Socialism proof - Obama's 'Spread the wealth around' comment (video)

reply to post by sos37

The plumber said "Your tax policies are going to ruin my business"

Here is a nice little piece of research I thought I would give you a chance to repudiate....

Barack Obama wants to reduce taxes for roughly 95% of the United States while raising taxes on the other 5% - those making more than $200,000 per year. John McCain wants to lower taxes on everyone, and attacks Obama’s tax increase on the upper 5% as destroying small businesses and jobs. I decided to do some research on this issues to see if, in fact, raising taxes on those individuals making more than $200,000 would reduce employment or not, and I found out some interesting things.

The conclusion, however, is this: Obama’s tax increase on the wealthy will not directly harm small businesses. At. All.

First, some definitions so we all know what I’m talking about. So far as I can tell, the only small businesses that pay taxes at the personal income rate are “sole proprietorships”, the simplest type of business in the U.S. According to NOLO.com, a sole proprietorship may have employees, but the census indicates that the bulk of sole propreitorships do not - they’re considered nonemployers, and they are the largest portion of all U.S. businesses. In 2005 (the last year for which there is both data on nonemployers and employers at the U.S. Census Bureau), there were 20,392,068 nonemployers with a total income of $951 billion (Source: Nonemployer Statistics, 2005, Total for all sectors, United States). Small business employers1 numbered 5,878,784 (Source: Statistics of U.S. Businesses, All Industries, 2005). The total number of all employer and nonemployer businesses in 2005 was 26,375,614, of which 26,270,852 (or 99.6%) would qualify as small businesses as I’ve defined it above. This would be why people respond when you threaten to increase taxes on small businesses - there’s a LOT of small businesses. But look closer at those numbers. The average income per nonemployer small business is the total income divided by the number of employers, which in this case is only $46,635. What that means is that the vast majority of nonemployer small businesses (which we can probably fairly say are mostly sole proprietorships) would be unaffected by the Obama tax cut. In fact, since they make so little, they’d get a tax cut, not a tax increase. Yes, you read that right: the average small business would get a tax cut under Obama’s tax plan, not a tax increase as McCain has suggested.

Top 3% of businesses. The ones outsourcing anyways. His plan would actually give tax BREAKS to 97% of "small" businesses.

Let’s broaden the definition to assume that all small business employers with less than 10 employees are also sole proprietorships. From the employer Census link for 2005 above, there were 4.72 million employers with fewer than 10 with a total of 12.83 million employees. Let’s assume that, as above, no more than 3% of those employers fall into the $200,000+ individual pay bracket. That’s a total 110,000 employers and 31,000 employers for businesses with 0-4 employees and 5-9 employees respectively. Again, if we assume that there’s a 5% increase in business failures equally through both sizes of businesses (from 9% to 14%), that’s a total of 5500 businesses sized 0-4 employees and 2790 businesses sized 5-9 employees that would fail due to the tax increase. The average number of employees for all businesses in the 0-4 employees category is 1.66 employees per business. The average number of employees for businesses in the 5-9 employees category is 6.66 employees per business. Calculating the job losses we get 8,855 employees in those 5500 newly failed businesses (0-4 employees), plus 5500 for the owners themselves, and 18,582 employees in the other 2790 businesses (5-9 employees) plus another 2790 for the owners. Total is 35,036 extra employees losing their jobs. Adding that to the 31,000 sole proprietorships from the first analysis, that’s a total of roughly 66,000 jobs lost every year. And just in sole proprietorships alone (never mind the newly expanded 0-9 employees category) we created 167,000 new jobs. Include the 1% decrease in employer small business failures (from 9% to 8%) on businesses sized 0-9 employees and that’s an additional 176,000 new jobs, for a total of 343,000 new jobs across all nonemployer and employer small businesses. Put bluntly, even if we assume the worst case cost of 66,000 jobs and that every business with fewer than 10 employees is a sole proprietorship (and it’s not), the Obama tax plan is still creating 277,000 new jobs every year.

Wow. Someone did their home work. Looks like all the "they gone rays taxzz wif they big gub'ment" arguments are kinda......wrong( or lies). So, no.....the plumber will not be "put outta business".

