I think I'm more on the side of McCain. BUT
I would like to here your opinion on a couple of issues that would push me back more towards Obama.
Please don't respond by smashing the other candidate. I only want to hear positive comments about your party. I don't know much about politics and I'm slowly learning and I hope this will help me understand a couple things.
Question 1: If the Democratic view for taxes and economy come from taxing more the rich and giving more to the poor (redistribution of wealth) this would fall more in line to Christian beliefs of helping everyone who is poor.
So, what is considered poor?
In 2007, 37.3 million people were in poverty (12.5%)
Poverty for a family of 4 (2 kids) is $21,027
I heard that there as a movement to have a drug screen for those on welfare yet it was turned down. Isn't that a bit odd?
Under a republican government like under Bush isn't taxes tiered right now? The more you make the more you get taxed. So under Obama the rich would be taxed even more? So like under Bush it wasn't taxed enough? I'm all for tax cuts but someone has to to pay taxes to fix and build stuff.
If democrats had their way, would they want everyone under a certain $ amount pay very little and tax the heck out of everyone above that $ line. If that were the case, wouldn't it curb business and make businesses not grow? More like a socialist government where it would deter people from "wanting" to make more because there is no benefit if money was removed.
I'm really hoping for a flat rate tax or national sales tax. If you have money to spend get taxed. I doubt it would curb spending for those already spending money. Too bad I doubt this will every happen. If it did, I think donations and tithes would go way up (or not?)
---------
Update: oct 30
Good points. I lean in favor of redistribution of wealth even thought I side more to Republicans views.
I did see this though
Tax Foundation.org
Reading some tax data from 2006 it says
top 5% of the who pay taxes pay 59.82% of the nations taxes.
I'm not sure what middle class falls under but my guess would be the top 25% down to the bottom 25% which would be 50% of the total income. Top 25% being wealthy and bottom 25% being poor.
if the top 5% money earners pay ~60% and also the top 25% earners pay 86%...
That leaves the left over 0%-75% only pay 14% of the total taxes for 2006?
Your telling me that 25% of the wealthy pay 86% of all of our taxes. Please correct me if I'm wrong but that seems like a redistribution of wealth to me. Am I not looking at something right?
This is under Bush Administration:
Bottom line in 2006
top 25% money earner pay 86%
while
bottom 50% money earners pay 3%!!!!!!
Half of the nation pays 3% of the total and they are supposed to vastly outnumber the rich in numbers. 3%!
In an ideal redistribution of wealth. Should the top 25% pay 95% and the bottom 50% pay 0% leaving the 50% to 75% money earners to pay the last 5%?
Sorry for the numbers but I'm just shocked that even though I knew the rich were few yet controlled the majority of the money I didn't realize they pay that % in the total of taxes taken in.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Hey Law. It's funny that you brought this up. I made a recent blog entry that talks a little about this very subject. I have been extremely interested in politics for last year and have been following it very closely. I do my best to cut through any biased media coverage and make it a point to do the requisite research into the hard facts of the matter. I feel it is my responsibility as a voter to be as well informed as possible. Now I should preface this by saying I don't consider myself a staunch member of either party, but I realize that my views often align more closely to one.
Now there are a lot of issues in play, but you mentioned taxes so I'll stick to that here.
A lot has been made recently about Obama's proposed tax plan. The general idea being those whose annual family income is $250,000 ($200,000 for singles) and over will have a slight increase. McCain alleges this will stunt growth for 23 million small business owners. In fact, most of those small business actually would fall under the category that allows them to receive a tax cut under Obama's plan. Only a hand full of the most affluent would see their rates go up.
Obama's driving theme for his tax policy is that we should "spread the wealth." To which McCain accuses as socialism. Now this is a real big sticking point of me. Socialism as an economic philosophy is VERY broad. I feel it's very dangerous to take sound bytes from someone and label them with the weight of an entire belief system.
