Is anyone else here worried about this notion of redistribution of wealth?

[stone_seeker]

This scares me to death and for some reason it hasnt gotten much traction.

I dont know about you but I have no interest in giving more of my hard earned money to anyone else. Not only is that UNFAIR to me (I pay a tremendous amount of tax as it is), it doesnt help the recipient of those dollars in the long run. Why should someone strive to improve themselves, if they can get by on subsidies funded by others?

I''m all for improving education, infrastructure, healthcare, etc. But please dont create class wars by creating an even larger welfare class.

I almost leaned toward voting for Barack until I started really looking into his tax plan in more detail. Scary stuff....I''ve always wanted to live in Paris and I think the next 4 years might be as good a time as any.

Good luck all.

 

[luckystar112]

SS, don''t be silly. Unless you make more than $250,000 a year (or is it $200,000? Or is it $150,000?) you won''t see a tax increase!

 

[neatfreak]

It's $250,000. And I have to say that considering that only 1.5% of the population in the US makes that much or more, it really isn't hitting a lot of people in the grand scheme of things...which is probably why it hasn't gotten a ton of press. It just isn't a mainstream issue for most Americans because they don't make nearly that much.

The whole "redistributing the wealth" catchphrase appears to me to be fear mongering. And once again trying to paint Obama as a socialist.

But that is just my opinion of course...

 

[Skippy123]

Date: 10/28/2008 10:04:09 PM
Author: neatfreak
It''s $250,000. And I have to say that considering that only 1.5% of the population in the US makes that much or more, it really isn''t hitting a lot of people in the grand scheme of things...which is probably why it hasn''t gotten a ton of press. It just isn''t a mainstream issue for most Americans because they don''t make nearly that much.

The whole ''redistributing the wealth'' catchphrase appears to me to be fear mongering. And once again trying to paint Obama as a socialist.

But that is just my opinion of course...

I completely agree w/what you said Neatfreak and yes, it is 250k.

 

[miraclesrule]

SS, if a lot of your income is due to capital gains then you need not fret either. But if you do make more than 250K in payroll vs. capital gains and you are afraid to pay that extra few % then by all means take your chance and vote on McCain. Personally, I don''t think it matters how much money one has if there is no infrastructure, class wars, no education and our whole country becomes one of the unhealthiest. That scares me a whole lot more than a few % of tax that we are going to have to pay anyway, regardless of what they tell you at election time.

At least Obama is giving you the cold hard truth. Take a peek at Freakonomics and see for yourself what the trickle down effect has had on our nation going further back than Reagan.

Again, if America doesn''t get back to fundamentals, I''ll fly with you to France.

 

[ksinger]

Date: 10/28/2008 10:10:36 PM
Author: miraclesrule
SS, if a lot of your income is due to capital gains then you need not fret either. But if you do make more than 250K in payroll vs. capital gains and you are afraid to pay that extra few % then by all means take your chance and vote on McCain. Personally, I don''t think it matters how much money one has if there is no infrastructure, class wars, no education and our whole country becomes one of the unhealthiest. That scares me a whole lot more than a few % of tax that we are going to have to pay anyway, regardless of what they tell you at election time.

At least Obama is giving you the cold hard truth. Take a peek at Freakonomics and see for yourself what the trickle down effect has had on our nation going further back than Reagan.

Again, if America doesn''t get back to fundamentals, I''ll fly with you to France.

I like paying taxes; with them I buy civilization. ~ Oliver Wendall Holmes

Oh, and BTW Miracles, I never got in on the consumption tax discussion. I pay a consumption tax every day here in Oklahoma - unlike many states, we have taxes on food. The same tax rate I''d pay on a computer a diamond or anything else - 8.375 % here in Oklahoma City. God knows I need to lose some weight, but past a certain point, I cannot opt NOT to pay this tax by reducing or eliminating this type of consumption. Now THAT is a consumption tax. Can''t say I like it much.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 10/28/2008 10:09:58 PM
Author: Skippy123

Date: 10/28/2008 10:04:09 PM
Author: neatfreak
It''s $250,000. And I have to say that considering that only 1.5% of the population in the US makes that much or more, it really isn''t hitting a lot of people in the grand scheme of things...which is probably why it hasn''t gotten a ton of press. It just isn''t a mainstream issue for most Americans because they don''t make nearly that much.

