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

[NewEnglandLady]

Hey, Neatfreak, I hope you didn't think I was attacking your viewpoint in any way, I was just up on a soapbox.

I completely agree with you about the GOP and also how neither candidate's policies are that far from the policies we currently have in place--because I'm so far off of the "normal" spectrum, I think the political train was derailed during FDR's administration and has been going the wrong direction ever since.

Anyway, I just wanted to make sure I clarified that I didn't mean to be critical of your post at all.

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 10/29/2008 7:41:10 PM
Author: NewEnglandLady
Hey, Neatfreak, I hope you didn't think I was attacking your viewpoint in any way, I was just up on a soapbox.


I completely agree with you about the GOP and also how neither candidates' policies are that far from the policies we currently have in place--because I'm so far off of the 'normal' spectrum, I think the political train was derailed during FDR's administration and has been going the wrong direction ever since.


Anyway, I just wanted to make sure I clarified that I didn't mean to be critical of your post at all.

No not at all! I actually agree with you from a philosophical standpoint, but I also am a policy nerd (and am getting my Ph.D. in it!) so I'm a big stickler for people understanding the new policy, the issues surrounding it, and what the status quo policy actually is before whining about it. (And don't worry, it's obvious you do!)

 

[NewEnglandLady]

Date: 10/29/2008 7:44:58 PM
Author: neatfreak

Date: 10/29/2008 7:41:10 PM
Author: NewEnglandLady
Hey, Neatfreak, I hope you didn''t think I was attacking your viewpoint in any way, I was just up on a soapbox.


I completely agree with you about the GOP and also how neither candidates'' policies are that far from the policies we currently have in place--because I''m so far off of the ''normal'' spectrum, I think the political train was derailed during FDR''s administration and has been going the wrong direction ever since.


Anyway, I just wanted to make sure I clarified that I didn''t mean to be critical of your post at all.

No not at all! I actually agree with you from a philosophical standpoint, but I also am a policy nerd (and am getting my Ph.D. in it!) so I''m a big stickler for people understanding the new policy, the issues surrounding it, and what the status quo policy actually is before whining about it. (And don''t worry, it''s obvious you do!)

I agree--I actually much prefer discussing policy issues with those who don''t agree with me and have a good reason why than those who do (like that ever happens!) just "because". I love it when people care enough to want to know more. Or care enough to know where they solidly stand.

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 10/29/2008 7:52:50 PM
Author: NewEnglandLady

Date: 10/29/2008 7:44:58 PM

Author: neatfreak

Date: 10/29/2008 7:41:10 PM

Author: NewEnglandLady

Hey, Neatfreak, I hope you didn't think I was attacking your viewpoint in any way, I was just up on a soapbox.



I completely agree with you about the GOP and also how neither candidates' policies are that far from the policies we currently have in place--because I'm so far off of the 'normal' spectrum, I think the political train was derailed during FDR's administration and has been going the wrong direction ever since.



Anyway, I just wanted to make sure I clarified that I didn't mean to be critical of your post at all.

No not at all! I actually agree with you from a philosophical standpoint, but I also am a policy nerd (and am getting my Ph.D. in it!) so I'm a big stickler for people understanding the new policy, the issues surrounding it, and what the status quo policy actually is before whining about it. (And don't worry, it's obvious you do!)

I agree--I actually much prefer discussing policy issues with those who don't agree with me and have a good reason why than those who do (like that ever happens!) just 'because'. I love it when people care enough to want to know more. Or care enough to know where they solidly stand.

Agreed! Way more interesting than just having people nod at everything you say. I can totally respect people from any party (or none!) if they are intelligent in their viewpoints and beliefs and WHY they believe them. I can't stand people from any party who don't know the facts or are blindly following a candidate because they think they should.

Everyone needs to be informed about who they are voting for and why.

 

[zhuzhu]

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


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...)

