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

[NewEnglandLady]

Date: 10/29/2008 9:05:44 AM
Author: 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?

Yes, I truly believe that the income tax is unconstitutional.

Federal taxes should go towards roads and military.

State taxes can go towards whatever that state decides as defined by the 10th amendment. Those services can be paid for with all non-income taxes. Social welfare programs can be supported through charity.

 

[mrssalvo]

Date: 10/28/2008 9:56:40 PM
Author: 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!

If Obama gets elected it will be interesting to see which number it is. He said $200,000 in a recent t.v add. Then Joe Biden was trying to define the middle class and threw out the $150, 000 number. that is where fox is getting the lower numbers from.

NewEnglandLady- I puffy heart you and agree completely.

 

[iwannaprettyone]

local sales tax is 8.25% here....has been for about 10 years now.

 

[Irishgrrrl]

From Obama''s website:

"Middle class families will see their taxes cut – and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase. The typical middle class family will receive well over $1,000 in tax relief under the Obama plan, and will pay tax rates that are 20% lower than they faced under President Reagan. According to the Tax Policy Center, the Obama plan provides three times as much tax relief for middle class families as the McCain plan."

For more information, click this link: Obama''s Tax Plan

There are also three more links at the bottom of that page that give you even more information, for those who truly are interested.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 10/29/2008 9:17:22 AM
Author: 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.

I don't really see the difference. It's still a matter of taxing people a bit more who are making good money.

Case in point. Hubby's brother is in a very lucrative business. He doesn't want to be taxed more, yet he's far from hurting. He lives in a 3/4 million dollar home. He has a condo out of state, has a second "get away" home not too far from here in the country. Owns a condo in Chicago. Just went in on a piece of land with someone else. He takes frequent vacations, put 4 kids through private school and college. Drives expensive cars.

Now I'm certainly not begrudging him, I'm actually very proud of him, it wasn't easy getting to where he is now. But if I were in that position, I don't think I'd be complaining if I had to pay a bit more tax.

But I do agree with you, this will be a tough task for whoever gets it.

 

[MaggieB]

I really have the hardest time understanding this whole redistribution of wealth argument. Even my fiance, a conservative banker, says he''s tired of hearing it, all taxes are a redistribution of wealth. I guess that''s why I at least understand NEL''s argument, she wants them gone, not lowered. Of course, I don''t agree, but I understand it better.

The way I see it, the economy is not working. The gap between the richest and the poorest is growing larger and larger. It got so bad that all across the country, people with median incomes couldn''t buy median priced homes in their own community. (The mortgage market responded by pushing no income verification loans so that first time homebuyers could even qualify for a loan, but that''s a totally separate thread.)

So here''s a statistic: According to Business Week, the average CEO made 42 times the average hourly worker’s pay in 1980, 85 times in 1990, and a whopping 531 times in 2000. I know that just in my own industry, banking and mortgage, in the last fifteen years the disparity in pay between the bottom and the top has grown exponentially. This disparity has proven to be DISASTROUS for our economy. The average American can''t afford to buy anything. They save nothing, and put everything on credit. One lousy credit crunch comes along and the market self-destructs.

I too would like taxes distributed more equitably. How we manage that without totally revising how American workers are paid is beyond me though.

 

[swimmer]

Date: 10/29/2008 8:52:56 AM
Author: 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.

Nicely put Purrfect,
I just don''t get the disconnect; people want roads, police, fire, schools, prisons, and all the little things like satellites that guide our GPS, bridges, libraries, land grant universities, health clinics... Even if you are opposed to food and medical care for poor children, eventually you will be paying for them with your private insurance rates when they go for treatment at the ER and the hospitals pass that loss on to all of us. Wanting services without paying for taxes is like not doing your homework readings in a very difficult class and expecting As, it just doesn''t happen.