The whole ''redistributing the wealth'' catchphrase appears to me to be fear mongering. And once again trying to paint Obama as a socialist.

But that is just my opinion of course...

I completely agree w/what you said Neatfreak and yes, it is 250k.

and now they''re saying $150K on Fox.

 

[miraclesrule]

GET OUT!!! I don''t remember that when I was in Oklahoma. I do remember that I couldn''t buy any Gin from the grocery store.

Wow, they tax your food!! That''s crazy. And not a little either. 8.375% is a LOT of local sales tax. It''s only 7.75% is San Diego and we don''t tax food.

Well, then a consumption tax wouldn''t be anything you have to get used to.

 

[iheartscience]

I''M SUPER TERRIFIED! ZOMG!

I mean, it''s not like anything like this has ever happened before! Spreading the wealth around to do stuff like pave roads, build schools, and give healthcare to poor people?!

Oh that''s right-it happens every day. Guess I''m not too worried after all.

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 10/28/2008 10:29:30 PM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 10/28/2008 10:09:58 PM

Author: Skippy123

Date: 10/28/2008 10:04:09 PM

Author: neatfreak

It's $250,000. And I have to say that considering that only 1.5% of the population in the US makes that much or more, it really isn't hitting a lot of people in the grand scheme of things...which is probably why it hasn't gotten a ton of press. It just isn't a mainstream issue for most Americans because they don't make nearly that much.


The whole 'redistributing the wealth' catchphrase appears to me to be fear mongering. And once again trying to paint Obama as a socialist.


But that is just my opinion of course...

I completely agree w/what you said Neatfreak and yes, it is 250k.

and now they're saying $150K on Fox.

Yes because FOX news is always fair and balanced...

And playing devil's advocate here, even if it were 150k instead of 250k, we increase the percent of Americans making that to a whopping 3.17% as of 2005...so that is still about 97% of Americans who are NOT AFFECTED.

 

[miraclesrule]

Date: 10/28/2008 10:29:30 PM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 10/28/2008 10:09:58 PM
Author: Skippy123

Date: 10/28/2008 10:04:09 PM
Author: neatfreak
It''s $250,000. And I have to say that considering that only 1.5% of the population in the US makes that much or more, it really isn''t hitting a lot of people in the grand scheme of things...which is probably why it hasn''t gotten a ton of press. It just isn''t a mainstream issue for most Americans because they don''t make nearly that much.

The whole ''redistributing the wealth'' catchphrase appears to me to be fear mongering. And once again trying to paint Obama as a socialist.

But that is just my opinion of course...

I completely agree w/what you said Neatfreak and yes, it is 250k.

and now they''re saying $150K on Fox.

Of course they are.... Fox is telling you what you want to hear. If you want to hear truth instead of spin, the first thing you need to do is shut off the T.V. set. Go to the websites and download the plans and read them. Treat them like you would the specs of your watch. Would you let a Fox anchor buy your watch or your diamond for you?

 

[Lauren8211]

The overall tax burden of the French is 44% compared to our 25%. We''re also lower than almost all other developed societies.

So, comparatively speaking, Americans have it pretty good tax-wise. Even if your taxes DO go up slightly for "wealth redistribution," assuming you make more than 250,000, you''re still paying less than you would in France.

 

[Elmorton]

Taxation, in essence, is redistributing wealth. I gladly pay my taxes because I like good roads, law enforcement, and taxes support the colleges where I work.

The problem in these political campaigns is that politicians throw around phrases and expect that if they say a phrase with a certain tone or in a certain context, that constituents will make the assumption that the connotation = definition. I went to a local debate last Sunday where the politicians were throwing around "earmark spending" as something inherently evil. Is it? Of course not. Earmark spending is used on TONS of positive projects within the state that I''d fully support.

I guess the bottom line is that I want definitions of these catch phrases. What does someone mean by change? By being a maverick? By spreading the wealth? Both campaigns have been pretty clear with their definitions on web pages and in their published documents, but I think for the most part, no one really expects us to do our homework.

