News Questioning Obama's Critics: Why the Dislike?

[mheslep]

The point was that a potential head of state should not make speeches or other official policy statements about crossing Pakistani borders, which then forces Pakistani officials to publicly react. Pizza/Hamburger stands with a microphone across the way don't qualify as platforms for policy statements. If Obama wins his statements immediately complicate US-Pakistani relations on day one, which is just dumb.

 

[quadraphonics]

If Obama wins his statements immediately complicate US-Pakistani relations on day one, which is just dumb.

Or rather, they would complicate US-Pakistani relations, were it not for the fact that the current administration has already announced that it will cross Pakistan's border, and then proceeded to do exactly that, repeatedly, in the face of armed resistance from Pakistani armed forces. And that McCain would continue the same policy in the first place. Given that, the worst you can say about Obama's remarks is that they will not uncomplicate relations, which is not a very strong criticism. US-Pakistani relations have always been complicated, and nothing that anyone says is going to change that any time soon.

But, hey, don't let that stop you from pretending that it's Obama's statements that have Pakistanis up in arms, and not the actual attacks that the actual President is actually launching on a regular basis. Or that Pakistanis are so stupid that they will not care that McCain explicitly agrees with Obama on this point, as long as he doesn't say it too loudly or too often, or outside of pizza restaurants. And let's not even get into the irony of McCain stating that he'll attack Pakistan in a network TV interview and then going on to condemn Obama for having "announced" the same thing. Especially after aknowledging that Palin just did exactly the same thing.

The Straight Talk Express seems to have taken a detour into Doublespeak Valley, from whence integrity never returns.

 

[mheslep]

Or rather, they would complicate US-Pakistani relations, were it not for the fact that the current administration has already announced that it will cross Pakistan's border, and then proceeded to do exactly that, repeatedly, in the face of armed resistance from Pakistani armed forces. ...

No I think you are mistaken about any public announcement by the current administration of US forces crossing without Pakistani permission. This has allowed to Pakistanis to talk about accidents, flares, etc, and never appear to surrender sovereignty.

 

[mheslep]

Or rather, they would complicate US-Pakistani relations, were it not for the fact that the current administration has already announced that it will cross Pakistan's border, and then proceeded to do exactly that, repeatedly, in the face of armed resistance from Pakistani armed forces. And that McCain would continue the same policy in the first place. Given that, the worst you can say about Obama's remarks is that they will not uncomplicate relations, which is not a very strong criticism. US-Pakistani relations have always been complicated, and nothing that anyone says is going to change that any time soon.

But, hey, don't let that stop you from pretending that it's Obama's statements that have Pakistanis up in arms,

I don't say they that Obama statements have done much of anything, yet. As you concurred above his statements will cause problems should he win.

and not the actual attacks that the actual President is actually launching on a regular basis.

It has happened. You don't know how regular this is any more than I do.

And let's not even get into the irony of McCain stating that he'll attack Pakistan in a network TV interview and then going on to condemn Obama for having "announced" the same thing.

What TV interview stating he'll attack Pakistan? Source?

 

[quadraphonics]

No I think you are mistaken about any public announcement by the current administration of US forces crossing without Pakistani permission. This has allowed to Pakistanis to talk about accidents, flares, etc, and never appear to surrender sovereignty.

Actually, it's true that they didn't announce anything; that was a leak I was thinking of. But, that only worked a few years ago, when they were launching isolated missile strikes (and not apologizing for it then, either). The cat was out of the bag when actual troops started raiding parts of Pakistan; at this point, nothing Bush, McCain or Obama says is going to change anything. Everyone in Pakistan knows what's going on, and they all know that none of the candidates plan to make significant changes in this area.

I would bet you dollars to donuts that Pakistanis still overwhelmingly favor Obama for President of the US. As far as that goes, I'd bet he wins the Pakistani-American vote.

Also, it's not so much 'appear to surrender sovereignty' as much as 'admit that they don't possesses sovereignty in the first place.' The entire application of the term "sovereignty" is academic when it comes to areas that the government does not, and apparently can not, actually control the region in question. Coddling Pakistani insecurity on this point should not be a priority for the President. Pakistan needs to either live up to its responsibilities, or accept that the people who are damaged by their failures are going to do so. The sooner this choice becomes clear to them, the better it will be for everyone (except Al Qaeda, that is).

