|
|
Topic started on 13-10-2008 @ 01:41 PM by ferretman2
|
                
www.breitbart.tv...
Obama: "It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody that is behind you, that they have a chance for
success too."
Obama is on record now that he wants to redistribute wealth. Take from the people who have worked hard to be successful and give it to others who have
refused to help themselves to a better life.
How can Obama provide tax cuts to 95% of Americans when 35-40% don't pay taxes? Those 'Non-tax' paying individuals will get a free hand-out.....if
that's not welfare then was is?
[edit on 13-10-2008 by ferretman2]
|
copyright & usage
|
Click here for more Breaking Political News topics
Hot Topics
|
Top Topics
|
This Week
|
Subscribe
|
Home
|
reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 01:48 PM by nyk537
|
     
The entire tax proposal is a disaster of massive proportions.
Anyone who didn't realize this was redistribution was kidding themselves.
Take into account the amount who don't currently pay taxes, factor in the increase tax rates on small businesses (which account for 75% of new jobs)
and it's just a mess.
Obama has also came out today and proposed a tax credit to small businesses that create new jobs (temporary). So this is basically a tax-cut on your
tax-increase!
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 01:59 PM by ExistenceUnknown
|
          
Both parties will tax the snot of us. One will tax you up front, the other will tax you down the road. Either way we will have higher taxes.
Republicrats: 2 sides of the same coin.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 05:54 PM by daddyroo45
|
  
It's not welfare,it's socialism pure and simple.What do you get when you place under achievers at the same economic level with the achievers?
You get apathy from the achievers.Why strive harder and gain nothing? This socialist left wing adgenda today has made part of the public economic
slaves and the other part tax cripples.
Redistribution of wealth will be the final nail in the coffin of the free enterprise system. Imo that is.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 06:02 PM by Shugo
|
I honestly thing the whole "I'll do this with our taxes" should be stripped from both parties campaign all together. There's nothing that either
one of them can or will do as far as taxes go that will make our situation any better. While I find it important to know what they yhink they're
going to do...that much should've been made clear now. The whole argument with "I'm going to ensure tax breaks to so and so, and no rises here..."
or "I'm going to tax cut" and the like, it's all moot right now as far as I'm concerned.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 08:10 PM by Jemison
|
            
Anyone who doesn't have a problem with this shouldn't be allowed to vote. Yes, I know that's an extreme statement to make, but there is nothing
'good' or 'right' about the goverment redistributing wealth. It is wrong on so many levels.
How anyone in their right mind can vote for Obama is beyond me.
Jemison
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 14-10-2008 @ 04:51 AM by GamerGal
|
reply to post by nyk537
Uh, Obama has called for a TWO years tax break on small companies. So how is he raising them on the small businesses again? Know your facts, don't
get them from Fox News or blogs.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 14-10-2008 @ 07:15 AM by nyk537
|
       
Here is how he is raising them.
What Obama has called for is a two year tax credit for each new employee hired. Now, taking into consideration that Obama has openly admitted he will
tax business that earn $250,000 or more into oblivion (by the way, he has never specified whether this is gross, net, inventory, etc.), what is a
businesses motivation to grow and hire more employees? Wouldn’t it now be in a companies best interest to stay small and not create new jobs? The
salary you’ll be paying a new employee, added with the increase in virtually every tax a company has to pay, does not equal out to a $3,000 dollar
tax credit.
What Obama is doing here is trying to play the class envy card (yet again) and make anyone who earns over a set amount out to be the enemy.
As I’ve said before, Obama talks a lot about the American Dream and how he wants to help us all achieve it. Apparently though, the American Dream
only goes up to $250,000 a year. After that, you’re part of the problem.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 14-10-2008 @ 08:26 AM by jtma508
|
 