Believe it or not, the majority of the people that would be receiving tax relief from Obama's plan do work hard. Some of them actually work hard at multiple jobs to keep up with the rising costs of every day life. These people probably don't have the time to post on Pricescope and can only dream about buying expensive jewelry. These people may be secretaries, administrative assistants, carpenters, and yes even plumbers. Even though these people may work hard and long hours and perform important jobs in our society, they are not valued as much as company executives that may or may not be worth what they are paid. In my opinion, most of these executives are not worth the 6 and 7 figure salaries they make - especially the ones involved with the current financial crisis. If the next administration wants to make it a little easier for the middle class to put food on the table and cover for it by returning the taxes of those that can afford it back to what they were the last time we had a budget surplus, that is okay with me. Business owners both large and small should be happy that their customers will have more money to spend on their products and services . . .

The GOP has demonstrated they have lost touch with their roots of fiscal responsibility. It is time to give the Democrats a chance, after all they were the last party to have a balanced budget.

 

[Allisonfaye]

I have lots of opinions on this subject. I will tell you how I arrived at them.

When I was growing up, my grandfather owned a small shoe store in a really bad part of town. Over the business, there were apartments that he rented to a family that was on welfare for years and years. And I knew they earned money on the side because my grandfather used to hired them to do stuff.

When I was 18, I worked in a grocery store as a cashier. I could ALWAYS tell a food stamp order before the person ever paid. LOTS AND LOTS of meat. That was at a time when most people were cutting back how much meat they bought due to the cost.

When I was 25, I worked as an appraiser for Los Angeles County. They used to pay me 8 hours over time (12 hours total) to do one hours worth of work to fix what some old guy had messed up because he refused to learn their ''new'' and fabulous computer system. So I saw at a fairly young age the kind of waste that goes on in our goverment and it made me sick. So when I finally had a few dollars extra, I put it into an IRA to reduce my tax liability to as close to zero as I could get it.

So I concluded that while there ARE people who need help, a very large number of people take the money and abuse the system.

I believe in education. I think our education system in this country stinks. I think our infrastructure is in HORRIBLE shape. I think our healthcare system is awful, but I think if the goverment takes it over, it will be worse.

My husband is in corporate finance and he makes over $250K. And he works his BUTT off. And he deserves every dime he makes. He has never taken a handout from anyone. He paid for his own college and he went to one of the top three business schools in the country and his employer paid for that as a bonus because they liked him.

The perception that wealthy people get all the tax breaks is ridiculous. AFter a certain income level, every single deduction is phased out. The only deductions that we get are though our flex spending account and mortgage interest.

But when the Republican party became the party of the religious right, it really turned me off. And when John McCain chose Sarah Palin, that was the deciding factor for me to vote for Obama. So am I bothered by paying even more taxes? You bet. But generally I just don''t agree with the trickle down economics and the social policies of the Republicans so the Democrats are the lessor of the evils for me.

 

[neatfreak]

Allisonfaye Just one thing here to clarify...there are not "very large numbers" of people abusing the welfare system these days, nor was there ever really. And unless you were 18 after 1996 a LOT has changed with the welfare system in the past 10 years. The fraud rate is and has been extremely low AND people are required to work to get their benefits, which are cut off after a few years. There are lifetime limits too. These benefits are also pretty hard to get these days.

 

[Allisonfaye]

There was an article in this months Money magazine with a graph showing how much your taxes would change with Obama and Mccain. I haven''t read the article yet but according to the graph, if you are making between $250K and $600k, you taxes would go up by $121, which seems kind of unbelievable. Did anyone else see this?

 

[Allisonfaye]

Date: 10/29/2008 8:07:04 PM
Author: neatfreak
Allisonfaye Just one thing here to clarify...there are not ''very large numbers'' of people abusing the welfare system these days, nor was there ever really. And unless you were 18 after 1996 a LOT has changed with the welfare system in the past 10 years. The fraud rate is and has been extremely low AND people are required to work to get their benefits, which are cut off after a few years. There are lifetime limits too. These benefits are also pretty hard to get these days.

Yes, and wasn''t that one of Bill Clinton''t programs?

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 10/29/2008 8:09:46 PM
Author: Allisonfaye
There was an article in this months Money magazine with a graph showing how much your taxes would change with Obama and Mccain. I haven''t read the article yet but according to the graph, if you are making between $250K and $600k, you taxes would go up by $121, which seems kind of unbelievable. Did anyone else see this?

No, but I believe it! The reality is that the policies aren''t that different from what we have now.

 

[zhuzhu]

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! 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.