I know you will want this....

[edit on 14-10-2008 by Grafilthy]

I see how this comment can get Obama in some real problems IF NOT for the current economic situation that we are facing.

Every one wants a bailout... Wall St, the airlines, the car makers EVERYONE and at tax payers expense, so when you sell the idea of "I going to give you a tax cut" the people are reacting favorably no matter how it comes, the people just wanted.

I really don't see how this is socialism, when we are just talking about tax policy. Rasing taxes, lowering taxes is just part of the game of politics as old as taxes themselves. The money is allocated to what the President thinks is going to stimulate the economy and I dont know why thats is so hard to understand for some.

In a perfect world no taxes should be paid, but this isn't one. Bush tried with his taxcuts and it hasn't worked, now is time to try something different and sadly McCain wants MORE of the same.

reply to post by Bunch

I really don't see how this is socialism, when we are just talking about tax policy. Rasing taxes, lowering taxes is just part of the game of politics as old as taxes themselves. The money is allocated to what the President thinks is going to stimulate the economy and I dont know why thats is so hard to understand for some. In a perfect world no taxes should be paid, but this isn't one. Bush tried with his taxcuts and it hasn't worked, now is time to try something different and sadly McCain wants MORE of the same.

Well Bunch......it' because it's way easier to fool people into voting against their OWN ECONOMIC INTEREST by using words they don't know the definition of.

Try a few....

Socialism.

Liberal.

Communist.

Fun isn't it.

reply to post by Grafilthy


Homework??? The person who did this homework failed miserably! Let's find someone who knows what the hell they're talking about. Let's see what the Wall Street Journal has to say, eh? These people know money and the author of this article can see right through Obama's socialist plan.

One of Barack Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today.

APIt's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut."

Okay, so right off the bat, we know something is up if in order to make his plan work, Obama has to redefine the phrase "tax cut". Should be a red flag right there.

For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals.

There's that word again - "handout". Same exact thing that Obama said to the plumber - "spread the wealth around". And if we're not keeping what we earn, meaning all of us except the select few who qualify for those seven credits, then guess where that money comes from??? Yep, our pockets, YOUR pocket, MY pocket!!

Okay, now Grafilthy and everyone else that still isn't convinced - pay attention to this next paragraph because it's possibly the MOST important in the story:

Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.

WELFARE!!! Forceable welfare at that, taken from taxpayers given to non-taxpayers.

Remember that definition of socialism I posted on page one?

"Socialism - the confiscation of resources redistributed to the least productive members of society"

UGH! That should be making your blood boil! I don't earn anywhere near $250,000 per year. My wife and I make well below that, combined and Obama is going to be taking what we make and giving it to people who basically don't give a CRAP about this country and don't give a CRAP to do anything to make it better.

And one more point I want you to pay very close attention to in this story when you whine and complain about Bush running up the national debt in Iraq:

The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.

The total annual expenditures on refundable "tax credits" would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare.

You see that number with a T? TRILLION! And as for how McCain's plan is any better?

The political left defends "refundability" on grounds that these payments help to offset the payroll tax. And that was at least plausible when the only major refundable credit was the earned-income tax credit. Taken together, however, these tax credit payments would exceed payroll levies for most low-income workers.

It is also true that John McCain proposes a refundable tax credit -- his $5,000 to help individuals buy health insurance. We've written before that we prefer a tax deduction for individual health care, rather than a credit. But the big difference with Mr. Obama is that Mr. McCain's proposal replaces the tax subsidy for employer-sponsored health insurance that individuals don't now receive if they buy on their own. It merely changes the nature of the tax subsidy; it doesn't create a new one.

Source: wsj.com...

*Edited for civility - the last paragraph in my response was a bit snarky.

[edit on 14-10-2008 by sos37]

reply to post by sos37


Excellent find.

Raising taxes during a recession...no matter who it is..it's going to make it worse. Haven't enough companies left the country already? Why give them even more incentive to leave??

The former company i worked for relocated to Mexico. Why? Because it was cheaper for them and easier to make profits. We need to give a reason for companies to stay and not continue to drive them out of the country.

reply to post by David9176

Raising taxes during a recession...no matter who it is..it's going to make it worse.