 

[quadraphonics]

As you concurred above his statements will cause problems should he win.

No, I said they will not alleviate complications (as opposed to actual problems) that already exist. I also said that McCain's position wouldn't be any better in this regard. No amount of statements, or lack of statements, is going to solve any actual problems.

It has happened. You don't know how regular this is any more than I do.

I know that news stories detailing new incursions appear regularly in the media, and that nobody in the Bush administration so much as lifted a finger to dispute the leaked directives to attack Pakistan. What else do you want?

What TV interview stating he'll attack Pakistan? Source?

The interview with Katie Couric linked above. In the first part of the interview they discuss how Palin said she'd attack Pakistan, and that McCain agrees with her, but thinks they shouldn't say this publicly. Apparently CBS Evening News doesn't count as any kind of "official, public" forum. Telling voters that you'll attack Pakistan is also blessed as fine, provided it's not publicized. Apparently McCain thinks Pakistanis are so stupid that they won't object to actual attacks, and stated intentions to continue attacking, as long as they aren't made in televized debates.

 

[LowlyPion]

The point was that a potential head of state should not make speeches or other official policy statements about crossing Pakistani borders, which then forces Pakistani officials to publicly react. Pizza/Hamburger stands with a microphone across the way don't qualify as platforms for policy statements. If Obama wins his statements immediately complicate US-Pakistani relations on day one, which is just dumb.

To a certain extent there is little that Palin can say that should be taken seriously, because her thinking is a bit scattered and not to be taken all that seriously to begin with. The idea of thinking she is capable of directing US policy is laughable even, were it not so frightening that the Nation could actually end up with such a leader making policy. Just as scary I might add is McCain's assessment that she makes a capable National leader.

But as to your supposition that Obama is making policy and Palin is not, that's simply absurd. There is no longer any such distinction to be made once the hats or the pantyhose are in the ring. It's all public record. This kind of double standard, this hypocrisy that these Republicans promoting McCain/Palin would hope to escape judgment by employing, simply indicates that they are unready to be trusted to govern.

 

[LowlyPion]

The Straight Talk Express seems to have taken a detour into Doublespeak Valley, from whence integrity never returns.

It's mired in the mud there.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The point was that a potential head of state should not make speeches or other official policy statements about crossing Pakistani borders, which then forces Pakistani officials to publicly react. Pizza/Hamburger stands with a microphone across the way don't qualify as platforms for policy statements.

She was in front of a news camera making a policy statement as potentially the next vP. But I know this gets confusing. Perhaps it is just another example of her being out of her league.

If Obama wins his statements immediately complicate US-Pakistani relations on day one, which is just dumb.

Really! So then when McCain sang bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran, we should assume that he was speaking as a Beach Boy? And why then would McCain admit that he and Palin agree. He did exactly what he chastized Obama for doing.

Do you rememeber when Reagan said we would begin bombing Moscow in five minutes? Now THAT was a great Republican!

 

[mheslep]

She was in front of a news camera making a policy statement as potentially the next vP. But I know this gets confusing. Perhaps it is just another example of her being out of her league.

No, she was in front of a camera making a statement.

 

[turbo]

McCain does himself a disservice if he ignores states with strong unions. This speech had steel-worker union reps on their feet.

 

[LowlyPion]

McCain does himself a disservice if he ignores states with strong unions. This speech had steel-worker union reps on their feet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QIGJTHdH50

They should have had him speak at the Democratic National Convention.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Obama Tells Tax-Burdened Plumber the Plan is to ‘Spread the Wealth Around’
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=195153

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What is wrong with people who are doing well paying their fair share? Cripes, even Warren Buffet complains that his tax burden is far too low - that he pays a much smaller percentage of his income in taxes, than the people who work for him.

Why the bleeding hearts for the rich?

Obama points out that his plan would take taxes on the wealthy to the same levels that they were under Reagan.

