sure........but I don't really think that is fair. And I'd feel kind of dirty accepting that kind of help.
I read, briefly, through the other thread and it looked more like a pissing match on whether or not Obama can be criticized than a debunking.
LOL - so if you paid 15% of your total income in taxes, and Bill Gates only paid 5%, you'd feel dirty of Bill had to pay 6%? Attention all: Republican Tax Martyr up for canonization......
I have to admit Sam........you are quite the pro at distorting what people say. I'm honestly impressed. I'm not a Republican, but I do enjoy dropping in on this little Liberal Democrat cheerleading session every once and a while. I do hope you guys realize that's all the D&D really is. I hope this safety in numbers thing you have going on here at an NBA fan site doesn't make you all too overly confident. I mean, I think Obama is going to win too.........but you never know. The silent majority has kicked your ass before.
If you are impressed then answer the question. Ae you saying that you would or would not fill dirty in the scenario I posited? It's the same question Major asked you, just with examples. In a celebrated real-life example - Warren Buffet has claimed he pays a lower tax rate overall than his secretary, and that this is unfair. Let's say you are Warren B's secretary. Let's say furthermore that Congress passes a tax hike which increases Warren's taxes but leaves yours untouched. This tax hike will be used to pay the massive budget deficit that we have run up in the last few years due in part to the Bush admin's tax cuts for the rich and its expensive wars, bailouts, etc. Do you feel dirty? Yes, no, why or why not?
Here we go again with the buffet and gates examples, if you want, create a special tax bracket for those two, until then you can stop using them as if they somehow represent the 250k+ earners. This is really getting old.
I have always been bothered by the way capital gains taxes are computed because it does not take into account inflation, which I think should be included. If you hold stock for 10 years and it appreciates in value by 10%, you must pay taxes on that 10% even though in inflation adjusted dollars you lost money on the investment. Of course, I think interest income should be treated the same way. If your bank pays you 3% interest and inflation is 4%, then I do not think you should pay taxes on that non-existent gain. Am I missing something in my thinking?
Would you feel dirty if they had to pay the same tax % as you? Yes or no? Somebody is making a morality argument and I'm trying to explore its limits, which I am inherently skeptical of. I don't think anybody would feel "immoral" if a rich person had to pay their fair/equal share of taxes. But who knows, there may be some true believers out there. Answer the question before you start whining about how it's not fair to talk about them.
Except the entire basis of our taxation system is based on taxing the same dollar over and over - it's a transaction-based system. If I buy something from you, and you make a profit, and you pay taxes on it. You then spend that taxed dollar on something Sam makes, and he makes a profit, and pays taxes on that same dollar. The money I make investing in someone else's business is based on an entirely different transaction than what the business itself makes profits on. The business itself is taxed on money it makes selling a product. The money I make investing in the business is based on appreciation of a stock - which could happen for any number of reasons unrelated to profits of the company. If I bought Morgan Stanley last week and sold it today, and made 100% profit, I am taxed on that - despite that not affecting Morgan Stanley one bit and not being based on new profits by Morgan that were taxed. I'm not sure the relevance here. If we start taxing based on who benefits, then many peaceniks could argue they shouldn't pay for defense department costs. Bikers could say they shouldn't pay taxes that go to the transportation department. Many of us could argue that the National Helium Depository doesn't affect us, so why should we pay for it? The reality is that's not how the budget works. But beyond that, the answer to your question is unclear. In the immediate short-term, it certainly benefits senior citizens the most, since they get the immediate funds. In the longer run, it prevents society from having to deal with millions of impoverished senior citizens, which benefits everyone. It cuts costs of dealing with that, it strengthens the economy by having more consumers, etc. What do you believe the ideal tax system to be? A completely flat rate where all people pay exactly equal portions of their income? Or maybe one where everyone pays the exact same flat amount? Do you consider the current system fair?