There is so much 'not in my back yard' mentality flying around. We've had a $10B a month spending spree thanks to the wars in the ME; $2.4T for
the War on Terror by 2017; the bail-out package whose real number is elusive, but for the sake of discussion let's say $1.5T; $25B to the
automakers... you get the idea. We're spending a phenomenal amount of money above and beyond the 'normal' day-to-day business of the country.
Unprecedented is a good word.
So who is going to pay for all this?
Two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005, according to a new report from Congress. Collectively, the
companies reported trillions of dollars in sales, according to GAO's estimate.
More than 38,000 foreign corporations had no tax liability in 2005 and 1.2 million U.S. companies paid no income tax, the GAO said. Combined, the
companies had $2.5 trillion in sales. About 25 percent of the U.S. corporations not paying corporate taxes were considered large corporations, meaning
they had at least $250 million in assets or $50 million in receipts.
Apparently not businesses.
The 'transfer of wealth' argument is convenient to say the least. There has been an ongoing and accelerating transfer of wealth from the lower
economic cohorts to the highest for many years:
The gaps in wealth between the rich and the poor and between whites and minorities have grown wider, the Federal Reserve said Wednesday in a
closely watched report that also showed a broad increase in stock ownership in the USA.
The difference in median net wealth between the 10% of families with the highest incomes and the 20% of families with the lowest incomes jumped 70%
from 1998 through 2001, the Fed said in its consumer finances report, which it conducts every three years. The gap between whites and minorities grew
21%.
The wealth gaps between races and income levels had shrunk slightly from 1992 to 1995 but had also risen by double digits in the 1998 report.
and:
"We have had a fairly sharp increase in wealth inequality dating back to 1975 or 1976. Prior to that, there was a protracted period when wealth
inequality fell in this country, going back almost to 1929. So you have this fairly continuous downward trend from 1929, which of course was the peak
of the stock market before it crashed, until just about the mid-1970s. Since then, things have really turned around, and the level of wealth
inequality today is almost double what it was in the mid-1970s.
Income inequality has also risen. Most people date this rise to the early 1970s, but it hasn't gone up nearly as dramatically as wealth
inequality.
The top 5 percent own more than half of all wealth. In 1998, they owned 59 percent of all wealth. Or to put it another way, the top 5 percent had
more wealth than the remaining 95 percent of the population, collectively.
The top 20 percent owns over 80 percent of all wealth. In 1998, it owned 83 percent of all wealth. This is a very concentrated distribution.
The bottom 20 percent basically have zero wealth. They either have no assets, or their debt equals or exceeds their assets. The bottom 20 percent has
typically accumulated no savings. A household in the middle-the median household - has wealth of about $62,000. $62,000 is not insignificant, but if
you consider that the top 1 percent of households' average wealth is $12.5 million, you can see what a difference there is in the distribution."
Edward Wolff, professor of economics at New York University
So charges of 'socialism' are being made to sully any attempt to balance the tax burden in this country. But if we want a current example of
'socialism' we need only look as far as the current financial systems bailout. Only those acts of socialism directly benefit the wealthier cohorts
so apparently it is OK. But not to everyone:
"As I've often said... this [increasing income inequality] is not the type of thing which a democratic society—a capitalist democratic
society—can really accept without addressing."
Alan Greenspan, June 2005
"Americans have the highest income inequality in the rich world and over the past 20–30 years Americans have also experienced the greatest
increase in income inequality among rich nations. The more detailed the data we can use to observe this change, the more skewed the change appears to
be... the majority of large gains are indeed at the top of the distribution."
Smeeding, T. (2005). Public policy, economic inequality, and poverty: The United States in comparative perspective. Social Science Quarterly, 86,
956-983.
The stability of a country is measured by the disparity in wealth between the lowest economic cohorts and the highest. The greater the disparity the
less stable a country is.
No one wants to pay higher taxes. But this country's finances have spun out-of-control and we're facing a long, grueling uphill climb to get things
back on-track. How do we distribute the costs of that climb?
Something that troubles me --- especially here on ATS --- is the preponderance of overly-simplistic, black-and-white arguments. There are few thiungs
in nature that are black-and-white. Fewer still in society. There is, instead, a nearly ifinite range of greys.
Personally, I'll end-up paying more taxes under the Obama plan. Like anyone else I'd rather not. But I'm a realist. Huge mistakes have been made
by the leadership of this country and we're all going to have pay the tab for that drunken kegger. I believe this country --- any country --- is