Hi NEL,

My husband is from MA and he was just wondering if you live in MA? We all take the infrastructure of our society for granted. The roads we drive on, the police and fireman we call for when disaster happens, the school system we let our children spend 6+ hours in so we can work to pay for a better living, and defense department that keeps us safe (when utilized WISELY), to name a few. It is not taxes that take away our freedom, but it is taxes that enable it. The management of taxes plays the crucial role in making taxes productive/useful for the population, or wasteful and "unfair".

It is a personal decision as to who you think the best person will be to manage these taxes. Based on the GOP''s recent past, I have not doubt that Obama is the clear winner.

Zhuzhu

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 10/29/2008 8:10:33 PM
Author: Allisonfaye

Date: 10/29/2008 8:07:04 PM

Author: neatfreak

Allisonfaye Just one thing here to clarify...there are not ''very large numbers'' of people abusing the welfare system these days, nor was there ever really. And unless you were 18 after 1996 a LOT has changed with the welfare system in the past 10 years. The fraud rate is and has been extremely low AND people are required to work to get their benefits, which are cut off after a few years. There are lifetime limits too. These benefits are also pretty hard to get these days.

Yes, and wasn''t that one of Bill Clinton''t programs?

For the most part, but the Repub. party got a lot of things in there Clinton didn''t want too. It''s a long story, but interesting to read if you have the time!

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 10/29/2008 8:00:39 PM
Author: Allisonfaye
I have lots of opinions on this subject. I will tell you how I arrived at them.

When I was growing up, my grandfather owned a small shoe store in a really bad part of town. Over the business, there were apartments that he rented to a family that was on welfare for years and years. And I knew they earned money on the side because my grandfather used to hired them to do stuff.

When I was 18, I worked in a grocery store as a cashier. I could ALWAYS tell a food stamp order before the person ever paid. LOTS AND LOTS of meat. That was at a time when most people were cutting back how much meat they bought due to the cost.

meats ??? how about lobsters with food stamp

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 10/29/2008 8:24:28 PM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 10/29/2008 8:00:39 PM

Author: Allisonfaye

I have lots of opinions on this subject. I will tell you how I arrived at them.


When I was growing up, my grandfather owned a small shoe store in a really bad part of town. Over the business, there were apartments that he rented to a family that was on welfare for years and years. And I knew they earned money on the side because my grandfather used to hired them to do stuff.


When I was 18, I worked in a grocery store as a cashier. I could ALWAYS tell a food stamp order before the person ever paid. LOTS AND LOTS of meat. That was at a time when most people were cutting back how much meat they bought due to the cost.

meats ??? how about lobsters with food stamp

Seriously DF, get over the lobsters. Someone on food stamps has a food budget just like ANY of us and can choose to spend it how they wish. Everyone has an example of people abusing food stamps by buying something WE wouldn''t buy. Just because someone buys lots of meat or lobsters doesn''t mean that they then get to buy more of other things. Just like any of us with a budget, they budget their foodstamps the way they deem necessary. Doesn''t mean they don''t need them.

 

[Miranda]

LOL - Scared? Frustrated? Damn straight. Sheesh, I wonder why. Besides the fact the redistribution of wealth is immoral, there are other reason why the government should not be entitled to more taxpayer money. Perhaps because the government does such a crap job with everything it touches! With all the money thrown its way you''d think it could do better, more efficient job with even just ONE entity! Let''s see, education? My BIL works for a do good department in D.C. - this is a Bush program so don''t think I''m blasting the dems here - and there is ZERO accountability for the massive amount of money spent. I mean ZERO. Their programs are not doing any person in this United Stated any good at all. There are hundreds of people working in this group for no good reason! And this is just one department, like so many others, in our already too massive government. Let''s look at welfare, shall we? How much of every dollar gets to the recipient? A dime? A quarter? Now look at the worst and best charities. A lot more of that dollar gets down to the intended recipient. Now how about this fantastic bail out bill? How''s that working? More brilliance on the part of the gov''t. Go through every program and you will see massive waste that you do not often see in the private sector.