I heard on NPR this morning that fewer than 1/4 of the rapists in LA are brought to justice because there simply have not been enough technicians to process the evidence and the statute of limitations passes before the cases can be brought to justice. The funding has now been found to change this, but can you imagine, first being raped, and then the perpetrator walks because the labs are unfunded? This was a backfireing of the Governator''s funding cuts. Dept of Youth Services social workers have avg. caseloads of more than 300 foster children apiece. Can you imagine how many fewer cases of neglect and abuse would happen if this was changed? How exactly would the private sector fund this?

There is no point in government or even society if we can not protect the weakest among us. A historical figure from Nazareth was really very clear about this.

 

[diamondfan]

YES I AM.

This is socialism, thinly disguised, to me.

I pay PLENTY of taxes and I support social programs and give lots to charity.

I do not wish to give more of what we earn, we are in the top bracket as it is and throwing money at things is not the answer.

 

[Loves Vintage]

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.

I completey agree, again.

Personally, the more money I have, the less attached I feel to it. As our income increases, I''m happy to pay more taxes. No fear here.

This concept of redistribution of wealth, as far as I can tell, is really no different than the system we already have. It is a mere recharacterization.

 

[geckodani]

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.

 

[geckodani]

Wow. Thanks for giving me a lot to consider all.

 

[MoonWater]

hmm...

Ya know, this "redistributing the wealth" thing has been going on for like, ever, in this country. In fact some would argue that the nation was sustained and made stronger as a result (see Alexander Hamiliton and the absorption of State debt). Yet over 200 years have passed without the country falling into socialist pieces! Wow!

This argument is tired.

Now for your reading pleasure, Slate''s take on Obama''s redistribution comments: He''s Not Robin Hood

 

[krispi]

I have to say that I agree a lot with NEL and DF. I don't venture over here very often, but this is one of the more disturbing ideas of this election to me, and is enough to prompt me to post something here.

For the record, I'm a single person making less than $50K per year, so I'm nowhere near the cutoff of the middle class (no matter how it's defined). I work in homebuilding, which has been struggling, haven't seen a raise in years, and am just managing to get by, pay my mortage each month, and have money to eat on. I'm point blank terrified by the current economy and what its ramifications might be for me.

However, I don't see how the answer could possibly be taking money away from those who have it to give it to someone else. I think that one of the hugest problems facing our society right now is a widespread entitlement mentality, and I fear these types of programs will only make it worse. I was taught that if I wanted something, I had to work for it, and I feel those who have worked hard for their success should be rewarded. I agree with NEL - so they have lots of money, good for them! I'm sure I'm delusional, but I still have hopes that perhaps someday I'll be lucky enough to be one of those with the top percentage of wealth. If not, oh well, I'll be happy with what I have. But I do not begrudge their success or feel like they should have to unwillingly give up any more of their possessions than the rest of us. If they want to donate it to charity, then all the better for them, but I don't feel it should be mandated. In other words, I'm not opposed to the idea because it would have a negative impact on me and my money - it's the concept itself that I have a problem with.

Perhaps if the government did a better job of spending our tax dollars, I could be pursuaded otherwise. But there are just so many problems with the current system, and I don't see how pouring any more money into already broken programs would help. I think we're to the point where we need a widespread reform, so much more radical than a redistribution of our existing taxes. The more and more I see, the more I think a system like NEL described might be the way to go.

 

[purrfectpear]

So Krispi, you''d be uncomfortable with the idea of you paying 12% in taxes, and those over $100K paying 15% ?

I''d love to see sliding scale flat taxes for all as a percent of gross with no deductions. Life would be so much simpler.

 

[geckodani]

Date: 10/29/2008 1:02:49 PM
Author: purrfectpear
So Krispi, you''d be uncomfortable with the idea of you paying 12% in taxes, and those over $100K paying 15% ?

I''d love to see sliding scale flat taxes for all as a percent of gross with no deductions. Life would be so much simpler.

Wouldn''t that be great?

 

[krispi]

Date: 10/29/2008 1:02:49 PM
Author: purrfectpear
So Krispi, you'd be uncomfortable with the idea of you paying 12% in taxes, and those over $100K paying 15% ?

I'd love to see sliding scale flat taxes for all as a percent of gross with no deductions. Life would be so much simpler.