The reality of today's America is that it's not the wealthy that are struggling. Some of those people argue "I worked hard for my money. I deserve to keep it." Now my personal belief is that wealth doesn't always equate to hard work. Furthermore, hording your own wealth and looking the other way while others struggle and starve is simply selfishness.
You can take a Christian point of view on it. Christianity teaches that we are to help those most in need. We are encouraged to give of ourselves for the sake of our fellow human being. This sure sounds like "spreading the wealth" to me.
The other day I came across someone's comment that perfectly expressed how a felt about this issue. Here it is.
"I believe that we should use our country's resources with profound respect and accountability. I also believed that a truly functional society requires that people take care of each other. All taxes spread the wealth around. The current administration did a massive redistribution by raising taxes on the middle class while lowering taxes on the wealthy, which contributed to the economic mess we're in. The "trickle down theory" has failed twice, spectacularly. The middle class is worse off by far now than 8 years ago. Obama's tax plan is breathtakingly simple: the wealthy will pay an additional 3% on taxable income over $250,000. (No change for taxable income below $250K.) The middle class will receive a necessary tax break with which to regain their financial footing. I aspire to be among the wealthy someday. I will not quibble about paying more if I ever break through that $250K level. I want to live in a society that values the health and fiscal well-being of all citizens."
Now my opinion of McCain is that he is an incredibly courageous and respect worthy man. No one can deny his love of country and few can claim to be as devoted. Even so, I have come to the ultimate conclusion that he is not the right person to serve as our next president.
Here are some of my favorite resources.
-88.7 National Public Radio
-NPR.org
-factcheck.org
If you want to know my take on any specific issues, please feel free to ask. You know where to find me.
This does make sense. Additional 3% isn't going to break the bank. And those who are close to that threshold (the few that are) will have the decision to reduce their income to avoid the extra tax.
This is one of the bigger issues I am interested in and I feel I agree with Obama. Only thing is, I haven't really done my homework to how McCain will handle it.
3% extra tax isn't exactly a redistribution of wealth in my eyes. I can't see how that will pay the kick backs to the middle class to the millions who qualify.
But yes, I do agree to help the poor. And I am trying harder to look past who is deserving and who isn't. It's not my right to say who deserves help and that has been a large hurdle for me. To give without restrictions. Just chaps me bad to see someone burn money that was freely given to them.
People who are historically bad with money will not learn if more money is thrown at them.
EX: I heard that a person who got on extreme home makeover got their house fixed and paid for. Something like $400k for the house. Instead of building their life and moving forward I believe their was gambling involved and there was a loan taken out against the house and now the house had to be sold.
Like if someone has a gambling problem but is poor due to it, should I care what they do with their government funding? In the end, NO. It was NOT my money to begin with and it is something I am working to change in my thinking ASAP.
I've learned more about politics in the last month than I have cared to learn in the last 10 years.
Just had to drop in the info I have been verbally passing to you as of lately. The tax rates on all brackets which cover the poor to rich are lower now than they were under Clinton. There has actually been a tax bracket added to help out even more so some people wouldn't get slammed into a higher tax bracket as quickly. The basic theory behind this has always been if you let the people have more money they should spend more and it would create more economy. That is where the problem came in though. The supposed middle class people have not been wise enough to spend properly and have over spent going to the point of getting into massive credit debt. While they were ignorantly doing this the "rich" people were taking there tax cuts and putting it back into creating more business.
This whole process would have worked very well if it wasn't for the greediness of a large mass of people who had more want on their minds than will to work and pay for that want in their body. So now they have screwed themselves and the need someone to blame because taking credit for their own faults is not something they wish to do. So they look for someone to blame. How about the people poorer than them? No, that want work, you cannot take from someone who has nothing. Oh, the "rich", lets focus on them. While everyone else was busy chasing the new founded and bloated American dream of a 4,000 square foot house, 2 SUV's, and the most modern of everything they could find and purchase on credit, these "rich" people were handling there business. They know how to make money, and granted it might not be considered back breaking hard work, using one's mind to advance they situation has been the quickest way to move up in this world. But the people who wasted their cuts and then some don't want to see it this way because that would make them look dumb, and the rich people smart. So they have to resort to playing the "that's not fair" card. It basically comes down to responsibility.