The problem with that David....is that we have NEVER waged a war AND cut taxes at the same time. Go ahead and ask SOS where he plans on getting the money to continue all the wars we have started....

Someone HAS to pay. McCain says he will "lower" your taxes.....which for you does not mean much. A few bucks at most. What he DOES MEAN, and will not say it loud and clear....is that he will cut a good chunk for those at the top....and let them keep the tax cuts Bush already gave them.

Obama and McCain Tax Proposals According to a new analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain are both proposing tax plans that would result in cuts for most American families. Obama's plan gives the biggest cuts to those who make the least, while McCain would give the largest cuts to the very wealthy. For the approximately 147,000 families that make up the top 0.1 percent of the income scale, the difference between the two plans is stark. While McCain offers a $269,364 tax cut, Obama would raise their taxes, on average, by $701,885 - a difference of nearly $1 million.

Source....and a pretty graph.

You would be voting AGAINST your economic best interest by voting for McCain. (ASSUMING YOU MAKE UNDER $226,981.00 A YEAR!)

Why.....and you can let SOS help you.....Have there been NET JOB LOSSES

WITH

the Bush tax cuts

ALREADY

in place?!??!?!?

Where have we seen this deranged fiscal strategy before?

Remember Ronald Reagan and Supply Side Economics? In the early 1980s, Reagan promised the nation that if we lowered tax rates on the wealthy, the economy would grow so much the federal budget would be balanced "within three years, maybe even two."

Sober people were skeptical-and rightly so. Reagan's Republican opponent for the 1980 presidential election, George H.W. Bush called it "voodoo economics." His own Budget Director, David Stockman, called it a "Trojan horse," a scam intended really to funnel more money to the already rich. Stockman was quickly dismissed. The results, we now know, were a disaster. In 1982, the first full year after the tax cuts were enacted, the economy actually shrank 2.2%, the worst performance since the Great Depression. And the effect on the federal budget was catastrophic. Jimmy Carter's last budget deficit was $77 billion. Reagan's first deficit was $128 billion. His second deficit exploded to $208 billion. By the time the "Reagan Revolution" was over, George H.W. Bush was running an annual deficit of $290 billion per year. Yearly deficits, of course, add up to national debt.
When Reagan took office, the national debt stood at $994 billion. When Bush left office, it had reached $4.3 trillion. In other words, the national debt had taken 200 years to reach $1 trillion. Reagan's Supply Side experiment quadrupled it in the next 12 years.
Is there anything to compare this to? When Bill Clinton took office he intentionally reversed the Supply Side formula, raising taxes on the wealthy and reducing them on the lowest wage earners. Supply Side true believers predicted the arrival of the Apocalypse. Bob Dole said the stock market would collapse. Newt Gingrich said the world would fall into another Great Depression. What actually happened? Between 1992 and 2000, the U.S. economy produced the longest sustained economic expansion in U.S. history. It created more than 18 million new jobs, the highest level of job creation ever recorded. Inflation fell to 2.5% per year compared to the 4.7% average over the prior 12 years.

And when you are done.....tell me.....HOW IN THE HE!! DOES THE RIGHT GET OFF USING THE TERM "FISCAL CONSERVATIVE"?!?!?

reply to post by Grafilthy


This is far and away one of the better posts I have seen, especially speaking to this "plumber" issue.

The bottom line is that the wealthy have taken advantage of exploiting less education workers at the bottom of the pyramid to make money at an absolutely disproportionate rate.

Give me a million dollars for working as hard as I do now for 50K. I will gladly pay over and above taxwise. . . why? Because I make a frickin million dollars a year thanks to the business system in place.

The defense you always hear? "I am smarter, have worked harder, went to school longer." "I deserve it." The simple answer to that is, no. No, you are not "worth" it. By that definition, the smartest and most "worthy" people on Earth would be Tom Cruise and A-Rod.

reply to post by Grafilthy


So this will create more jobs? I'm not going to listen to your Democratic rhetoric. It's all that i see from you. You are way to one-sided on everything. Bush, Bush, and more Bush. He's to blame for everything!!! I'm not going to sit here and say he's a great president, he's not by any means..but democrats have plenty of blame in this too. When Congress' approval rating is lower than Bush's, it's alittle tough to sit here and take any trust to your comments. I trust Bush as much as i trust the rest of the government...which is ZERO.