Was Reagan too liberal for today's Republicans?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

What is wrong with people who are doing well paying their fair share? Cripes, even Warren Buffet complains that his tax burden is far too low - that he pays a much smaller percentage of his income in taxes, than the people who work for him.

Why the bleeding hearts for the rich?

Obama points out that his plan would take taxes on the wealthy to the same levels that they were under Reagan.

Was Reagan too liberal for today's Republicans?

Buffet? lol, I think there is quite a difference between him and a small business owner making $250k a year. Hell you could take away 90% of his money and he could still afford to buy a small country.

The Reagan tax cuts
Thanks to “bracket creep,” the inflation of the 1970s pushed millions of taxpayers into higher tax brackets even though their inflation-adjusted incomes were not rising. To help offset this tax increase and also to improve incentives to work, save, and invest, President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).

According to then-U.S. Representative Jack Kemp (R-NY), one of the chief architects of the Reagan tax cuts:

At some point, additional taxes so discourage the activity being taxed, such as working or investing, that they yield less revenue rather than more. There are, after all, two rates that yield the same amount of revenue: high tax rates on low production, or low rates on high production.

http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/wm327.cfm

 

[WarPhalange]

Someone help me with this.

Taxes = revenue.

Lower taxes = higher revenue?

Why Greg, if I didn't know any better, I'd alert you to have yourself banned for spouting crackpot theories.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Someone help me with this.

Taxes = revenue.

Lower taxes = higher revenue?

A famous example of this occurred during the Kennedy administration. The theory is that reduced tax RATES encourage businesses to expand and the end result is higher tax REVENUE.

 

[stewartcs]

What is wrong with people who are doing well paying their fair share?

The problem with taxing those who make more money than others is that it is not fair. It is unfair since they have to pay more taxes. You're essentially being penalized for being successful.

Why should I pay more taxes than my neighbor who has the same freedoms and opportunities that I have, just less ambition and initiative?

CS

 

[WarPhalange]

The problem with taxing those who make more money than others is that it is not fair. It is unfair since they have to pay more taxes. You're essentially being penalized for being successful.

Why should I pay more taxes than my neighbor who has the same freedoms and opportunities that I have, just less ambition and initiative?

CS

Hahahah! Same opportunities. Oh, please.

You're essentially giving back to society for letting you get there in the first place.

 

[WarPhalange]

A famous example of this occurred during the Kennedy administration. The theory is that reduced tax RATES encourage businesses to expand and the end result is higher tax REVENUE.

Is there anything saying businesses can expand indefinitely?

 

[stewartcs]

Hahahah! Same opportunities. Oh, please.

You're essentially giving back to society for letting you get there in the first place.

This comment is nonsensical...it has no basis what so ever.

Society never let me get anywhere...I got where I am on my own.

CS

 

[turbo]

The problem with taxing those who make more money than others is that it is not fair. It is unfair since they have to pay more taxes. You're essentially being penalized for being successful.

Why should I pay more taxes than my neighbor who has the same freedoms and opportunities that I have, just less ambition and initiative?

CS

There are some very smart people who are making money, and there are some absolute dim-wits that are making money because their family connections or insider status has allowed them to game the system. Does anyone here think that if George W Bush had been born to a middle-class family, he would have clawed his way through the ranks to become a millionaire, and eventually the President? Show of hands, please. No? Didn't think so.

The point Buffett and others are making is that the people who are reaping huge financial rewards from our system have a duty to pay their fair share for the maintenance of that system. As long as taxes aren't levied unfairly, there is no inherent bias against the wealthy - they are simply asked to pay their fair share. The activities of our government (including the lobbyist-heavy pork-barrels) are overwhelming skewed to represent the interests of the wealthy and the powerful, so why should a receptionist or a cleaning lady have to pay a disproportionate tax on their income while the wealthy get tax shelters and loopholes?

 

[rootX]

Society never let me get anywhere...I got where I am on my own.
CS

Absolutely wrong!

 

[stewartcs]

There are some very smart people who are making money, and there are some absolute dim-wits that are making money because their family connections or insider status has allowed them to game the system. Does anyone here think that if George W Bush had been born to a middle-class family, he would have clawed his way through the ranks to become a millionaire, and eventually the President? Show of hands, please. No? Didn't think so.