Honestly, yeah, I'm uncomfortable with that. As I mentioned, it's not because it has any direct benefit for me at this point in my life, but because the concept just doesn't sit well with me. I see that as penalizing people's success.

I have to say that this election has been incredibly difficult for me to find a presidential candidate I am comfortable supporting. (For the record, I've voted republican in some past elections and democratic in others. I prefer to find a candidate I feel best supporting rather than stick to party lines.) I'm VERY opposed to the war in Iraq, I'm socially pretty liberal, and I'm pretty "conservative" financially - not that I save lots of money

but that I believe in small government and minimal institutionalization of programs like social security and welfare. I don't feel like any of the candidates really do a good job in representing my viewpoints. I think I've made a decision I can feel comfortable with, but if a new third party candidate came in from out of nowhere that was better aligned with my beliefs, I'd jump all over them! No matter how popular or unpopular, or how likely to win the election.

 

[Hudson_Hawk]

The issue for me isn''t so much about the amount of taxes I''m paying, it''s where that money is going. I want more transparency in regards to money used by our government. I''m ok with money being spent on social programs, however; we need serious reform on those programs and in general, before I''d be 100% OK with handing off any more. I''m in an interesting situation right now. I currently make 45k, however my new position, which I''ll take on next week, offers unlimited earning potential. Just bringing in 80k, combined with FI''s salary would put us within the danger zone ($150,000-$250,000). That concerns me.

 

[luckystar112]

Imagine if Obama came out and said the tax increase on those making $250k or more was optional. You can either keep the Bush tax cut rate, or write the government a check for the amount you feel you''ve been "over paid", all in the name being patriotic to those below you.

I would predict crickets.

 

[luckystar112]

Date: 10/29/2008 3:04:43 PM
Author: Hudson_Hawk
The issue for me isn't so much about the amount of taxes I'm paying, it's where that money is going. I want more transparency in regards to money used by our government. I'm ok with money being spent on social programs, however; we need serious reform on those programs and in general, before I'd be 100% OK with handing off any more. I'm in an interesting situation right now. I currently make 45k, however my new position, which I'll take on next week, offers unlimited earning potential. Just bringing in 80k, combined with FI's salary would put us within the danger zone ($150,000-$250,000). That concerns me.

That's my issue too. Congratulations on the huge salary increase!

 

[Rank Amateur]

Date: 10/29/2008 9:22:16 AM
Author: mrssalvo

Date: 10/28/2008 9:56:40 PM
Author: 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!

If Obama gets elected it will be interesting to see which number it is. He said $200,000 in a recent t.v add. Then Joe Biden was trying to define the middle class and threw out the $150, 000 number. that is where fox is getting the lower numbers from.

NewEnglandLady- I puffy heart you and agree completely.

Here is more on the tax "number".

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/senator_obamas_four_tax_increa.html

 

[zhuzhu]

While it is understandable that some dose not like the idea of paying higher taxes, in such dramatic time of crisis that we are in today, I think it is in everybody's best interest to vote for policies what will benefit the nation, not just the wealthy individuals.

 

[krispi]

Date: 10/29/2008 5:31:35 PM
Author: zhuzhu
While it is understandable that some dose not like the idea of paying higher taxes, in such dramatic time of crisis that we are in today, I think it is in everybody''s best interest to vote for policies what will benefit the nation, not just the wealthy individuals.

Zhuzhu, while I agree with that sentiment, I cannot believe that a policy of redistributing wealth is what''s truly best for our nation. In fact, I think it runs counter to the principles that our country was founded on. So many people came to this land to work hard and earn opportunities that they could not have where they were from. They were not given money that was taken from the rich; rather they were given a chance to make something of themselves and a chance to make their own money or own their own property. It scares me that our country is getting away from this philosophy - that if you work hard enough, you can be whatever you want to be. (That''s what my parents always taught me when I was growing up...)

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 10/29/2008 6:00:40 PM
Author: krispi

Date: 10/29/2008 5:31:35 PM

Author: zhuzhu

While it is understandable that some dose not like the idea of paying higher taxes, in such dramatic time of crisis that we are in today, I think it is in everybody's best interest to vote for policies what will benefit the nation, not just the wealthy individuals.