Now the indirect way these greedy people have hurt the economy and sent it into a downward spiral is with the whole credit thing. They kept buying and buying and buying on credit. And finally, when all this caught up with them and there were no funds to pay for this stuff what happens? These companies who trusted them with being able to do something as simple as balance a check book are getting stiffed out of their money. The other downside to this is that the companies who were selling all the goods and services to these credit users had to increase labor forces buy supplies everything it took to keep up with the demand. Now all of the sudden that demand is gone. Those companies have to do what it takes to stay in business so, plants are closed, people are laid off, benefits are cut which guess what, hurts the economy even more. I could go into much more depth on this but I'm keeping it very simple because if someone can't grasp that, well they just don't understand the beast that is economics. In a sense it works like an ecosystem where everything effects everything else.
Small business are important, but more so as a poster for what is possible in America, to own your own business and work for yourself. But it has never and will never propel the economy like big business. Big business and corporations are responsible for creating all the jobs and economy for America. Without them, we would be just another third world country. Granted some people have taken advantage of their positions at these places, but since media only wants to report about the few screw ups, that is of course all you will hear about.
The trickle down method does work in theory, but it fails for the reason i gave above. You cannot trust people who are not good with money to take care of themselves. Not all of them are bad, just most Americans now have a sense of entitlement and expect to have what everyone else has right then , right there without actually earning. We are guaranteed the pursuit of happiness, no other nation even gives this to it's people. But even with that it's a pursuit, not a signed sealed hand delivered package of perfection. You have to work for it, and everyone is given that chance.
Now as far as your Christian beliefs I will say i applaud you on the steps you have taken to the faith you have attained. I understand your desire to help the less fortunate. This is an admirable quality. But using the government to FORCE people to do this is not right by any means. I believe this should always be done on a personal level, and in doing so would always be more rewarding anyways. I will always feel better about giving some money to a person i know who can't buy their own lunch than having the government take the money from me and have it stripped level by level to the point that when the person who needs it gets it, it's way less than I gave to begin with.
As you know i can go on forever with this stuff, I need a break for now haha.
I agree with some of your fundamental points there. I don't think 3% isn't the fix all answer to the economic problems but it sure isn't going to hurt. If the wealthy can spare it, they should.
And about personal accountability, I agree there are many individuals who have dug themselves into holes by living well out of their means. Their poor choices are definitely a factor in our current economic predicament. By the same token, I won't let Big Business off the hook either. There are many who have built their wealth by exploiting others. Predatory lending practices is an example of that. So there are plenty of screw ups and plenty of blame to go around.
We need big business. We need small business. We need a strong middle class. Everyone can agree on that. It's just the approach that we have trouble agreeing on. You're right about how the trickle down theory works only in theory. We've seen that thinking fail in practice in these recent years. The wealthy are still wealthy and everyone else is struggling. So what are we to do about it? Why would we be so much worse off if we tried something else?
I don't intend on demonizing the wealthy. There are many hard-working good people who find themselves living comfortable lives. I am always encouraged when I see philanthropic efforts from those in that category.
I also agree that government should not force people among the wealthy to take care of the poor. Ideally, everyone should be compelled to do more than their fair part. 3% isn't breaking the bank and there's plenty of room to be charitable on a personal level.
great posts all around. love the civil nature of it.
so I think the morale of the story is that, like in the movie idiocracy, is that the majority of the people are stupid with money.
Why we don't teach this in every level of education to the fact that paying the minimum balance on a credit card is NOT paying it off is beyond me.
Watching this dumb MTV show BFF with Paris Hilton and this dumb friend goes "I'm not a rocket surgeon".