better off when people have hope. This isn't about lazy, underachievers. That argument is ridiculous if not outright insulting. It's about taking
responsibility. Which is worse, the single mother getting foodstamps to feed her kids becuase her take-home isn't enough to make ends meet or the
corporate CEO who can pay a tax accountant $1M to make sure he shelters all his income?
Keep one thing in mind all you blue-flag-waving folks: those military people that we need to honor? They're middle-class. Their families are
on-the-ropes. This 'wealth distribution' will help them, too.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 14-10-2008 @ 08:33 AM by Constitutional Scholar
|
One of the main reasons why I deal mostly in cash in my business.
I pay zero personal income tax, and I use every possible method to pay the least amount of taxes for my business.
Why should anyone send another dime to our government?Once elected, Obama will trash our economy even further. This clown has the economic sense of a
retarded rock.
Definitely not an endorsement of McCain by any means, but at least he has advisors who recognize that lower taxes stimulate the economy.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 15-10-2008 @ 07:36 AM by wonkamaniac
|
Originally posted by ExistenceUnknown
Both parties will tax the snot of us. One will tax you up front, the other will tax you down the road. Either way we will have higher taxes.
Republicrats: 2 sides of the same coin.
I agree wholeheartedly. The question is do you make $250,000 a year or more? Obama's tax plan explicitly states that if you make less than this (and
95% of us do), you will actually see a tax cut. The tax "increases" in Obama's plan are nothing more than rolling things back to the way they were
when Clinton left office. He also intends to close tax loopholes for major corporations that outsource jobs offshore. Frankly, I have no problems with
any of this. He also intends to give tax breaks to corporations that create jobs here in the good old U.S. of A. So, it depends on your definition of
"us". If by "us", you mean rich white guys or corporations that outsourced all of our jobs, then by all means, I wholeheartedly agree with you...
lol.
This smacks of the old argument that Obama has no ideas. His ideas are plainly visible on his website, and always have been. You know how to use the
internet, yes? You were able to jump through the hoops to post here.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 15-10-2008 @ 07:49 AM by GamerGal
|
reply to post by wonkamaniac
Thank you. I said it, they disagreed with... Fox News BS. And as said he'll give a tax break to small companies, but remove Bush's tax cuts to the
companies that ship jobs overseas. So if you're a small company that uses Child Slave Labor in China or Africa then yes you will be taxed more. But
if you use American Labor you'll get a tax break. McCain however will raise everyone's taxes by 2,800 dollars JUST for his new health insurance
tax. Not to mention what he'll need to raise to pay for Iraq for 100 years and for a new war in Iran.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 15-10-2008 @ 07:49 AM by PammyK
|
I think all politicians are "crooked" but I think it is ultimantly the individuals' choices in life that earn them wealth. Not in all cases but on
a whole. Hey, what Obama is proposing can't be any worse than what is going on now! Do you think the Stimulis Package helped this country? Sure
dosen't look like it! There is too much "nit-picking" by Americians now a days. You can't please all the people and you can't change the way
some people are. There will always be lazy good-for-nothing people.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 15-10-2008 @ 07:50 AM by wonkamaniac
|
On second thought, let me elaborate a little on my thoughts...
Ever since dubyah took office, the Global Corporations for the most part have paid... absolutely nothing.
60 Minutes once did a piece on this... A major brokerage firm (I'm sorry, I don't remember which one) ended up owing $0 in a year when they made
literally hundreds of millions of dollars. The IRS showed up and audited them. Two agents drove up and confronted the CFO of the company (Merril Lynch
comes to mind, although I may be wrong). The CFO drove them to an airplane hanger, and opened the doors... There were filing cabinets as far as the
eye could see. He said "There you go, all of our receipts are in there". The IRS agents were nonplussed as they explained to the reporter on 60
Minutes: "We just didn't have the manpower to go through all of the records". The corporation got away with it, and has paid $0 in taxes ever
since.
When I saw that piece, I went to HR the next morning, filed exempt, and haven't paid a cent since. Hell, if they can get away with it, so can I.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 15-10-2008 @ 07:57 AM by Oldtimer2
|
Well just think about it,looks like the government will control all the banks,own deeds to everyones mortgage,and at current rate will own all
buisnesses that are solvent,looks like the table is set for socialism,I've met some people from the old Soviet Union and them talking about communism
doesn't sound fun
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 15-10-2008 @ 08:01 AM by llpoolej
|
   