Now I have a funny story to share that relates back to the waste in education. My kindergarten daughter ran excitedly out of her classroom and exclaimed, "Look Mommy, I have a new red pencil! I got it for Celebrate Drugs week!" CELEBRATE DRUGS WEEK! This is in a middle class or upper middle class (depending on your definition) neighborhood in Orange County CA. Why they are talking to 5 year olds HERE about drugs is really beyond comprehension. There were assemblies, etc. all taking away from academics. Time would most certainly be better spent working on the reading or math. Or how about having a heart health week since heart disease kills by far more Americans than drugs, legal or illegal!?

The government redistributing wealth. That''s laughable. The idea is more of a massive vitamin for the government and less about helping the people! If the government wanted to help people they would design programs to empower people rather that oppress - which is what our current welfare programs do.

 

[NewEnglandLady]

Date: 10/29/2008 8:14:46 PM
Author: zhuzhu

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! 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.

Hi NEL,

My husband is from MA and he was just wondering if you live in MA? We all take the infrastructure of our society for granted. The roads we drive on, the police and fireman we call for when disaster happens, the school system we let our children spend 6+ hours in so we can work to pay for a better living, and defense department that keeps us safe (when utilized WISELY), to name a few. It is not taxes that take away our freedom, but it is taxes that enable it. The management of taxes plays the crucial role in making taxes productive/useful for the population, or wasteful and ''unfair''.

It is a personal decision as to who you think the best person will be to manage these taxes. Based on the GOP''s recent past, I have not doubt that Obama is the clear winner.

Zhuzhu

Yeah, we live in MA. Just think about how much better the infrastructure would be if not leeched on by superflous programs.

Just curious, how do you feel taxes enable freedom? And whose freedom, everybody''s?

I''ve been harping on the income tax since it''s the most obvious tax for redistributing wealth, though obviously the wealthy would still be paying higher taxes even if they were not taxed on income since they own more property and can buy more goods (again, good for them). When you talk about taxes enabling our freedom, which taxes are you referencing?

 

[swimmer]

NEL, I''m also in MA, can you tell me some of those superfluous programs? I''m collaborating on a budget for my public school district, our state funding is slashed and with housing values dropping, so will our incoming funds. We can either not heat one elementary school, or cut half the gym teachers and all the librarians in the district. At least the federal programs like breakfast for Title 1 kids won''t be cut. We haven''t purchased new textbooks in years and are in need of a new roof on the high school. Hopefully it won''t snow too much, the flat roof from the 70s leaks terribly and we hope it won''t cave in. What fat should be cut? Photocopying is already restricted and we are "going green" out of necessity. No field trips for the rest of the year and no substitute teachers if teachers are out sick.

What would Ayn Rand do?

 

[NewEnglandLady]

Date: 10/29/2008 9:47:21 PM
Author: swimmer
NEL, I''m also in MA, can you tell me some of those superfluous programs? I''m collaborating on a budget for my public school district, our state funding is slashed and with housing values dropping, so will our incoming funds. We can either not heat one elementary school, or cut half the gym teachers and all the librarians in the district. At least the federal programs like breakfast for Title 1 kids won''t be cut. We haven''t purchased new textbooks in years and are in need of a new roof on the high school. Hopefully it won''t snow too much, the flat roof from the 70s leaks terribly and we hope it won''t cave in. What fat should be cut? Photocopying is already restricted and we are ''going green'' out of necessity. No field trips for the rest of the year and no substitute teachers if teachers are out sick.

What would Ayn Rand do?

She''d tell you that ths is a perfect example of a publicly-funded program.

I don''t believe education is a right, so you might be barking up the wrong tree. I do understand, though, because I grew up in a very rural school with few resources. My parents spent quite a bit of time working with me after school so I wouldn''t fall behind on standardized tests and when I was older, I would buy books from second-hand stores to prepare myself for college.

Sounds like the system has let you down.

 

[MaggieB]

Date: 10/29/2008 10:13:01 PM
Author: NewEnglandLady

Date: 10/29/2008 9:47:21 PM
Author: swimmer
NEL, I''m also in MA, can you tell me some of those superfluous programs? I''m collaborating on a budget for my public school district, our state funding is slashed and with housing values dropping, so will our incoming funds. We can either not heat one elementary school, or cut half the gym teachers and all the librarians in the district. At least the federal programs like breakfast for Title 1 kids won''t be cut. We haven''t purchased new textbooks in years and are in need of a new roof on the high school. Hopefully it won''t snow too much, the flat roof from the 70s leaks terribly and we hope it won''t cave in. What fat should be cut? Photocopying is already restricted and we are ''going green'' out of necessity. No field trips for the rest of the year and no substitute teachers if teachers are out sick.