Zhuzhu, while I agree with that sentiment, I cannot believe that a policy of redistributing wealth is what's truly best for our nation. In fact, I think it runs counter to the principles that our country was founded on. So many people came to this land to work hard and earn opportunities that they could not have where they were from. They were not given money that was taken from the rich; rather they were given a chance to make something of themselves and a chance to make their own money or own their own property. It scares me that our country is getting away from this philosophy - that if you work hard enough, you can be whatever you want to be. (That's what my parents always taught me when I was growing up...)

No one is saying that you can't be what you want to be under this policy...and FWIW, our taxes in this country DO go to communal things like roads, libraries, public education, etc. It's not like this money that is being "taken" from the rich is going to be handed out in checks to people who decide they don't want to work...

You really can't tell me that an extra few percent in taxes for the 1% of people in this country who make over $250k per year is a disincentive to work can you?

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 10/29/2008 10:16:59 AM
Author: diamondfan
YES I AM.


This is socialism, thinly disguised, to me.

I want to preface this by saying that I don't think socialism would work in America right now, BUT what is really so bad about socialist societies? Almost all of the most stable, productive, healthy, well-balanced countries in the world operate with governments that are far more socialist than ours...

 

[iheartscience]

Date: 10/29/2008 6:31:55 PM
Author: neatfreak

Date: 10/29/2008 10:16:59 AM

Author: diamondfan

YES I AM.

This is socialism, thinly disguised, to me.

I want to preface this by saying that I don''t think socialism would work in America right now, BUT what is really so bad about socialist societies? Almost all of the most stable, productive, healthy, well-balanced countries in the world operate with governments that are far more socialist than ours...

Ditto. My brother''s wife is Swedish, which is a socialist country, and they live there now. He LOVES it. Practically free childcare, he''s getting his second master''s degree for free right now, fantastic public transportation, generous maternity and paternity leave, etc. Plus, he''s getting paid in Swedish Krona, which is so much stronger than the dollar that he teases me and my siblings that we''re getting paid in Pesos. They''re better off there than they are here, really.

There''s nothing wrong with socialism, and what Obama''s tax plan proposes is not even close to socialism. I''ll tell you what is close to socialism, though-the nationalization of private banks, which is what Bush just implemented!

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 10/29/2008 6:45:14 PM
Author: thing2of2

Date: 10/29/2008 6:31:55 PM

Author: neatfreak

Date: 10/29/2008 10:16:59 AM


Author: diamondfan


YES I AM.


This is socialism, thinly disguised, to me.

I want to preface this by saying that I don''t think socialism would work in America right now, BUT what is really so bad about socialist societies? Almost all of the most stable, productive, healthy, well-balanced countries in the world operate with governments that are far more socialist than ours...

Ditto. My brother''s wife is Swedish, which is a socialist country, and they live there now. He LOVES it. Practically free childcare, he''s getting his second master''s degree for free right now, fantastic public transportation, generous maternity and paternity leave, etc. Plus, he''s getting paid in Swedish Krona, which is so much stronger than the dollar that he teases me and my siblings that we''re getting paid in Pesos. They''re better off there than they are here, really.


There''s nothing wrong with socialism, and what Obama''s tax plan proposes is not even close to socialism. I''ll tell you what is close to socialism, though-the nationalization of private banks, which is what Bush just implemented!

So true Thing! The nationalization of banks is far more socialist than anything Obama is recommending...

 

[NewEnglandLady]

You can be whatever you want--just don't be successful at it or the fruits of your labor will be pried from your hands, willing or unwilling.

I understand that many are willing to give up their property for the communal good. I respect that they are willing to do so, but let it be a choice. Forcing those to give up their property through a police state in the name of "communal good" doesn't seem like an "end" that is justified by the "means" to me.

When the original income tax was passed in 1894 (before being overturned by the Supreme Court for being unconstitutional), the focal point of the debate was NOT what percent individuals should be taxed--which, by the way, was a 2% flat tax. The issue what that by giving the government power to tax our incomes, people were forced to give up the rights to their property, which, at the time, was thought of as "socialism, communism and devilism".