The point Buffett and others are making is that the people who are reaping huge financial rewards from our system have a duty to pay their fair share for the maintenance of that system. As long as taxes aren't levied unfairly, there is no inherent bias against the wealthy - they are simply asked to pay their fair share. The activities of our government (including the lobbyist-heavy pork-barrels) are overwhelming skewed to represent the interests of the wealthy and the powerful, so why should a receptionist or a cleaning lady have to pay a disproportionate tax on their income while the wealthy get tax shelters and loopholes?

Their "fair share" should be the same percentage as everyone else’s - not more. Otherwise, it is disproportionate. If a very small handful of people have abused the system or done something illegal to gain an unfair advantage such that they have gained financially, then there should be another recourse to punish them - like the criminal justice system...not the tax code.

CS

 

[WarPhalange]

This comment is nonsensical...it has no basis what so ever.

Society never let me get anywhere...I got where I am on my own.

CS

You had public schooling, you had public roads, you had firefighters and you had police officers. You had standards for food and water, and standards for medicine.

Did you take out any federal student loans for school?


If your neighbor is a janitor, he does a very important job by cleaning. If there were no janitors, your job would be a lot harder and so would everybody else's. But go ahead and say that he's lazy and unambitious for trying to do his part.

 

[stewartcs]

Absolutely wrong!

Please elaborate since you apparently know my life better than I.

CS

 

[Astronuc]

The problem with taxing those who make more money than others is that it is not fair. It is unfair since they have to pay more taxes. You're essentially being penalized for being successful.

Why should I pay more taxes than my neighbor who has the same freedoms and opportunities that I have, just less ambition and initiative?

CS

Because the more money one has, the more resources one uses, and that naturally means less resources for others.

Steve Forbes and others have proposed a flat tax for everyone, i.e. everyone pays 15% or so. But is that fair. Is it fair for someone making $10,000 per year to pay $1500 in taxes, as compared to someone who makes $1,000,000 and pays $15,000 in taxes. Well if they both want to buy the same $20,000 car - the poor guy cannot afford, but the rich guy can pay cash.

What about health care. Something like cancer treatment or organ replacement might cost $30,000 to $100,000. The rich guy can afford to pay cash, but the poor guy cannot. The rich guy can afford a nice insurance policy at $1000/mo, but the poor guy cannot.

How does the economy ensure that all meet a certain standard of living, or should it?

Should we just provides goods and services based on the ability to pay?

Should we fix the expenditures on health care and do a lottery system, e.g. limit the number of treatments available and then allow patients who need that treatment to draw from a lottery?

Or should the economy (society) simply eliminate the bottom 5, 10, 20% of the population because the other 95%, 90%, 80% decide they don't want to support them?

 

[WarPhalange]

Their "fair share" should be the same percentage as everyone else’s - not more. Otherwise, it is disproportionate. If a very small handful of people have abused the system or done something illegal to gain an unfair advantage such that they have gained financially, then there should be another recourse to punish them - like the criminal justice system...not the tax code.

CS

Yeah, "something illegal". The point is that the system is wishy washy enough that you can never prove something illegal took place or that despicable practices are still legal.

Moreover, a hard tax percentage is down right stupid.

5% of $200 per week is NOT the same as 5% of $2000 per week. Bread costs the same no matter how much or little you make.

For someone making $200/week, $20 is the difference between a meal or starving that day. For someone making $2000/week, $200 is nowhere near crucial. So to say it's "fair" to have both parties pay 5% tax is ludicrous.

 

[stewartcs]

You had public schooling, you had public roads, you had firefighters and you had police officers. You had standards for food and water, and standards for medicine.

All of which could have been provided for with an equal tax burden...so what's your point?

Did you take out any federal student loans for school?

No.

If your neighbor is a janitor, he does a very important job by cleaning. If there were no janitors, your job would be a lot harder and so would everybody else's. But go ahead and say that he's lazy and unambitious for trying to do his part.

Said the man with no initiative.

BTW I used to clean toilets and pick up trash as one of the many jobs I had while paying my way through school.