What would Ayn Rand do?

She''d tell you that ths is a perfect example of a publicly-funded program.

I don''t believe education is a right, so you might be barking up the wrong tree. I do understand, though, because I grew up in a very rural school with few resources. My parents spent quite a bit of time working with me after school so I wouldn''t fall behind on standardized tests and when I was older, I would buy books from second-hand stores to prepare myself for college.

Sounds like the system has let you down.

Wow, even education isn''t a right? I''ve been trying to be open-minded here, but . . . I guess I''m just a liberal.

 

[NewEnglandLady]

Date: 10/29/2008 10:18:11 PM
Author: MaggieB

Date: 10/29/2008 10:13:01 PM
Author: NewEnglandLady

Date: 10/29/2008 9:47:21 PM
Author: swimmer
NEL, I'm also in MA, can you tell me some of those superfluous programs? I'm collaborating on a budget for my public school district, our state funding is slashed and with housing values dropping, so will our incoming funds. We can either not heat one elementary school, or cut half the gym teachers and all the librarians in the district. At least the federal programs like breakfast for Title 1 kids won't be cut. We haven't purchased new textbooks in years and are in need of a new roof on the high school. Hopefully it won't snow too much, the flat roof from the 70s leaks terribly and we hope it won't cave in. What fat should be cut? Photocopying is already restricted and we are 'going green' out of necessity. No field trips for the rest of the year and no substitute teachers if teachers are out sick.

What would Ayn Rand do?

She'd tell you that ths is a perfect example of a publicly-funded program.

I don't believe education is a right, so you might be barking up the wrong tree. I do understand, though, because I grew up in a very rural school with few resources. My parents spent quite a bit of time working with me after school so I wouldn't fall behind on standardized tests and when I was older, I would buy books from second-hand stores to prepare myself for college.

Sounds like the system has let you down.

Wow, even education isn't a right? I've been trying to be open-minded here, but . . . I guess I'm just a liberal.

No, it's not a guaranteed right--the federal government has absolutely no constitutional authority to fund schools. I'd be completely in favor of dismantling the DOE and giving the power back to the states...more specifically counties or local jurisdictions where parents that serve on the school's board can decide where to allocate resources. NOT the federal government.

 

[Maria D]

Date: 10/29/2008 10:13:01 PM
Author: NewEnglandLady

Date: 10/29/2008 9:47:21 PM

Author: swimmer

NEL, I'm also in MA, can you tell me some of those superfluous programs? I'm collaborating on a budget for my public school district, our state funding is slashed and with housing values dropping, so will our incoming funds. We can either not heat one elementary school, or cut half the gym teachers and all the librarians in the district. At least the federal programs like breakfast for Title 1 kids won't be cut. We haven't purchased new textbooks in years and are in need of a new roof on the high school. Hopefully it won't snow too much, the flat roof from the 70s leaks terribly and we hope it won't cave in. What fat should be cut? Photocopying is already restricted and we are 'going green' out of necessity. No field trips for the rest of the year and no substitute teachers if teachers are out sick.


What would Ayn Rand do?

She'd tell you that ths is a perfect example of a publicly-funded program.


I don't believe education is a right, so you might be barking up the wrong tree. I do understand, though, because I grew up in a very rural school with few resources. My parents spent quite a bit of time working with me after school so I wouldn't fall behind on standardized tests and when I was older, I would buy books from second-hand stores to prepare myself for college.


Sounds like the system has let you down.

NEL, are you saying that you consider education to be one of the "superfluous programs"? I personally consider education to be part of the nation's infrastructure. It is necessary for citizens to be educated (imo) if they are going to be productive members of society. That's even more important than, say, bridges that won't collapse -- who is going to design, build and maintain the infrastructure if not educated people? Not to mention do all the other important things that we need to be a civilized society. I think most Americans feel as I do, even if we disagree on how it should all be funded. NEL, you are very consistent in your philosophy/opinion. I admire that, but I would hate to live in a country that you were queen of!