I agree whole completely with the shady lending practices. That was greedy people taking advantage of others who trusted someone else to not put them in a bad situation. I just wish that they would start a class in high school so that people could learn about basic fundamentals of handling money. Because this would be more helpful than any science or english class. People these days are just really bad with money.
Now I guess I can jump to the problems i see with taxing the rich higher. Rich people generally get rich from making smart business decisions. Even if they inherited this money, if they are smart they will remain rich and continue to get richer, if not well, they end up on the news for everyone to laugh at for being foolish and getting a picture taken of them getting out of a car with no underwear on. But back to the point, they like being rich so they for the most part funnel their money back into their core business or other ventures. Which in turn creates more jobs. More jobs is always better, everyone can agree to this. More jobs equals more money going to more people who are putting more back into the economy. What slows down that economy, well the lack of flowing money. Without a doubt, if the rich are taxed considerably higher it will lower the amount they can put back into their business. This not only cuts the amount of money they make which in turns lessons the amount of taxes the will pay creating a burden. It also stunts growth. A business that isn't constantly growing is almost a dying business. This kind of stuff scares me. I know I will never have the capital or drive to start a business of my own. I rely on these places to create my job. Hurting them hurts me. But I do think they should be held to a high standard, we don't need any more Enron type disasters.
So now it's plain to see we have cut into these people's profits so what happens to someone who is used to getting a certain amount of money and now loses it? They'll find other ways to make that money up. It could be by cutting a work force to increase profits which means a loss of jobs. They could also slice benefits from employees. Another method would be to increase the charge for the goods or services they provide. Well if they start doing this, other companies will follow suit. SO basically we have this huge inflation avalanche started. This is already happening with other things. The easiest one to point out is the minimum wage increases.
The reason we used to get foods and basic goods for cheap was due to a lower minimum wage. Now that it has increased the stores don't want to lose their profit so they pass on the cost to the consumer. I will say that the increased fuel prices have had a major play in this as well since almost everything you buy was delivered to the store by a truck, and those bad boys eat some fuel. And no we don't have time for an energy discussion haha.
It all goes back to my calling the economy more of an ecosystem than anything. You cannot change one thing without it eventually changing another. Pay me more, but eventually everything I buy cost more so what has changed? Am I any better off? I hear a lot about the middle class struggling. Most of the people I know are in the middle class, and the only ones i see struggling are the ones living beyond their means. Granted there are things you can't take into account like medical issues and layoffs. The medical you can't blame on anyone, but the layoffs could be traced back to something for sure. I think if people didn't have to have instant gratification so much we would all be better off.
So overall I see this as a risky method that has not been proven before. I think if we cleaned up the current system it would work, too many elements were left unchecked and it hurt the economy as a whole. I need to do a little more research so I can find exact info, but I do know that a certain president(not the current) signed legislation either allowing or almost forcing banks to give loans to people that they normally wouldn't have. This is without one of the major sources of our economic problems but until I can source it I won't go into detail.
I am glad to see everyone paying attention now. Just be wise, learn how to read through the medias lies. It's almost hilarious when I read a headline for an article that says something almost unbelievable, but if you actually read the whole thing you can tell that led with that only to grab people's attention. Problem is, most people only read headlines, they are becoming lazy.
I agree. This has been a great discussion. Nice job everyone.
Ok...here's my problem with the obama tax cut. My husband and I will make above the $250K combined and we surely are not wealthy. We live in a 1600sq ft home and really cannot afford to take on a bigger mortgage. Why? Because Obama's plan does not factor in the student loans our household incurred to go through college and grad school which amass to over 165K. If his plan is to redistribute wealth, he should net our income with our school liabilities. Otherwise, we are not welthy and do not appreciate to be taxed to death.
michelle m. you obviously either didn't read Obama's tax plan or you just don't understand taxes. You said you & your husband will make over $250K COMBINED. The keyword is COMBINED. Even if you file jointly, individually you still make less than $250K and will not be affected by his tax increase. Also his increase is not 10%, not even 5% it's only up to 3%.
Post a Comment