It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama : "It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody that

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 01:41 PM
link   
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]




posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 01:48 PM
link   
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!




posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 01:59 PM
link   
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.



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 05:54 PM
link   
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.



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 06:02 PM
link   
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.



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 08:10 PM
link   
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



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 04:51 AM
link   
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.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 07:15 AM
link   
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.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 08:26 AM
link   
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.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 08:33 AM
link   
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.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 07:36 AM
link   

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.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 07:49 AM
link   
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.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 07:49 AM
link   
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.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 07:50 AM
link   
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.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 07:57 AM
link   
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



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 08:01 AM
link   
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.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 08:08 AM
link   
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.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 08:17 AM
link   
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.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 08:22 AM
link   

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.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 08:50 AM
link   
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.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join