Not directed at NEL -- I don't agree that just because someone makes a ton of money that they work very hard. Yes, the vast majority of top earners probably work very very hard. So does the average, dare I say it, Joe the Plumber. We can't all be hard working top earning corporate financiers. Some of us have to be teachers (well, maybe not in NEL's world!), law enforcement, nurses, etc.

Below is how McCain's tax plan stacks up with Obama's. This came from cnnmoney.com but the same chart can be found on a number of sites. My analysis of this is Obama's plan only becomes significant "redistribution" for incomes over $600K. I'm not in that bracket but my friends that are are certainly not looking forward to paying more taxes. But, every single one of them, whether they support Obama or McCain, or calls themselves conservatives or liberals, admits that the reason they are able to earn so much is not just from hard work. They need the other 99% of hardworking earners to buy their products and services. Who are these successful hardworking rich people who managed to amass wealth without having to sell something to the masses?

The genius of the McCain campaign (and probably the whole Republican party) is how they can convince people that are part of the 99% of lower income that they are somehow being threatened by Obama's tax plan.

BREAKING DOWN THE NUMBERS
Here's how the average tax bill could change in 2009 if either John McCain's or Barack Obama's tax proposals were fully in place.
MCCAIN OBAMA
Income Avg. tax bill Avg. tax bill
Over $2.9M -$269,364 +$701,885
$603K and up -$45,361 +$115,974
$227K-$603K -$7,871 +$12
$161K-$227K -$4,380 -$2,789
$112K-$161K -$2,614 -$2,204
$66K-$112K -$1,009 -$1,290
$38K-$66K -$319 -$1,042
$19K-$38K -$113 -$892
Under $19K -$19 -$567

eta: NEL, it sounds like you are saying (based on post above that I read after I posted) that it's not the fact that education is publicly funded that you disagree with, it's any federal funding.

 

[NewEnglandLady]

Date: 10/29/2008 10:59:12 PM
Author: Maria D

Date: 10/29/2008 10:13:01 PM
Author: NewEnglandLady

Date: 10/29/2008 9:47:21 PM

Author: swimmer

NEL, I'm also in MA, can you tell me some of those superfluous programs? I'm collaborating on a budget for my public school district, our state funding is slashed and with housing values dropping, so will our incoming funds. We can either not heat one elementary school, or cut half the gym teachers and all the librarians in the district. At least the federal programs like breakfast for Title 1 kids won't be cut. We haven't purchased new textbooks in years and are in need of a new roof on the high school. Hopefully it won't snow too much, the flat roof from the 70s leaks terribly and we hope it won't cave in. What fat should be cut? Photocopying is already restricted and we are 'going green' out of necessity. No field trips for the rest of the year and no substitute teachers if teachers are out sick.


What would Ayn Rand do?

She'd tell you that ths is a perfect example of a publicly-funded program.


I don't believe education is a right, so you might be barking up the wrong tree. I do understand, though, because I grew up in a very rural school with few resources. My parents spent quite a bit of time working with me after school so I wouldn't fall behind on standardized tests and when I was older, I would buy books from second-hand stores to prepare myself for college.


Sounds like the system has let you down.

NEL, are you saying that you consider education to be one of the 'superfluous programs'? I personally consider education to be part of the nation's infrastructure. It is necessary for citizens to be educated (imo) if they are going to be productive members of society. That's even more important than, say, bridges that won't collapse -- who is going to design, build and maintain the infrastructure if not educated people? Not to mention do all the other important things that we need to be a civilized society. I think most Americans feel as I do, even if we disagree on how it should all be funded. NEL, you are very consistent in your philosophy/opinion. I admire that, but I would hate to live in a country that you were queen of!

Not directed at NEL -- I don't agree that just because someone makes a ton of money that they work very hard. Yes, the vast majority of top earners probably work very very hard. So does the average, dare I say it, Joe the Plumber. We can't all be hard working top earning corporate financiers. Some of us have to be teachers (well, maybe not in NEL's world!), law enforcement, nurses, etc.

Below is how McCain's tax plan stacks up with Obama's. This came from cnnmoney.com but the same chart can be found on a number of sites. My analysis of this is Obama's plan only becomes significant 'redistribution' for incomes over $600K. I'm not in that bracket but my friends that are are certainly not looking forward to paying more taxes. But, every single one of them, whether they support Obama or McCain, or calls themselves conservatives or liberals, admits that the reason they are able to earn so much is not just from hard work. They need the other 99% of hardworking earners to buy their products and services. Who are these successful hardworking rich people who managed to amass wealth without having to sell something to the masses?

The genius of the McCain campaign (and probably the whole Republican party) is how they can convince people that are part of the 99% of lower income that they are somehow being threatened by Obama's tax plan.

BREAKING DOWN THE NUMBERS
Here's how the average tax bill could change in 2009 if either John McCain's or Barack Obama's tax proposals were fully in place.
MCCAIN OBAMA
Income Avg. tax bill Avg. tax bill
Over $2.9M -$269,364 +$701,885
$603K and up -$45,361 +$115,974
$227K-$603K -$7,871 +$12
$161K-$227K -$4,380 -$2,789
$112K-$161K -$2,614 -$2,204
$66K-$112K -$1,009 -$1,290
$38K-$66K -$319 -$1,042
$19K-$38K -$113 -$892
Under $19K -$19 -$567

eta: NEL, it sounds like you are saying (based on post above that I read after I posted) that it's not the fact that education is publicly funded that you disagree with, it's any federal funding.

Obvioulsy education is important, but I think that a.) privately-funded schools are a better option (through tax credits) and b.) money doesn't buy intelligence. Anybody who wants to learn will, those who don't, won't...even the wealthy.

Yes, you are correct--any federally-funded program that is not roads or military would immediately be given back to the states...if I were queen And teachers would be well-compensated, of course, since they wouldn't be forced through the bureaucratic system.

 

[Miranda]

Date: 10/29/2008 10:59:12 PM
Author: Maria D


NEL, are you saying that you consider education to be one of the ''superfluous programs''? I personally consider education to be part of the nation''s infrastructure. It is necessary for citizens to be educated (imo) if they are going to be productive members of society. That''s even more important than, say, bridges that won''t collapse -- who is going to design, build and maintain the infrastructure if not educated people? Not to mention do all the other important things that we need to be a civilized society. I think most Americans feel as I do, even if we disagree on how it should all be funded. NEL, you are very consistent in your philosophy/opinion. I admire that, but I would hate to live in a country that you were queen of!

Not directed at NEL -- I don''t agree that just because someone makes a ton of money that they work very hard. Yes, the vast majority of top earners probably work very very hard. So does the average, dare I say it, Joe the Plumber. We can''t all be hard working top earning corporate financiers. Some of us have to be teachers (well, maybe not in NEL''s world!), law enforcement, nurses, etc.

Below is how McCain''s tax plan stacks up with Obama''s. This came from cnnmoney.com but the same chart can be found on a number of sites. My analysis of this is Obama''s plan only becomes significant ''redistribution'' for incomes over $600K. I''m not in that bracket but my friends that are are certainly not looking forward to paying more taxes. But, every single one of them, whether they support Obama or McCain, or calls themselves conservatives or liberals, admits that the reason they are able to earn so much is not just from hard work. They need the other 99% of hardworking earners to buy their products and services. Who are these successful hardworking rich people who managed to amass wealth without having to sell something to the masses?

The genius of the McCain campaign (and probably the whole Republican party) is how they can convince people that are part of the 99% of lower income that they are somehow being threatened by Obama''s tax plan.

BREAKING DOWN THE NUMBERS
Here''s how the average tax bill could change in 2009 if either John McCain''s or Barack Obama''s tax proposals were fully in place.
MCCAIN OBAMA
Income Avg. tax bill Avg. tax bill
Over $2.9M -$269,364 +$701,885
$603K and up -$45,361 +$115,974
$227K-$603K -$7,871 +$12
$161K-$227K -$4,380 -$2,789
$112K-$161K -$2,614 -$2,204
$66K-$112K -$1,009 -$1,290
$38K-$66K -$319 -$1,042
$19K-$38K -$113 -$892
Under $19K -$19 -$567

eta: NEL, it sounds like you are saying (based on post above that I read after I posted) that it''s not the fact that education is publicly funded that you disagree with, it''s any federal funding.