CS

 

[Astronuc]

BTW I used to clean toilets and pick up trash as one of the many jobs I had while paying my way through school.

CS

Me too. I had a night job as a janitor, and during the day I washed dishes (lunch and dinner, and breakfast on weekends) in the food service at the university. The food service job got my room and board paid, and the janitorial job paid the tuition and books. I also worked part-time as an assistant plumber.

I didn't take loans because I didn't want to go into debt before I had a permanent job.

Later years, I found better paying construction jobs, so I could work summer and earn enough to pay for school and rent an apartment.

My parents couldn't afford to pay for my university, partly because I had younger siblings. But I was able to earn enough to help my parents support my siblings when they went to school - and I was glad to help.

 

[stewartcs]

Because the more money one has, the more resources one uses, and that naturally means less resources for others.

How exactly does one use more resources simply because one makes more money?

Steve Forbes and others have proposed a flat tax for everyone, i.e. everyone pays 15% or so. But is that fair. Is it fair for someone making $10,000 per year to pay $1500 in taxes, as compared to someone who makes $1,000,000 and pays $15,000 in taxes. Well if they both want to buy the same $20,000 car - the poor guy cannot afford, but the rich guy can pay cash.

The guy making $10,000/year shouldn't be buying the same car as the guy making $1,000,000.

What about health care. Something like cancer treatment or organ replacement might cost $30,000 to $100,000. The rich guy can afford to pay cash, but the poor guy cannot. The rich guy can afford a nice insurance policy at $1000/mo, but the poor guy cannot.

That's why it's called insurance. Everyone pays a little into the system (proportionately) and in the event that one needs it insurance covers it. Everyone will not have cancer or need an organ replacement.

How does the economy ensure that all meet a certain standard of living, or should it?

Again, your assumption is that those who make more money use more of the infrastructure.

Should we just provides goods and services based on the ability to pay?

Should we fix the expenditures on health care and do a lottery system, e.g. limit the number of treatments available and then allow patients who need that treatment to draw from a lottery?

Or should the economy (society) simply eliminate the bottom 5, 10, 20% of the population because the other 95%, 90%, 80% decide they don't want to support them?

Let’s say that half of the people in the US decided not to work anymore and therefore did not contribute to the system. Under your ideals, they would be able to benefit from the other 50% of the people who chose to work. Is that fair?

If so, then what if the other 50% said to hell with it and decided not to work too? How would that system work?

CS

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

In life there will always be "winners" and "losers". As long as everyone has access to food, shelter, education and healthcare I don't see the problem.

 

[WarPhalange]

All of which could have been provided for with an equal tax burden...so what's your point?

It could have been provided with an equal tax burden, except for the part where poor people can't afford food.

BTW I used to clean toilets and pick up trash as one of the many jobs I had while paying my way through school.

CS

So you were lazy and had no initiative until someone handed you your degree? That's fascinating.

 

[WarPhalange]

In life there will always be "winners" and "losers". As long as everyone has access to food, shelter, education and healthcare I don't see the problem.

So you're okay with scaled taxation?

 

[rootX]

Please elaborate since you apparently know my life better than I.

CS

I think you should have worded it differently. Overall, You are essentially talking about efficieny and equality and you are right in that. But, that statement is meaningless. Without society, you wouldn't be even here. If you worked, those jobs were provided by the society. You cannot go anywhere without that society. In some countries, if your parents are poor that means you and all your children would be poor.

 

[Astronuc]

How exactly does one use more resources simply because one makes more money?

Bigger houses - which require more materials and energy. Bigger cars. More travel.

With respect to disproportionate - wages are disproportionate. Why not pay everyone the same rate, and let everyone do whatever job they want. I think a CEO making 100, 200 or 300 times the lowest paid person is ridiculous. CEO's are risking their money, they use other people's capital - e.g. Richard Fuld at Lehman Brothers who earned nearly $500 million over the last 8 years.

Let’s say that half of the people in the US decided not to work anymore and therefore did not contribute to the system. Under your ideals, they would be able to benefit from the other 50% of the people who chose to work. Is that fair?