 

[JulieN]

Why should it scare you to death? It's maybe worth getting POed about, at the most.

So, I guess you're ok with state subsidization of health, infrastructure, and education, because:
-people who can't afford health care can make other people sick. bacteria and viruses don't care if you're rich or poor.
-infrastructure may or may not make sense. In Italy, all the highways are toll roads, so if you use, you pay. But, in general, good infrastructure helps moves goods and labor around. That's good for the economy.
-Education: good thing to subsidize. Lots of uneducated people around mean that our economy is not going to keep growing, and if they can't get jobs because they are unqualified, they're sources of labor that aren't efficiently being used.

So what else do we subsidize? The AGRICULTURAL industry. That really pisses me off. And other big businesses.

But, class wars? Nah. Education, healthcare, housing are what we subsidize for poor people. (really, do you want to see a lot of bums on your street? I live in a pretty expensive area, and there are lots of bums...) Quiet mumbling grumbling is not wars. We've had affirmative action in this country for almost 50 years...I've yet to see an Asian guy go at a black person because he lost a seat at HYP.

 

[miraclesrule]

Get Down JulieN....You go girl!!

 

[movie zombie]

well, frankly, no. and we're in the group that will be higher taxed. after the redistribution of wealth to the already wealthy over the course of years, i think its about time the middle class got a break. and don't forget the french revolution: let them eat cake, off with their heads, etc. could have been avoided if there had been a bit of wealth sharing......

movie zombie

eta: i'm more worried about mccain's health insurance plan that will tax us for employer provided health insurance and other tweeks that will remove health insurance from even more people.

 

[Maria D]

Date: 10/28/2008 9:49:20 PM
Author:stone_seeker
This scares me to death and for some reason it hasnt gotten much traction.


I dont know about you but I have no interest in giving more of my hard earned money to anyone else. Not only is that UNFAIR to me (I pay a tremendous amount of tax as it is), it doesnt help the recipient of those dollars in the long run. Why should someone strive to improve themselves, if they can get by on subsidies funded by others?


I''m all for improving education, infrastructure, healthcare, etc. But please dont create class wars by creating an even larger welfare class.


I almost leaned toward voting for Barack until I started really looking into his tax plan in more detail. Scary stuff....I''ve always wanted to live in Paris and I think the next 4 years might be as good a time as any.


Good luck all.

I''m surprised your perception is that this hasn''t got much traction. It is pretty much the only thing I''ve heard coming out of the McCain campaign for the past week (maybe longer). Where did you get the idea that a larger welfare class is going be created? If 98.5% of the population pays less tax and 1.5% pays more tax ONLY on the amount of taxable income above $250K how exactly does that create a welfare state? If you are for improving education and all those other things that civilized societies enjoy, how do you propose that they are paid for?

If you are seriously "scared to death" that you will be paying even more for these things than you used to (i.e., your taxable income is greater than $250K), then you should research Paris before you have a massive coronary. The tax rate in France for income above 67,546 euros is 40%. That would be about $86K. But I think you may get a national healthcare plan!

 

[ksinger]

Date: 10/28/2008 10:32:40 PM
Author: miraclesrule
GET OUT!!! I don''t remember that when I was in Oklahoma. I do remember that I couldn''t buy any Gin from the grocery store.

Wow, they tax your food!! That''s crazy. And not a little either. 8.375% is a LOT of local sales tax. It''s only 7.75% is San Diego and we don''t tax food.

Well, then a consumption tax wouldn''t be anything you have to get used to.

Har.

Still can''t buy gin at the grocery store.

And the tax on food has been in place as long as I can remember...and I''ve been here most of my nearly 46 years...so. And we have a state income tax. Some nearby states, like Texas, do not. So add that on too.

Needless to say, I don''t favor a consumption tax...

 

[miraclesrule]

That''s it...I''m never moving to Oklahoma!!

It''s so odd the way everyone is quick to latch on to key phrases such as "redistributing the wealth". We do it everyday.

And now, the American Automakers want some more of our money to save their business from the results of bad business decisions. When will it end? If I have to give my money away, I would much rather it go to give someone an education or some medicine, than to wealthy businessman who can''t save their business. Maybe the person I educate will be the next genius who can create a machine that people want to buy.

 

[luckystar112]

Washington Post

We''ve heard a lot this month about how Sen. Barack Obama''s tax plans would affect Joe the Plumber -- the Ohio man who recently asked the Democratic nominee whether Obama planned to raise his taxes. Opponents of Obama seized on the incident to argue that his middle-class tax cuts are a scam. Some have even claimed that he has proposed tax increases for people with incomes as low as $32,000. Obama''s supporters responded that the tax cuts are real (and noted that Joe is not a licensed plumber). The entire episode has only added to the confusion over what Obama is proposing for middle-class taxes.

How should an honest fiscal conservative see the situation? For those making less than roughly $200,000 ($250,000 for couples), Obama would not only make President Bush''s tax cuts permanent but would also offer an array of new tax credits. Nobody should deny this.

To be sure, these "tax cuts" contain some sleight of hand. More than $400 billion of the money over the next 10 years would take the form of refundable tax credits paid in cash to people who already pay no federal income tax. It would be more accurate to refer to these cash outlays as cuts in payroll tax or -- even more accurately -- as transfer payments. Regardless of what the credits are called, though, they would put more money in the pockets of some American families. That sounds great in these tough economic times. Who can be against a boost to spending power and consumption?

We can. While a few of Obama''s proposals may be sensible, the overall package would be bad for the economy. Unlike rate cuts for high incomes or reductions in investment taxes, most of Obama''s proposed tax cuts would do little to reduce the tax penalty on work and saving. For some households, the penalty on work and saving would even increase because the new tax credits would be phased out as income rises. These proposals wouldn''t deliver the economic growth that incentive-based tax cuts would.

Furthermore, there is no free lunch. Obama''s middle-class tax relief would have to be paid for, either now or later. Middle-class tax cuts might make sense if they were paid for by spending cuts, but that is not Obama''s plan. Like his opponent, Obama points to vague savings from reducing waste, the kind of savings that never seem to materialize. He also hopes to reap savings by accelerating our redeployment from Iraq, a project with an uncertain fiscal impact. At the same time, he proposes a wave of new spending on health-care, education, energy and infrastructure programs and declares his opposition to reforms that would reduce the growth of Social Security and other entitlement benefits.

So where would the money come from for the tax cuts and new spending? Largely from raising other taxes: the ones that have the biggest impact on economic growth. Obama would let key parts of the Bush tax cuts expire, causing the top tax rate on ordinary income to go back to 39.6 percent, up from 35 percent today. The capital gains and dividend tax rates would rise to 20 percent from today''s 15 percent. Obama might also impose Social Security tax at a rate of up to 4 percent on wages and self-employment income above $250,000, starting in 2019.

These tax increases are not as bad as some Obama statements during the Democratic primaries suggested they would be, and they fall well short of what some of his conservative critics claim. For example, Obama does not propose to tax dividends at 40 percent or to impose the full 12.4 percent Social Security tax on high earners.

His real proposals, however, would still be plenty damaging. If rewards for America''s entrepreneurs and firms are reduced through higher marginal tax rates, their incentives to earn, invest and create jobs will be diminished. Americans will have less incentive to save, and firms will have less incentive to pay dividends. Tax avoidance will become more profitable. A smaller capital stock will mean a less productive economy and lower wages for middle-class and other workers. These disincentive effects also mean that the revenue gain is likely to be smaller than Obama envisions.

In sum, Obama may very well give Joe the Plumber a tax break, but only if Joe does not become too successful. Obama is offering real tax favors for the middle class, but not real benefits for the economy.

 

[Rank Amateur]

Focusing on the threshold for additional taxes is silly. A politician should not be promoting such class warfare. The stated goal should be fiscal responsibility not "spreading the wealth around".

Obamaa's promoting higher taxes on "the wealthy" is simply pandering to his electorate rather than being a leader on real issues.

 

[zhuzhu]

Here I present the report written by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. These statements clearly describe factual differneces between 2 candidates'' tax plans, and their implications for you and I. My conscience tells me that Obama''s plan is the right one to vote for.

"In 2009, Senator Obama’s tax plan would, on average, provide a modest tax cut equal to 0.3 percent of after-tax income, or $160 (table 1). But his plan would drastically alter the distribution of tax burdens and make the tax system significantly more progressive. Households in the bottom quintile of the cash income distribution (the 20 percent of the population with the lowest incomes) would receive an average tax cut of 5.5 percent of income ($567) and those in the middle fifth of the income distribution would receive an average cut equal to 2.4 percent of income ($1,042). In contrast, taxes would rise by an average of 2.0 percent of income ($4,092) for households in the top quintile. And the increases would be even more dramatic within the top quintile. Taxpayers in the top 1 percent would see their taxes rise by an average of 8.7 percent of income or about $116,000. The top 0.1 percent—the richest 1 in 1,000—would face an average tax increase of more than $700,000, or 11.5 percent of income."

"McCain’s overall tax plan would grow more regressive between 2009 and 2012. Measured against current law, the fully-phased-in McCain plan would cut 2012 taxes for those in the bottom quintile by 0.9 percent of income, or about $100 (table 7). Households in the middle of the income distribution would receive an average tax cut of 3.1 percent of income, or $1,444. The top fifth would receive an increase in after-tax income of 6.4 percent or $13,858. And the largest cuts would go to those at the very top of the income distribution: the top 1 percent would receive cuts averaging 9.5 percent of income ($126,951) while the richest 1 in 1,000 would see their after-tax incomes rise by 11.6 percent, or about $680,000, more than ten times the relative gain of those in the bottom quintile."

It sounds to me like McCain is really big on benefiting "his kind" of people.

 

[zhuzhu]

"COMPARISON OF THE TWO PLANS
If enacted, the Obama and McCain tax plans would have radically different effects on the distribution of tax burdens in the United States. The Obama tax plan would make the tax system significantly more progressive by providing large tax breaks to those at the bottom of the income scale and raising taxes significantly on upper-income earners. The McCain tax plan would make the tax system more regressive, even compared with a system in which the 2001–06 tax cuts are made permanent. It would do so by providing relatively little tax relief to those at the bottom of the income scale while providing huge tax cuts to households at the very top of the income distribution. Measured against current law in 2009, Senator Obama’s plan raises after-tax incomes by more than 5.5 percent for those in the bottom quintile and also provides more modest increases for those in the next three quintiles (figure 1). The top quintile would experience an average tax increase because of the hikes in the tax rates on capital gains and dividends and the increases in the top two individual income tax rates. The increase in taxes would be dramatic for those at the very top of the income scale, representing 8.7 percent of after-tax income for the top 1 percent of households and 11.5 percent of income for the richest 1 in 1,000.

In contrast, the McCain plan would provide virtually no benefit to households in the bottom quintile, and very modest benefits to those in the next three quintiles. The top quintile would receive a tax cut of more than 3 percent of after-tax income. Within the top quintile, the richest 1 percent of households would receive an average tax cut of 3.4 percent. That figure rises to almost 4.4 percent for the top 0.1 percent of the income distribution.

The difference in the distributional effects of the two plans is just as stark when measured against current law in 2012 (figure 2).
The Obama plan would still provide the largest tax breaks, measured as a percentage of after-tax income, to those in the bottom quintile. Each quintile would, on average, receive a tax cut but those at the very top of the income scale would receive tax increases. On average, the top 1 percent would receive a tax increase equal to about 3 percent of income; that figure would rise to about 5 percent of income for the richest 1 in 1,000 households.

As in 2009, the McCain tax plan provides very little benefit to households at the bottom of the income distribution in 2012. Households in the lowest quintile receive tax cuts averaging about 1 percent of income. Because McCain’s plan extends all of the regressive 2001–06 tax measures (other than complete repeal of the estate tax) and cuts corporate taxes, those in the top 1 percent receive average cuts representing 9.5 percent of income; that figure is 11.6 percent for the top 0.1 percent of households."

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 10/28/2008 10:38:46 PM
Author: miraclesrule

Date: 10/28/2008 10:29:30 PM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 10/28/2008 10:09:58 PM
Author: Skippy123

Date: 10/28/2008 10:04:09 PM
Author: neatfreak
It''s $250,000. And I have to say that considering that only 1.5% of the population in the US makes that much or more, it really isn''t hitting a lot of people in the grand scheme of things...which is probably why it hasn''t gotten a ton of press. It just isn''t a mainstream issue for most Americans because they don''t make nearly that much.

The whole ''redistributing the wealth'' catchphrase appears to me to be fear mongering. And once again trying to paint Obama as a socialist.

But that is just my opinion of course...

I completely agree w/what you said Neatfreak and yes, it is 250k.

and now they''re saying $150K on Fox.

Of course they are.... Fox is telling you what you want to hear. If you want to hear truth instead of spin, the first thing you need to do is shut off the T.V. set. Go to the websites and download the plans and read them. Treat them like you would the specs of your watch. Would you let a Fox anchor buy your watch or your diamond for you?

ho yeah??? then why did Alan Colmes kept his mouth shut?

i don''t need to buy anymore diamonds if Obama becomes President b/c Obama promise to reddistribute some diamonds my way.

 

[purrfectpear]

I''m in the six figure bracket though not at a $250K level. I have absolutely NO issue with some wealth distribution.

I make more as a single woman than the average family of 4. Why the heck shouldn''t I pay a few more taxes?

I find it singularly unseemly that my peers with higher incomes are so unwilling to recognize that we have so MUCH more, and don''t have to hoard it as though it means the difference between food on the table and starvation.

For Pete''s sake, I eat out every single day, breakfast, lunch and dinner. I spend more on restaurants than a lot of people spend on their mortgage. Just how much money do I need? No one is asking me for my last dime.

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer?

If they taxed me an additional 5% (which no one is suggesting as far as I know) would I really miss it? That''s like what? One year''s salary increase? Big whoop.

Shut up and share.

 

[Irishgrrrl]

Date: 10/29/2008 8:51:05 AM
Author: purrfectpear
I''m in the six figure bracket though not at a $250K level. I have absolutely NO issue with some wealth distribution.

I make more as a single woman than the average family of 4. Why the heck shouldn''t I pay a few more taxes?

I find it singularly unseemly that my peers with higher incomes are so unwilling to recognize that we have so MUCH more, and don''t have to hoard it as though it means the difference between food on the table and starvation.

For Pete''s sake, I eat out every single day, breakfast, lunch and dinner. I spend more on restaurants than a lot of people spend on their mortgage. Just how much money do I need? No one is asking me for my last dime.

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer?

If they taxed me an additional 5% (which no one is suggesting as far as I know) would I really miss it? That''s like what? One year''s salary increase? Big whoop.

Shut up and share.

 

[NewEnglandLady]

I am very much against redistributing the wealth, then again I am very much against the income tax. Or even having to declare one's income--I find it grossly unconstitutional.

I feel an entitlement to my own property and have no interest at all in anybody else's. Let people be ridiculously wealthy, I think it's fabulous. I'd rather watch the wealthy burn their money than be forced to give it to others. At least it would be their choice.

 

[Ellen]

From what I have gathered, Obama''s plan is much the same as Clinton''s was. You know, that period in life when we had jobs, peoples portfolio''s soared....I can''t say that scares me.


And evidently, it didn''t scare Senator McCain at one time either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNke6ad0t6g

 

[MaggieB]

Date: 10/29/2008 9:01:31 AM
Author: NewEnglandLady
I am very much against redistributing the wealth, then again I am very much against the income tax. Or even having to declare one''s income--I find it grossly unconstitutional.

I feel an entitlement to my own property and have no interest at all in anybody else''s. Let people be ridiculously wealthy, I think it''s fabulous.

This is a serious question - not sarcastic. I know that there are people who don''t believe that income taxes are constitutional. If you believe that income taxes should be abolished, what is the alternate plan? How are governments financed? What services should the country eliminate?

 

[mrssalvo]

Date: 10/29/2008 9:04:16 AM
Author: Ellen
From what I have gathered, Obama's plan is much the same as Clinton's was. You know, that period in life when we had jobs, peoples portfolio's soared....I can't say that scares me.



And evidently, it didn't scare Senator McCain at one time either.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNke6ad0t6g

Clinton also had the benefit of the dot com boom and no attack on America

. so we aren't comparing apples to apples. I think it's going to be tough on whomever gets elected.