Oh yes we can! The difference is CHOICE. Some people CHOOSE to be plumbers, teachers, nurses or do nothing at all. It is a choice.

 

[neatfreak]

Miranda It might be choice for some people, but it isn''t that easy to just "choose" to make a lot of money if you start out life with a lot of disadvantages... And no, we can''t all be top earners, it just doesn''t work like that in the real world economy.

 

[zhuzhu]

Date: 10/29/2008 9:39:53 PM
Author: NewEnglandLady

Date: 10/29/2008 8:14:46 PM

Just curious, how do you feel taxes enable freedom? And whose freedom, everybody''s?

Where do you think we get our money for the DoD? Last time I checked the US Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines defend all American''s freedom. Maybe you think that the DoD should be privatized. If so, I''m glad we all get just one vote.

Hmm.. I am afraid that I may be barking up on the wrong tree, since you do not even believe education is a right in our society. I suppose that health care is not something you believe people have a right to either?

Correct me if I am wrong, isn''t that extreme libertarian philosophy?

 

[E B]

Date: 10/29/2008 11:37:58 PM
Author: Miranda
Oh yes we can! The difference is CHOICE. Some people CHOOSE to be plumbers, teachers, nurses or do nothing at all. It is a choice.

I completely disagree. Being able to choose what one does is a luxury not everyone is afforded. Those who are truly able to 'choose' generally have access to good (and easily accessible) education, and this isn't the case for many Americans. When, as a child, one is expected to help put food on his or her family's table, what choice does he or she have?

 

[luckystar112]

Yikes.
NEL, I'd move to your country.
I believe she is saying that education is not a guaranteed right (such as the right to bear arms, freedom of press, freedom of religion, etc). It is basically the same problem that a lot of people have with Roe v. Wade (constitutionally speaking). Obviously, for any society to function people need to be educated. She is merely stating her opinion that the federal government has no responsibility to guarantee that we are (nor is it a guaranteed to have a job, or a car, or health care). The 10th amendment states that the powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution are reserved to the states. I believe the DoE was originally established during the industrial revolution when both parents started to work, but its power was limited. Then Carter brought it back in the late '70s with much criticism.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 10/29/2008 8:33:23 PM
Author: neatfreak

Date: 10/29/2008 8:24:28 PM
Author: Dancing Fire

meats ??? how about lobsters with food stamp

Seriously DF, get over the lobsters. Someone on food stamps has a food budget just like ANY of us and can choose to spend it how they wish. Everyone has an example of people abusing food stamps by buying something WE wouldn''t buy. Just because someone buys lots of meat or lobsters doesn''t mean that they then get to buy more of other things. Just like any of us with a budget, they budget their foodstamps the way they deem necessary. Doesn''t mean they don''t need them.

yeah but....mine didn''t come from the taxpayers.

 

[LaraOnline]

Date: 10/28/2008 10:43:00 PM
Author: elledizzy5
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.

I'm just an onlooker, but according to the newspaper report I read on this, apparently the wealthy people Obama is targeting with increased taxes are 5% of the population but already contribute 60 per cent of the total tax take??!

As an Australian, I'm an old hand at the tall poppy syndrome. We run a fantastic line in 'politics of envy' in Aus! Our media constantly refers to the welfare states of Sweden and other Nordic countries as the standards that should be the base level for Australian welfare spending! I'm not sure what Australia's similarities to Sweden might be

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 10/30/2008 12:58:07 AM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 10/29/2008 8:33:23 PM

Author: neatfreak

Date: 10/29/2008 8:24:28 PM

Author: Dancing Fire


meats ??? how about lobsters with food stamp

Seriously DF, get over the lobsters. Someone on food stamps has a food budget just like ANY of us and can choose to spend it how they wish. Everyone has an example of people abusing food stamps by buying something WE wouldn''t buy. Just because someone buys lots of meat or lobsters doesn''t mean that they then get to buy more of other things. Just like any of us with a budget, they budget their foodstamps the way they deem necessary. Doesn''t mean they don''t need them.

yeah but....mine didn''t come from the taxpayers.

Well then DF I sure hope that you are never put in a situation to need anything from the government or the taxpayers.