If so, then what if the other 50% said to hell with it and decided not to work too? How would that system work?

I don't think that would ever be the case. People who don't want to work should not receive support for doing nothing. Anyone who can work needs to be working a minimum amount.

BTW - I think the system needs to be fairer. I'm just trying to find a consensus on fairness. What is fair?

 

[stewartcs]

Yeah, "something illegal". The point is that the system is wishy washy enough that you can never prove something illegal took place or that despicable practices are still legal.

Not true.

Moreover, a hard tax percentage is down right stupid.

Why?

5% of $200 per week is NOT the same as 5% of $2000 per week. Bread costs the same no matter how much or little you make.

For someone making $200/week, $20 is the difference between a meal or starving that day. For someone making $2000/week, $200 is nowhere near crucial. So to say it's "fair" to have both parties pay 5% tax is ludicrous.

5% is 5%. That's why it is fair.

Bread is subsidized to those less fortunate by way of welfare programs for those who REALLY need it.

I grew up in a family of 5 with only one income of my grandfather who sold used cars for a living. We never missed a meal, or had government assistance. We did miss out on vacations, video games, designer clothes, etc.

CS

 

[Astronuc]

In life there will always be "winners" and "losers". As long as everyone has access to food, shelter, education and healthcare I don't see the problem.

That's true - but the problem is - who pays the bill for education and healthcare?

The big crisis still looming in Medicare. The economy just is not generating the resources to pay for the medical care of the baby boom generation. And social security won't provide much. BTW - I don't plan on taking SS - nor do I plan on retiring. I'd just as pass along my SS to my kids' SS accounts.

 

[stewartcs]

So you were lazy and had no initiative until someone handed you your degree? That's fascinating.

That makes absolutely no since. If anything it proved that I had initiative and wasn't lazy since I was trying to advance my career to something I wanted by getting a degree.

If I am happy with cleaning toilets and collecting trash, then my goals are simply different. You are imply that everyone has the same goals...they do not. If the guy cleaning toilets and picking up trash wants to have the same things in life that I want, he needs to earn them, not get them at someone else’s expense.

CS

 

[stewartcs]

I think you should have worded it differently. Overall, You are essentially talking about efficieny and equality and you are right in that. But, that statement is meaningless. Without society, you wouldn't be even here. If you worked, those jobs were provided by the society. You cannot go anywhere without that society. In some countries, if your parents are poor that means you and all your children would be poor.

So without society I would not exist?

I don't see what society's role in providing jobs has to do with everyone in the society being taxed equally?

I don't live in some countries, I live in the US. As such my perceptions and comments are directed toward the US economy.

CS

 

[CaptainQuasar]

The problem with taxing those who make more money than others is that it is not fair. It is unfair since they have to pay more taxes. You're essentially being penalized for being successful.

I think it's pretty cavalier to off-the-cuff say that's unfair. Wealthier people usually acquire proportionally greater benefit from the government and government action than do less wealthy people.

If you own a company that has a fleet of freight trucks you are benefiting substantially more from the federal highway system and state and municipal road maintenance than is the person who simply drives to work every day - or even than a trucker. Or, if you're someone who has ten million or a hundred million dollars in investments and business equity, you're benefiting much more in absolute dollar terms from the recent government stabilization and management of the financial system, compared to someone with 100k in investments and a mortgage of a few hundred thousand.

In fact it seems to me that often people who are wealthier and/or conservatives are most resentful when some government or political measure really, actually benefits everyone fairly evenly and their greater wealth doesn't garner them proportionally greater benefits.

⚛​

 

[turbo]

5% is 5%. That's why it is fair.

A flat tax is regressive because poorer people have less disposable income, and have little room to establish a cushion of savings for emergencies (water heater crapped out, furnace blower died, etc). People making higher incomes should pay higher percentages to support the system under which they are profiting. It's only fair.

