Revisiting thread re taxing the rich --

[Linda in NE]

I found this online and thought it was a good, solid example of why it is not a good idea to soak the "rich." What do you think?

 

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes,it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are all such good customers,’ he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.’ Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.

But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100%savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).

The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

‘I only got a dollar out of the $20,’declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,’ but he got $10!’

‘Yeah, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I got’

‘That’s true!!’ shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!’

‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works!!

The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

[joannqn]

Exactly!

 

But they story forgot one part...

 

Then men 1 through 9 all complained about the 10th man not showing up. He had no right to take his money to a different bar where the bill was more fair. So they followed him to his new bar, beat him up some more, and stole his wallet to pay for their drinks at the old bar.

 

The next day men 1 through 9 went to the bar again. Man 10 still wasn't there and now his wallet was empty. They went to the new bar to beat him up some more and steal his wallet again but they didn't find him. They discovered that he died from his wounds (went out of business) the previous night.

 

They went back to the bar trying to figure out how to buy their beer without the rich man's money only to discover that the rich man owned the parent company which owned the beer making company. With the demise of the parent company, the beer company also went out of business, thus there was no more beer to drink. The rich man's company also indirectly employed men 1-6 who lost their jobs when the rich man's company went out of business.

[Stacy in NJ]

Exactly!

 

But they story forgot one part...

 

Then men 1 through 9 all complained about the 10th man not showing up. He had no right to take his money to a different bar where the bill was more fair. So they followed him to his new bar, beat him up some more, and stole his wallet to pay for their drinks at the old bar.

 

The next day men 1 through 9 went to the bar again. Man 10 still wasn't there and now his wallet was empty. They went to the new bar to beat him up some more and steal his wallet again but they didn't find him. They discovered that he died from his wounds (went out of business) the previous night.

 

They went back to the bar trying to figure out how to buy their beer without the rich man's money only to discover that the rich man owned the parent company which owned the beer making company. With the demise of the parent company, the beer company also went out of business, thus there was no more beer to drink. The rich man's company also indirectly employed men 1-6 who lost their jobs when the rich man's company went out of business.

 

:lol: This really made me laugh.

[Demal]

I've seen other details missing from this tale:

 

there was an entrance fee of $5 that everyone paid coming in (Social Security, etc.), and another fee of $5 to cover the misc costs of busing the tables, tipping the bartender, etc. (sales taxes, etc.)

And then, of course, there was the extra beer the richest guy got on the sly on the side, since the bartender wanted to keep him happy, and of course, he got the fancy imported stuff while the other guys got the beer that was sometimes a bit past its peak. And the richest guy got to choose the channel on the TV they watched. And of course, the bartender's brother would send a cab to pick up the richest guy while the others paid their own way there.

 

Or:

 

The first two men were robbed while walking on their way home to their rented apartments in the worst part of town.

The third man's 15 year old car finally broke down on the way home, and he had to pay $100 to get it towed to the nearest garage.

The 4th man got home to find his power had been shut off, because he'd been unable to pay the bill this month.

The 5th man was grateful for the extra $1, as he was able to pick up one of those new 99 cent double stacker from Wendy's for his kid on the way home.

The 6th and 7th men stayed a little later since they had no job to go to in the morning.. their $50,000 middle management jobs had been outsourced to India and the Phillipines last week.

The 8th man mentioned that he might not be able to keep coming.. He was having a little trouble keeping up with his $2500 mortgage since his wife got sick and had to stop working. The medical bills were also piling up as his company had to move to a cheaper health insurance last year with a higher deductible and coinsurance.

The 9th man fretted that he'd lost over 10% in his 401K last month.. He'd been thinking about moving his money into "safer" accounts but just hadn't found the time.. Now he's thinking about waiting another year or two to retire.

The 10th man got in his new Lexus and drove home to his fully paid for 2 million $ home in the hills. After a quick swim in the pool, He flipped on Fox and watched as the TV hosts discussed how Obama was going to raise his taxes. This made him feel outraged thinking about his "friends" at the bar tonight. Why should he have to pay for those losers' troubles?

 

 

Are the rich really paying that much in taxes (as much as the bar story implies)?

 

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2008-06-11-taxes_N.htm

 

New IRS statistics show 7,389 federal tax returns with $200,000 or more in adjusted gross income reported no federal income taxes in 2005. That's a 161% jump from the 2,833 comparable returns filed in 2004.

 

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/taxes-warren-buffett-and-paying-my-fair-share/

 

Bajillionaire Warren Buffett has argued that he isn’t being asked to pay his share. He went around his office, asking people what share of their income they pay in income taxes. Buffett’s 17.7 percent tax rate compared a bit too favorably with the 30 percent tax rate paid by his secretary.

So it appears that the tax system favors the super-rich over working stiffs.

And Buffett went a step further, putting his money where his mouth is. Last November he issued a challenge to his fellow billionaires:

I’ll bet a million dollars against any member of the Forbes 400 who challenges me that the average (federal tax rate including income and payroll taxes) for the Forbes 400 will be less than the average of their receptionists.

So far, no-one has taken him up on this bet.

 

[Spy Car]

And the rich guy's second wife (the one he had the adulterous affair with) owns the beer distributorship. Cha-ching!

:auto:

[Linda in NE]

Sorry to say, but I think your ending is our future as a country. I'm married to one of the small businessmen who will be put out of business if Obama's tax plan is enacted. We're not "rich" by any means or measure. We're clawing just to stay alive and keep our employees paid and make sure we and they have health insurance. I work three part-time jobs from home so we can keep our bills paid. The business is an S corporation. My husband is the majority shareholder, but his two brothers own the minority of the shares. The business's revenues exceed $250,000 per year, I'm sure, but that's far more than we ever see in income. If our taxes go up, we go under. It may mean the end of our homeschooling, because I'll have to find full-time work of some sort. Not easy to do if you're a 54 year old woman who's been out of the workforce for 10+ years. I do have a couple of college/professional degrees, but I have job feelers out now, and have had for several months, but no one is interested.

[Linda in NE]

and acknowledges that 40 percent of Americans pay no income tax. That leaves 60 percent of us footing the bill for everyone, and a goodly amount of the tab covers the cost of "entitlements," many of which are paid to the 40 percent who pay nothing in taxes. Entitlement payments represent the largest portion of the federal budget. Most people who oppose the war in Iraq decry the levels of defense spending but, at the same time, are solidly behind Obama's proposals to spend another $800 billion or so for new entitlement programs. This is akin to choking on a fly while already having swallowed an elephant.

 

Here's an article that describes the situation better than I can.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/08/hidden-behind-defense/

[Claire in NM]

or do they use their money to hire more workers and improve their business?

 

If they hire more workers, the businesss person has to pay more in medical benefits, wages, etc for employees.

 

If they have to pay more in benefits, wages, etc., the business person is tempted to cut back on benefits and wages just so their businesses can make more money.

 

I am just wondering: Are businesses hiring more people than they can afford? Well, if they are in business to make money and hire more workers to increase their production levels, aren't businesses going to want to lessen the cost of hiring more workers by skimping on their benefits and wages? And where does that leave the employee?

 

Finally, are business people being honest with themselves when their businesses have forced their families and their employees' families into situations where it is a "live from paycheck to paycheck existence"?

 

I guess I just don't understand. I am wanting to start a business, but when this credit crunch happened, I was told that it would be hard to get a business loan. I must be thinking small because why would I want to start day one of my business with a deficit of a loan payment hanging over my head?

 

The SBA advisor said that is what small business owners were always taught - when you start a business, you get a loan.

 

Not me...

 

 

 

Claire in NM

Edited October 23, 2008 by Claire in NM

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Bajillionaire Warren Buffett has argued that he isn’t being asked to pay his share. He went around his office, asking people what share of their income they pay in income taxes. Buffett’s 17.7 percent tax rate compared a bit too favorably with the 30 percent tax rate paid by his secretary.

So it appears that the tax system favors the super-rich over working stiffs.

And Buffett went a step further, putting his money where his mouth is. Last November he issued a challenge to his fellow billionaires:

I’ll bet a million dollars against any member of the Forbes 400 who challenges me that the average (federal tax rate including income and payroll taxes) for the Forbes 400 will be less than the average of their receptionists.

So far, no-one has taken him up on this bet.

 

The question is, when John McCain takes office, which of his positions will he take on this question? Will he be my man the

from the year 2000, or the Sen. McCain in 2008 who says cutting taxes for the middle class is socialism?

 

And if I've misunderstood his position in the linked video, I do apologize.

 

This is the breakdown of the tax proposals. Certainly there's not CUT proposed for people who earn between $226K to $607K. But yes, there will be an increase of just over 8% to folks making $607K to $2.87 mil. So if one's small business nets this amount, and if the hardship of the additional 8.7% that takes them back to the same level as they bore under the Clinton administration and would put them under, that would indeed be awful. Because small businesses employ a whole lot of people in this country.

 

I've heard more about initiatives for small businesses being proposed from the Obama campaign, but not any specifically from the McCain campaign. Could anyone link me?

[mcconnellboys]

Here's the problem I have with all this business: If I have worked to make a successful business, and I have net assets of 10 billion dollars, 10 million dollars, ten thousand dollars, or 10 dollars, I believe that I should be taxed on my TOTAL net assets. I think that increasing the *rate* for the wealthy has been an attempt to obtain extra to make up for what's being missed due to sheltering of sometimes large portions of the net assets. I don't agree with that. I think that everyone should be taxed xxxx percent on ALL their assets; or on some portion of them that is still equal for all. I don't believe that endless loopholes and shelters, etc. should be allowed so that the ultra-wealthy can hide large - nay, huge - portions of their wealth that never, ever get taxed.

 

So, I don't think that it's fair that if my net worth is 10 billion, for instance, that I can hide away (legally or not) 9 billion of my dollars and only pay taxes on some portion of 1 billion of my assets. Yes, I *am* still paying more taxes than someone who only has a net worth of $100,000, but 10% of someone's worth is still 10% (or whatever the rate would be set at). If everyone paid the same tax percentage on ALL their net assets, then taxation would be fair, in my estimation.

 

I am, unfortunately, in the middle segment of America that ends up paying most of the taxes (in terms of percentage of their net worth) for the whole country, while the ultra-wealthy use tax lawyers and accountants, along with very creative accounting, to shield a huge percentage of their net worth from any taxation whatsoever. While they may well pay a significant amount more in total dollars, they are not paying taxes on large portions of their wealth relative to those in the middle class. This means that the ultra-wealthy can grow steadily wealthier over time relatively more easily than those stuck in the middle....

[Karen sn]

EXCEPT FOR THE FACT that there is NO SUCH THING as a person who has never paid taxes!

 

Think about it, even if you pay no federal income tax, you pay medicare and social security. You may even pay a state income tax depending on where you live. And we ALL definitely pay a tax on: every gallon of gas, every article of clothing, our light bill, our phone bill....every single thing we purchase - in some states even food is taxed.

 

AND consider this - even kids pay taxes! They pay a tax on every toy they buy, every pack of gum they consume, etc.... POINT IS: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PERSON WHO HAS NEVER PAID A TAX IN THIS COUNTRY.

 

Not to mention - the rich guy in this little story would have been receiving free money from the government. Corporate Welfare as it is known among the rich and wealthy corporations. Did you know that McDonalds was once given $200,000 to advertise chicken mcnuggets overseas?!?!?! Incredible.

 

The year that Reader's Digest published their article on corporate welfare (back in the 80's) welfare for people was 16 million. Welfare for corporations was 14 BILLION. I have read that bar/tax scenario before and completely disagree with the logic.

[Linda in NE]

First of all, the 2008 tax rate schedules are as follows:

 

Married Filing Jointly or Qualifying Widow(er) Filing Status

 

(Tax Rate Schedule Y-1)

 

• 10% on the income between $0 and $16,050
  
• 15% on the income between $16,050 and $65,100; plus $1,605.00
  
• 25% on the income between $65,100 and $131,450; plus $8,962.50
  
• 28% on the income between $131,450 and $200,300; plus $25,550.00
  
• 33% on the income between $200,300 and $357,700; plus $44,828.00
  
• 35% on the income over $357,700; plus $96,770.00
  

 

Clearly, if Buffet is paying only 18 percent on his income, he's making a LOT of money, using every tax break and loophole he can to minimize his tax bill, and/or combining all his income from all sources to state a single "rate" he pays. At the same time, if his secretary is paying 30 percent on her income, I'd recommend she get some advice from her boss or his tax advisers because she's paying more than the percentage the law requires.

 

BUT, let's assume the percentages Buffet quotes are accurate:

18 percent of a billion dollars is $180,000,000.

 

30 percent of $50,000 (Buffet is probably more generous with his secretary's salary) is $15,000.

 

Who pays more $ in tax? Buffet, of course. $180,000,000 > $15,000

 

Does that tax bill represent a smaller proportion of Buffet's income than his secretary's? Certainly. However, what does Buffet do with the remainder of his income? He invests it. He creates jobs with it. The use he makes of it is, ultimately, of great benefit to all of us because he doesn't just take it home and stuff it in his mattress. Few rich people do. That's how they became rich in the first place. They took risks with what they had by investing their money, time, effort, know-how, blood, sweat, and tears in some enterprise that paid off. His incentive to do so was probably, at least in part, to better himself and his family in the world. Why penalize him for his accomplishments by making him support those who, in many cases, make an active choice NOT to take advantage of the opportunities they are presented in their lives while still claiming as their right (i.e., entitlement, if you will) a standard of living to which they would like to become accustomed? Why reward and encourage lack of initiative at the expense of those who take the initiative and succeed?

 

Abe Lincoln said:

"Property is the fruit of labor...property is desirable...is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VII, "Reply to New York Workingmen's Democratic Republican Association" (March 21, 1864), pp. 259-260.

[Aggie]

EXCEPT FOR THE FACT that there is NO SUCH THING as a person who has never paid taxes!

 

Think about it, even if you pay no federal income tax, you pay medicare and social security. You may even pay a state income tax depending on where you live. And we ALL definitely pay a tax on: every gallon of gas, every article of clothing, our light bill, our phone bill....every single thing we purchase - in some states even food is taxed.

 

AND consider this - even kids pay taxes! They pay a tax on every toy they buy, every pack of gum they consume, etc.... POINT IS: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PERSON WHO HAS NEVER PAID A TAX IN THIS COUNTRY.

 

Not to mention - the rich guy in this little story would have been receiving free money from the government. Corporate Welfare as it is known among the rich and wealthy corporations. Did you know that McDonalds was once given $200,000 to advertise chicken mcnuggets overseas?!?!?! Incredible.

 

The year that Reader's Digest published their article on corporate welfare (back in the 80's) welfare for people was 16 million. Welfare for corporations was 14 BILLION. I have read that bar/tax scenario before and completely disagree with the logic.

 

But sales tax stays local, Karen. (I'm using local for state, too.) And your local gov't decides what the rate is. There just seems to be more control with the state and local governments, more accountability than with the federal government.

 

Also, if a person is completely federally subsidized (and it does happen), it's not their WORK money they are paying taxes with, ya know?

 

Now, corporate welfare...what are your sources? I don't consider a tax break for a corporation the same thing as welfare. Did McD's get $200k or did they get a tax break worth 200k? Completely different, imo.

 

I received this today:

 

Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed.

 

Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference--just imagine the coincidence.

 

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

 

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.

 

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.

 

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.

OR IS IT.........REDISTRIBUTION OF SOMEONE ELSE'S WEALTH IS A GREAT IDEA.

 

 

Aggie

[Zelda]

But sales tax stays local, Karen. (I'm using local for state, too.) And your local gov't decides what the rate is. There just seems to be more control with the state and local governments, more accountability than with the federal government.

 

Also, if a person is completely federally subsidized (and it does happen), it's not their WORK money they are paying taxes with, ya know?

 

Now, corporate welfare...what are your sources? I don't consider a tax break for a corporation the same thing as welfare. Did McD's get $200k or did they get a tax break worth 200k? Completely different, imo.

 

I received this today:

 

Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed.

 

Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference--just imagine the coincidence.

 

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

 

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.

 

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.

 

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.

OR IS IT.........REDISTRIBUTION OF SOMEONE ELSE'S WEALTH IS A GREAT IDEA.

 

 

Aggie

 

Marry. Me.

 

ETA: Oh, gosh, I missed that this wasn't your experiment so my proposal was premature. Maybe we could have drinks? I feel compelled to at least buy you a drink for telling such a funny story.

Edited October 23, 2008 by Zelda

[Demal]

Buffett, the richest person in America according to Forbes, is a critic of our tax system. He thinks the rich should be paying more.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece

 

"If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.â€

 

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience . . . that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.

 

[emphasis mine]

[8filltheheart]

These are all quotes from Thomas Jefferson:

 

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

 

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

 

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.

 

I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.

 

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.

 

Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.

[Aggie]

Buffett, the richest person in America according to Forbes, is a critic of our tax system. He thinks the rich should be paying more.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece

 

 

 

[emphasis mine]

 

IMO, they can 'think' about the rest of humanity through private charitable foundations instead of the government.

 

And who's to say that those who want to pay more taxes can't? I just don't understand any wealthy person saying he needs to pay more when he CAN.

[littlefamily]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe McCain voted for the stimulus plan that allowed a form of "redistribution" of wealth in the form of rebate checks.

Checks were given to those that who did NOT pay taxes and people who earned "too much money" did not receive checks even though they did pay taxes. If that isn't a form of redistribution of wealth, I'm not sure what is....

 

I'm one of those voters on the fence, but these "sound bites" drive me crazy!

 

I usually only lurk, but as long as I have ventured out....

 

It also drives me crazy when people consider changing opinions as a character flaw. If you are running a business and have a product or idea that you love, but it flops when you bring it to market, do you stand behind it because you stated it was your product? Or do you modify it now that you have a better understanding of the market? (I'm not meaning just saying something to get votes, but for example the banking crisis - the original plan has morphed into something very different from its original state.)

 

I sure hope that when either is elected, he will have an abundance of resources/advisors to help understand issues in a more thorough way and I sure hope either one is willing to change his stance given this wealth of information that he should have available to him as president....

 

I'm back to lurking....

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe McCain voted for the stimulus plan that allowed a form of "redistribution" of wealth in the form of rebate checks.

Checks were given to those that who did NOT pay taxes and people who earned "too much money" did not receive checks even though they did pay taxes. If that isn't a form of redistribution of wealth, I'm not sure what is....

 

I'm one of those voters on the fence, but these "sound bites" drive me crazy!

 

I usually only lurk, but as long as I have ventured out....

 

It also drives me crazy when people consider changing opinions as a character flaw. If you are running a business and have a product or idea that you love, but it flops when you bring it to market, do you stand behind it because you stated it was your product? Or do you modify it now that you have a better understanding of the market? (I'm not meaning just saying something to get votes, but for example the banking crisis - the original plan has morphed into something very different from its original state.)

 

I sure hope that when either is elected, he will have an abundance of resources/advisors to help understand issues in a more thorough way and I sure hope either one is willing to change his stance given this wealth of information that he should have available to him as president....

 

I'm back to lurking....

 

Yep. And doubling the child tax benefit? I'm not for that, even though it benefits me. I did not ask anyone childless to shoulder more burden so I could shoulder less, and I don't need my reproductive choices subsidized. I don't begrudge anyone who needs welfare having it, and I mean that sincerely. But this is welfare for my family, who doesn't need it and never has. Not to say we never will. But let's not jump the gun here.

[Demal]

Adam Smith, the father of free market capitalism, wrote in “The Wealth of Nations†(1776):

 

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. . . . The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. . . . It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

 

[emphasis mine]

[Jami]

Yep. And doubling the child tax benefit? I'm not for that, even though it benefits me. I did not ask anyone childless to shoulder more burden so I could shoulder less, and I don't need my reproductive choices subsidized. I don't begrudge anyone who needs welfare having it, and I mean that sincerely. But this is welfare for my family, who doesn't need it and never has. Not to say we never will. But let's not jump the gun here.

 

But aren't your children more likely to be paying for the Social Security benefits or other programs that those childless couples will someday be utilizing? It does benefit the nation to not decline in population. Which is why many European countries are trying to make it so attractive for people to have children, to stop negative population growth and provide income earners who will eventually be tax payers. :)

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

But aren't your children more likely to be paying for the Social Security benefits or other programs that those childless couples will someday be utilizing? It does benefit the nation to not decline in population. Which is why many European countries are trying to make it so attractive for people to have children, to stop negative population growth and provide income earners who will eventually be tax payers. :)

 

I can certainly justify it. But the fact is, I don't want other people to have to support my kids, unless they specifically and personally volunteer to do so.

 

I'm certainly not opposed to leaders hashing it out, with input from their constituents, to set the tax rates for all tax payers. I'm so weird that I even question the whole "marriage rate" thing. What if I'm suddenly widowed? Suddenly I become some kind of second-class citizen who now pays a higher rate?

 

I fully admit it's weird. And I fully admit that my kids receive boucoup bucks to attend school from private funding that they've applied for and received. So I'm not totally against my family getting help.

[Aggie]

Yep. And doubling the child tax benefit? I'm not for that, even though it benefits me. I did not ask anyone childless to shoulder more burden so I could shoulder less, and I don't need my reproductive choices subsidized. I don't begrudge anyone who needs welfare having it, and I mean that sincerely. But this is welfare for my family, who doesn't need it and never has. Not to say we never will. But let's not jump the gun here.

 

Pam...this is a tax credit, not an undeserved, un-worked-for check, right? Personally, I don't consider this welfare. I consider this being able to keep my own money and do with it as I please. It's not welfare unless it's money that your family didn't earn. If you have more of your earned money, you are able to donate to anyone YOU think deserves it. Pick a charity that doesn't have high overhead or give it straight to a family. By the time money funnels through the red tape, how much actually gets to people who need it? You can be much more efficient with your money than a large government can be. :)

 

Then, if you ever do need help, wouldn't it be great to go somewhere and have the option of paying it back so more people can be helped? :)

 

Aggie

[Aggie]

I can certainly justify it. But the fact is, I don't want other people to have to support my kids, unless they specifically and personally volunteer to do so.

 

Well, don't count most tax-payers as volunteers! :lol:

 

I'm certainly not opposed to leaders hashing it out, with input from their constituents, to set the tax rates for all tax payers. I'm so weird that I even question the whole "marriage rate" thing. What if I'm suddenly widowed? Suddenly I become some kind of second-class citizen who now pays a higher rate?

 

I fully admit it's weird. And I fully admit that my kids receive boucoup bucks to attend school from private funding that they've applied for and received. So I'm not totally against my family getting help.

 

But the help your children are getting is from *private* funds. When your dc are financially able, they'll remember that and perhaps donate so other kids can go to a great school. I highly doubt our kids will over-pay their taxes. Just like I don't over-pay mine! :)

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Adam Smith, the father of free market capitalism, wrote in “The Wealth of Nations†(1776):

 

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. . . . The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. . . . It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

 

 

[emphasis mine]

 

And again,

. His reasoned answer, which takes into account the questioners beliefs and assertions and respects her as a person, asserts much the same thing.

 

BTW: I'm fine with a person changing his mind. I'm actually relieved when a candidate says, like Mitt Romney did about the abortion issue, you know, this is how I felt back then, but now with more information and more time to think about this, I have a different position. I think that shows growth and personal development, even if I disagree with their position. I respect that more than some foolish consistency.

 

But this is to say that people on BOTH sides of this issue can sincerely disagree that taxing the wealthier of our nation is to be advocating socialism.

 

:apologizes to poor Soph, who is turning over in her grave (or would be, were she dead), for beating this poor, dead YouTube horse:

[TXMomof4]

Here's the thing I do NOT understand. Most of us here are hsing our kids because we've seen/feel/believe that we can provide a better education for our children than the public school. We've had post after post about the failure of the schools and about how the ridiculous idea of throwing MORE money into the system is when it won't fix what's wrong with it.

 

Why does the solution to all of the problems in this nation seem to be to throw more money at it? I understand our economy is in trouble. So we go spend more money to fix it? If the welfare system isn't working the way it should, we should just spend more?

 

That seems to be what this debate always boils down to - more money going to the poor. But will that really happen? Or will the mire of the federal gov. just get deeper and bigger? Have the problems with the current system actually been identified? How can the system be fixed if we don't know what the h*ll is wrong with it? That's the same as me taking my car to the mechanic and asking him to fix the car. I get it back, it still doesn't work, so I pay him double to fix it again. That doesn't make it more likely that my car will be fixed, it just means that I deserve to lose that money if I don't demand accountability from him!

 

I wish beyond all wishing that we could have someone or a group of someones in Washington actually go in and clear out the carp. If any single person there was actually accountable for the money they take from my family I think the world would be a much better place.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

But the help your children are getting is from *private* funds. When your dc are financially able, they'll remember that and perhaps donate so other kids can go to a great school. I highly doubt our kids will over-pay their taxes. Just like I don't over-pay mine! :)

 

I agree. I do NOT ask for public funds for my family simply because I have kids. I don't think it's fair as it stands, and I certainly can't imagine doubling that.

 

And yes, that's the plan, that when we and they are able, we will help others.

[joannqn]

I received this today:

 

Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed.

 

Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference--just imagine the coincidence.

 

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

 

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.

 

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.

 

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.

OR IS IT.........REDISTRIBUTION OF SOMEONE ELSE'S WEALTH IS A GREAT IDEA.

 

Aggie

 

Funny! And so true.

[lynn]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe McCain voted for the stimulus plan that allowed a form of "redistribution" of wealth in the form of rebate checks.

Checks were given to those that who did NOT pay taxes and people who earned "too much money" did not receive checks even though they did pay taxes. If that isn't a form of redistribution of wealth, I'm not sure what is....

 

I'm one of those voters on the fence, but these "sound bites" drive me crazy!

 

I usually only lurk, but as long as I have ventured out....

 

It also drives me crazy when people consider changing opinions as a character flaw. If you are running a business and have a product or idea that you love, but it flops when you bring it to market, do you stand behind it because you stated it was your product? Or do you modify it now that you have a better understanding of the market? (I'm not meaning just saying something to get votes, but for example the banking crisis - the original plan has morphed into something very different from its original state.)

 

I sure hope that when either is elected, he will have an abundance of resources/advisors to help understand issues in a more thorough way and I sure hope either one is willing to change his stance given this wealth of information that he should have available to him as president....

 

I'm back to lurking....

 

Oh you mean like Raines who worked for fannie mae and made millions......

[lynn]

Yep, spreading the wealth is easier when it's someone else's money.

[Soph the vet]

 

:apologizes to poor Soph, who is turning over in her grave (or would be, were she dead), for beating this poor, dead YouTube horse:

 

 

AAAHHH, somebody stop her....I am getting dizzy!!

Where is that dead spinning smilie when you need one?:lol:

 

Man, Pam, hope you're not a prophet!!

[Renee in NC]

Sorry to say, but I think your ending is our future as a country. I'm married to one of the small businessmen who will be put out of business if Obama's tax plan is enacted. We're not "rich" by any means or measure. We're clawing just to stay alive and keep our employees paid and make sure we and they have health insurance. I work three part-time jobs from home so we can keep our bills paid. The business is an S corporation. My husband is the majority shareholder, but his two brothers own the minority of the shares. The business's revenues exceed $250,000 per year, I'm sure, but that's far more than we ever see in income. If our taxes go up, we go under. It may mean the end of our homeschooling, because I'll have to find full-time work of some sort. Not easy to do if you're a 54 year old woman who's been out of the workforce for 10+ years. I do have a couple of college/professional degrees, but I have job feelers out now, and have had for several months, but no one is interested.

 

 

If your profit is less than $250,000 a year you will not see a tax increase. This is a common misconception - it is about individual profit, not total revenues. Even if your family gets $150,000 and the other two brothers get $50,000 (for a total of $250,000) none of you will see a tax increase.

 

And, even if you DID make $250,000, the tax increase would occur, but I am not sure how much.

[Linda in NE]

He says "make" every time he talks about this issue. "Make" is not a clear economic or accounting term, and he's never been pinned down regarding whether he means gross revenue, net revenue before taxes, gross income, net income . . .

 

My point is, the issue is unclear, and I think he's kept it unclear to give himself wiggle room to do whatever strikes his fancy once elected, then turn around and say, "I never said . . ."

[Renee in NC]

He says "make" every time he talks about this issue. "Make" is not a clear economic or accounting term, and he's never been pinned down regarding whether he means gross revenue, net revenue before taxes, gross income, net income . . .

 

My point is, the issue is unclear, and I think he's kept it unclear to give himself wiggle room to do whatever strikes his fancy once elected, then turn around and say, "I never said . . ."

 

It is very clear to me, as an accountant and a small business owner. I am also not voting for Obama, so I don't have an iron in this fire. It would require a MASSIVE overhaul of the entire IRS system to tax revenues rather than profits.