The taxes we pay on gas were supposed to go towards roads, yet we also pay sales tax on our car, oh, and don't forget that personal property tax you pay on your car every year as well! Ninety-nine percent of federal programs that are supported through taxes are in clear violation of the 10th amendment.

Am I not guaranteed protection from involuntary servitude under the 13th amendment? Yet for 4 months out of the year I do not work for myself, I work for the government.
Am I not guaranteed equal protection under the laws under the 14th amendment? I am not wealthy, but the wealthy are most certainly penalized for their success by being forced to pay taxes at a higher rate. Where is their equal protection?

There is no such thing as tax breaks for the wealthy. They will always shoulder the burden--like Atlas Shrugged, but they can't shrug without serving time in prison.

 

[NewEnglandLady]

Date: 10/29/2008 6:45:14 PM
Author: thing2of2

Date: 10/29/2008 6:31:55 PM
Author: neatfreak

Date: 10/29/2008 10:16:59 AM

Author: diamondfan

YES I AM.

This is socialism, thinly disguised, to me.

I want to preface this by saying that I don''t think socialism would work in America right now, BUT what is really so bad about socialist societies? Almost all of the most stable, productive, healthy, well-balanced countries in the world operate with governments that are far more socialist than ours...

Ditto. My brother''s wife is Swedish, which is a socialist country, and they live there now. He LOVES it. Practically free childcare, he''s getting his second master''s degree for free right now, fantastic public transportation, generous maternity and paternity leave, etc. Plus, he''s getting paid in Swedish Krona, which is so much stronger than the dollar that he teases me and my siblings that we''re getting paid in Pesos. They''re better off there than they are here, really.

There''s nothing wrong with socialism, and what Obama''s tax plan proposes is not even close to socialism. I''ll tell you what is close to socialism, though-the nationalization of private banks, which is what Bush just implemented!

I have to admit that I respect socialist who own their socialism more than those who claim they prefer freedom, then encourage socialist practices.

 

[luckystar112]

Date: 10/29/2008 7:05:18 PM
Author: NewEnglandLady
You can be whatever you want--just don''t be successful at it or the fruits of your labor will be pried from your hands, willing or unwilling.

I understand that many are willing to give up their property for the communal good. I respect that they are willing to do so, but let it be a choice. Forcing those to give up their property through a police state in the name of ''communal good'' doesn''t seem like an ''end'' that is justified by the ''means'' to me.

When the original income tax was passed in 1894 (before being overturned by the Supreme Court for being unconstitutional), the focal point of the debate was NOT what percent individuals should be taxed--which, by the way was a 2% flat tax. The issue what that by giving the government power to tax our incomes, people were forced to give up the rights to their property, which, at the time, was thought of as ''socialism, communism and devilism''.

The taxes we pay on gas were supposed to go towards roads, yet we also pay sales tax on our car, oh, and don''t forget that personal property tax you pay on your car every year as well!

Am I not guaranteed protection from involuntary servitude under the 13th amendment? Yet for 4 months out of the year I do not work for myself, I work for the government.
Am I not guaranteed equal protection under the laws under the 14th amendment? I am not wealthy, but the wealthy are most certainly penalized for their success by being forced to pay taxes at a higher rate. Where is their equal protection?

There is no such thing as tax breaks for the wealthy. They will always shoulder the burden--like Atlas Shrugged, but they can''t shrug without serving time in prison.

Amazing post, NEL.

 

[neatfreak]

NEL I totally respect and understand your viewpoint. Realistically, although it may not seem it, I am all for the old school republican party and giving states autonomy. I'm just not in support of what the GOP has come to stand for these days!

BUT I think that many people who are whining about the "redistribution of the wealth" aren't in on the same thought process as you and just don't understand the policy and the differences between Obama's policy and the system already in place...which in reality aren't that different...

People are freaking out that this will make our society socialist and have a major impact on policies, but realistically it isn't very different than what we already do!