I grew up in a family of 6 with one wage-earner making barely over minimum wage. From the age of 14, I worked full-time every summer, and took every handy-man job I could during school breaks so that I could pay for college. I got no financial aid for college, and I supplemented my full-time summer jobs by buying and selling musical instruments, and playing frat parties and such on weekends. I never had enough money at the first of the school year to cover costs, so I scrambled to cover food and other expenses throughout the year. Later on, I worked my way into some pretty good jobs, and I never begrudged the government a cent of my taxes, especially when I maxed out on my SS contributions for year after year. I worked my tail off, but I never could have achieved the financial successes without the existence of a well-maintained infrastructure and a secure financial system, and for that I am grateful. I don't mind paying my fair share to maintain it, even now that I am disabled.

 

[stewartcs]

Bigger houses - which require more materials and energy. Bigger cars. More travel.

True, but the government isn't paying my power or gas bill...I am from my earnings...not my neighbors. The more I use, the more I pay.

With respect to disproportionate - wages are disproportionate. Why not pay everyone the same rate, and let everyone do whatever job they want. I think a CEO making 100, 200 or 300 times the lowest paid person is ridiculous. CEO's are risking their money, they use other people's capital - e.g. Richard Fuld at Lehman Brothers who earned nearly $500 million over the last 8 years.

Because different jobs involve different factors such as risk, education, skill, etc. If everyone were paid the same there would be no (or at least less) initiative to advance one's self, let alone society.

I don't think that would ever be the case. People who don't want to work should not receive support for doing nothing. Anyone who can work needs to be working a minimum amount.

I don't either. However, this is fundamentally no different than someone who is working less and receiving more from those who are working more. It is just the extreme case where one is not making any contribution to the system.

BTW - I think the system needs to be fairer. I'm just trying to find a consensus on fairness. What is fair?

I agree that it needs to be fairer. Fairness is equality among everyone. Unfortunately, there are subjective views as to what is really "fair" in a society so it is unlikely that anyone will ever come up with a truly fair system.

CS

 

[stewartcs]

I think it's pretty cavalier to off-the-cuff say that's unfair. Wealthier people usually acquire proportionally greater benefit from the government and government action than do less wealthy people.

If you own a company that has a fleet of freight trucks you are benefiting substantially more from the federal highway system and state and municipal road maintenance than is the person who simply drives to work every day - or even than a trucker. Or, if you're someone who has ten million or a hundred million dollars in investments and business equity, you're benefiting much more in absolute dollar terms from the recent government stabilization and management of the financial system, compared to someone with 100k in investments and a mortgage of a few hundred thousand.

In fact it seems to me that often people who are wealthier and/or conservatives are most resentful when some government or political measure really, actually benefits everyone fairly evenly and their greater wealth doesn't garner them proportionally greater benefits.

⚛​

What about the guy driving the truck? Is he not benefiting directly by having a job which is being provided by the owner of said trucking company? What about the extra licensing fees the owner pays for the truck? This is all built into the system already. If this causes a disproportionate advantage, the licensing fees or whatever should be increased to compensate for it.

BTW, I just realized some of you might not have realized I'm talking about personal income tax burdens being fair here.

CS

 

[stewartcs]

A flat tax is regressive because poorer people have less disposable income, and have little room to establish a cushion of savings for emergencies (water heater crapped out, furnace blower died, etc). People making higher incomes should pay higher percentages to support the system under which they are profiting. It's only fair.

Fair to whom? The poor people yes. Do you think it is fair for the top tax bracket to be ~40%?

I grew up in a family of 6 with one wage-earner making barely over minimum wage. From the age of 14, I worked full-time every summer, and took every handy-man job I could during school breaks so that I could pay for college. I got no financial aid for college, and I supplemented my full-time summer jobs by buying and selling musical instruments, and playing frat parties and such on weekends. I never had enough money at the first of the school year to cover costs, so I scrambled to cover food and other expenses throughout the year. Later on, I worked my way into some pretty good jobs, and I never begrudged the government a cent of my taxes, especially when I maxed out on my SS contributions for year after year. I worked my tail off, but I never could have achieved the financial successes without the existence of a well-maintained infrastructure and a secure financial system, and for that I am grateful. I don't mind paying my fair share to maintain it, even now that I am disabled.

The system will still have resources to help those less fortunate. I'm not saying that government programs should be wiped out. I'm saying each individual should be paying the same tax rate. There will still be money in the system for those who need it since everyone will still be paying taxes. The only thing that will change is all of the frivolous government spending on programs that don't work or are not needed.

CS

 

[Evo]

Stewartcs, you do know that you don't pay Social Security on wages earned above $102,000.00 annually? That means anyone making above that gets an extra 6.2% savings. And it's only that high for 2008, it's been lower every past year. Ten years ago you didn't pay Social Security on income over $68,400.00. I always reached my cap early in the year and then my net pay shot up.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/cbb.html

People that make a lot of money also have ways of finding tax shelters that the poor can't. I used to make over $250,000.00 annually, I don't anymore, but my ex and his new wife still make over that amount *each* and I pay more taxes than they do individually. So don't tell me the rich pay more, they don't.

 

[stewartcs]

Stewartcs, you do know that you don't pay Social Security on wages earned above $102,000.00 annually? That means anyone making above that gets an extra 6.2% savings. And it's only that high for 2008, it's been lower every past year. Ten years ago you didn't pay Social Security on income over $68,400.00. I always reached my cap early in the year and then my net pay shot up.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/cbb.html

Yes, I'm aware of that. However, it is not a tax break for the wealthy. The reason there is a cap each year is due to the maximum benefit that can be paid out (currently $2,185 per month) under OASDI. Those who do not contribute after the cap each year will not get any additional benefit (assuming SS even exists in the future) when they retire.

People that make a lot of money also have ways of finding tax shelters that the poor can't. I used to make over $250,000.00 annually, I don't anymore, but my ex and his new wife still make over that amount *each* and I pay more taxes than they do individually. So don't tell me the rich pay more, they don't.

This is true in a few cases, but certainly not for all. Regardless, this is just another problem in the tax code that needs to be fixed, not just repaired by shifting the tax burden around. Furthermore it does not address the central issue of fairness. Instead of allowing the "rich" people to exploit the tax code by using whatever loop-holes may or may not exist and then taxing them more to equalize it, why not just get rid of the loop-holes and tax everyone the same rate? How would that not be fair?

BTW I'm not sure what constitutes being rich but I'd appreciate any information you have on tax shelters! I've certainly not found any!

CS

 

[Evo]

I would love to get rid of the tax loop holes, and that's another issue that's been on the table. I can charge you for information on tax shelters, but believe me, with all of my savvy investments, you're better off on your own! (I have a lovely executive home on an acre of land for sale)

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Instead of allowing the "rich" people to exploit the tax code by using whatever loop-holes may or may not exist and then taxing them more to equalize it, why not just get rid of the loop-holes and tax everyone the same rate? How would that not be fair?

I'm not certain if this is a point you're specifically opposing, but I think that a progressive tax scale is fair too, because I think people at a significantly higher income level actually do benefit proportionally more from government activities.

I saw a clip today of a guy who came up to Obama and said "I'm thinking of buying a business that makes around $260,000, or more like $300,000, well say $280,000 or $270,000. So under your tax plan I'd pay more?" And I was thinking, jeez buddy, you make so much you're having trouble pinning down your own income within a forty thousand dollar range and you're complaining about having to pay a smidgeon more? (Under the http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=411749" for Obama his tax bracket would pay an average of $121 more, if I'm reading that correctly on page 30.)

[EDIT] Or, looking at that more closely, compared to the Bush tax cuts being made permanent, the average for his bracket with income of from $250K-$650K yearly would pay around $6K more per year. I assume that he'd be a good bit lower than that average but even $6K is well lower than the margin of error of his own estimate of his income.

⚛​

 

[OmCheeto]

I would love to get rid of the tax loop holes, and that's another issue that's been on the table. I can charge you for information on tax shelters, but believe me, with all of my savvy investments, you're better off on your own! (I have a lovely executive home on an acre of land for sale)

My how these threads cross over and over into one another...

Didn't I just explain why tax loopholes are good the other day?

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1912129&postcount=533
Bill and his family are the US economy!

and on another thread I stated my opinion on what we should do with the top "25%" companies. I know it was quite a commie post, but really, what are we talking about?

power corrupts.

money is power.

money has corrupted or society for a few years now.

time to push the reset button.