I don't want to hear about how you think Democrats will save the day and everyone else who doesn't think what you think is misinformed. And frankly, i don't give a damn about what you think is best for the country.

What I care about is LOSING MY JOB. I live in Michigan where the unemployment rate is currently 9 percent. This would be the second time i've lost a job in 3 years. My company, which is a small business, will be directly effected by this and we are already hurting as it is. I'm fearing the day i go into work and i'm told that they can't afford to keep me on anymore. That day is coming very soon if things don't change.

My prior employer opted to go to Mexico because of cheaper taxes and pay wages. My current job is getting hit hard by falling retail sales and the auto industry.

Why in the hell would i give a crap about a tax cut when i'm out of a job? I don't want a government hand out, i want to earn a living.

The government needs to cut spending dramatically.

Are you willing to vote for someone who is going to continue the exact same policies as Bush. Why did people vote for this guy twice and now they say he screwed up, but they don't get it and are willing to put another republican in the white house.

PLEASE give Obama a chance.

reply to post by FlyersFan


lol pure socialist? really? so obama is going to nationalise all the industries- telecoms, energy, transport- airlines , and banks...oh wait! banks have been done already.

what do you think taxes are if theyre not redistribution of wealth? roads, schools, police, firefighters etc?. Maybe you like the $10 billion a month spent on the iraq war instead of providing health care for your own poeple?

obama would be considered right of center in a pure socialist system. You really have no clue what a pure socialist is.

Originally posted by sos37

Capitalism - Creation of resources that are redistributed to the most productive members of society

Socialism - Confiscation of resources that are redistributed to the least productive members of society

His comment sounds all well and good until it's YOUR wealth he wants to spread around, right?

How can this not be anything but socialism?

[edit on 14-10-2008 by sos37]

If you attended even ONE college class on Politics, you would know there is almost NO true Democracy, or Communist state, or Socialist state. MANY programs are socalist. BUSH has, and Mccain want to give wealth to the top 5%, is that SOCIALISM? OH, then spread debt to ALL U.S. citizens for what some idiots did (who are in Mccain's campaign, lol, running it all). Get your crap straight.

PROGRESSIVE taxes worked for Clinton years, and the TRUTH is a bunch of people who have been SOCIALIZING wealth upwards don't want this to STOP. So, instead of being IGNORANT and a tool, OR maybe even "Tucker Bounds" himself, grow a brain. Oh, then look up what Palin does in Alaska with TAXING wealth companies, then giving checks to citizens and she said it was the right thing to do. MCCAIN AND PALIN are tools for Hitler's branch of the GOP. IF you were a true conspiracy theorist with any sort of intelligence, you'd see Obama intends on PROGRESSIVE taxes, it is not horrible. ON PAPER, other systems wanted ALL to share everything in society, then all wealth to be spread EQUALLY. Instead, a few on top kept that wealth. SOUND familiar? Most governments are A MIX of different philosophy. U.S. has SOCIALIST programs and is called a "democracy" but MAJORITY vote does not count, ELECTORAL college?, oh, then votes get suppressed, and NOT EVERYONE is equally represented. It is, in a word, GREED. Obama is somebody who wants to go back to what Clinton did. IF you truly have balls, contact Obama, or Bill Clinton, then REALIZE that CLINTON was not a "TAX AND SPEND" guy, and Obama is intending on using that BALANCE that had some of the BEST years for the U.S. government FINANCIALLY. KNOW your damn history.

I hope Obama wins, and when he does, I hope the GOP Gustapo Hary Kari themselves (spelling?). Never liked that phrase, but anyway, they need to check themselves and realize one side offers HOPE, the other certain death. GO AHEAD and lie, and pretend to NOT be in mommy and daddy's basement at the mansion seeking to cast MORE DOUBT on a good person (Obama).