My husband and I own small businesses, my mother owns a small business. If Obama gets elected, Mom knows hers is toast. Ours will just be made more
difficult to make a living at.
Thank God we have an excellent CPA/attorney who makes sure that we get all the deductions and whatever that are possible by law.
Those who want these tax increases are shooting themselves in the foot to feel better about "sticking it to the rich". Every day we get people
coming in off the streets asking if we have openings as they have been laid off(not fired, laid off) The last thing we will be able to do is hire more
people if we are taxes more heavily.
That will go even for larger businesses. So, you'll get a cut on earning ZERO when businesses cut back further than they already have. You need to
look at the big picture, not the pretty words.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 15-10-2008 @ 08:08 AM by wonkamaniac
|
reply to post by Oldtimer2
Oldtimer2, you are both right and wrong.
Did you attend public school when you were growing up? You socialist!
Do you have a public fire and police department? You socialist!
Does a guy from the city pick up your trash once a week? You socialist!
Just kidding, sir, and I mean no disrespect... I'm trying to make a point. Socialism is all in the eye of the beholder. That being said, I do tend to
agree with you that our markets should not be socialist at all, but they do need to be regulated with plenty of Congressional oversight. Reagan killed
that, and look where it has got us.
Personally, I believe health care and schools and law enforcement and education should be socialized (law enforcement already is). Socialism is not
necessarily a dirty word. Socialism without checks and balances and oversight is horrible. The reason? Corruption and greed. Human nature. We already
live in a system that is partially socialized, everytime you visit the public library, keep that in mind.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 15-10-2008 @ 08:17 AM by wonkamaniac
|
reply to post by llpoolej
Do the businesses you speak of net more than $250,000 per year? If not, you are completely safe. Also, are you willing to create jobs here in America?
If so, you will get a deduction for that. Don't jump the gun on Obama, give him a chance, and all will be well. Believe me when I tell you that he
does not want to hit small businesses at all, it's the major Global Corporations who do not pay their fair share that he is targeting. If you are not
Exxon or Verizon, you'll be just fine.
Don't panic, it will be okay.
Believe me, I am not a Democrat. I am completely Independent at this point. I have done my homework on this particular subject, simply because I am a
tax outlaw.
If we start using tax dollars to build roads and send people to college again like Obama states, and stop spending money on bombs that kill innocent
people, I will start paying my fair share of taxes once again.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 15-10-2008 @ 08:22 AM by jimmyx
|
Originally posted by wonkamaniac
Originally posted by ExistenceUnknown
Both parties will tax the snot of us. One will tax you up front, the other will tax you down the road. Either way we will have higher taxes.
Republicrats: 2 sides of the same coin.
I agree wholeheartedly. The question is do you make $250,000 a year or more? Obama's tax plan explicitly states that if you make less than this (and
95% of us do), you will actually see a tax cut. The tax "increases" in Obama's plan are nothing more than rolling things back to the way they were
when Clinton left office. He also intends to close tax loopholes for major corporations that outsource jobs offshore. Frankly, I have no problems with
any of this. He also intends to give tax breaks to corporations that create jobs here in the good old U.S. of A. So, it depends on your definition of
"us". If by "us", you mean rich white guys or corporations that outsourced all of our jobs, then by all means, I wholeheartedly agree with you...
lol.
This smacks of the old argument that Obama has no ideas. His ideas are plainly visible on his website, and always have been. You know how to use the
internet, yes? You were able to jump through the hoops to post here.
thanks wonk, couldn't have said it better myself. someone who actually gets it.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 15-10-2008 @ 08:50 AM by GamerGal
|
reply to post by llpoolej
Actually under Obama you'll make more money then ever. He'll drop your taxes and give you incentives to keep your company employing Americans.
Under McCain... Higher taxes to pay for his trillions of dollars he'll spend on Iraq, Iran, bad mortgages, and MORE money to AIG CEO's who will
spend it on more trips to California spas.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |