Spreading the Wealth
Submitted by civil on October 14, 2008 - 11:16am
Yesterday (10/13/08) during a walking tour, Obama likened his economic plan to “spreading the wealth”. A better name for the plan might be “redistribution of the wealth”, and is the anti-theses of capitalism. In other words, it is socialism and it will ruin our economy as we know it today. Experiments in this type of "wealth sharing" have proven time and again that such programs result in less productivity and more and more reliance upon the government for support. As the upper tiers of income producers find less and less incentive to be productive the income to the State diminishes until it can no longer fulfill any of its obligations to its citizens. The story of Robin Hood is a heroic tale, but there is nothing heroic in a government emulating the thief.
- civil's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Filed under:
Comments
that 5% of the nation controls 95% of it's wealth? Do you think it's right that almost 30 years ago, the CEO of a company made 40 times what his average employee did and now he makes 200 times what his average employee makes? Do you think it's right that the average American actually pays a percentage (in my house we pay about 10% of our bring home pay) for gas and that 5% doesn't even pay 1%?
The middle class pays the most in taxes because there are so many loopholes for investments and such that the wealthy doesn't have to pay taxes. If you're making 50 million a year, what does it hurt if you give 1 million to charities so you don't have to pay taxes? Yea, that's nice and all that they gave that money to a charity, but it sure doesn't pay to fix a road or a bridge. If you're making 50 million a year, are you really going to worry about paying 250,000 bucks to an accountant to find all the tax loopholes that you can while the average American either does their taxes themselves and hopes that they find some loopholes or they take their taxes to H&R Block or Jackson Hewlitt for the quick refunds because they know there aren't any loopholes for them.
Obama's plan isn't so much spreading the wealth or redistributing the wealth, his plan is that the rich pay their fair share of taxes. His plan isn't necessarily taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor, his plan is that the rich pay their fair share of taxes for stuff that we all count on like roads, bridges, police, fire, all that fun stuff that makes society what it is.
Personally, I think that the tax code is crap and that we would all be better off at a flat tax rate. I would almost lay bets that if we had the flat tax rate that we wouldn't need to even pay 15% of our paychecks if everybody paid in because all the tax loopholes were gone. Hell, we could probably just go to a National Sales Tax and then you only pay taxes on the money you spend. I think that would probably be fair as well with some small tweaks.
True communism is awesome because everybody owns everything and no one owns anything. However, the human race can't do that because we are by nature pretty much a what's in it for me race. Government Socialism and Government Communism both sucks, but I don't think that making the rich pay their fair share of taxes for infrastructure is either one of those.
If U look at the fall of the Roman Empire, it was the elimination of the middle class…
I had a guy tell me in 78 that if U make $100 grand a year and pay any taxes U are a fool…
I never paid any after that for 30 years.
U are dead on that rich people don’t pay taxes…
Poor people DON’T PAY TAXES, so the burden falls to the middle class…
Very few of them get richer, most get poorer, and then they fall into the non taxpayers….
Personally I think a Million bucks should be a cap and over that you pay like 60% taxes… but Gates, and Buffet, Soros, hell even Clinton or Obama or McCain none of them would agree to that…
Biden is worth way more that a few Million so where do U start???
U wait for the RICH to say, GEE I NEED TO PAY MORE…
I’ll hold my breath…
Well, the top 10% pay 68% of the taxes, the middle 40% pay 29% of the taxes and te bottom 50% pay 3% of the taxes. What would you have us do? Increase the tax on the wealthy to 71% so the bottom 50% pays nothing? That's what Obama is proposing. Somehow, it is forgotten that it is that top 10% who create the jobs at which that bottom 50% works. I guess we can tell the top dogs to quit creating so many jobs and taking so many risks cause they are making too much money, Or why don't we just set up a system so that the money-makers throw half their ill gotten luchre in a pot and the bottom feeders can dig in at will. Whatcha gonna do when the creaters quit creating cause its not worth while? It is really like gambling. Those who risk the most, make the most.
get your figures from because I would like to see the facts on that. On paper, that might be the percentages, but what percentage of their wealth are they actually paying? My wife and I actually pay in about 10-15% of our yearly income into taxes. Are you saying that somebody who makes 50 million a year is paying in 8 million dollars a year in taxes or are they giving money to charity, looking for loopholes in the tax code, investing money overseas that they don't pay taxes on and then after all of that only pay in a million dollars. Of course, that's a million dollars, but that would take about a 100 people just like me to pay that much into taxes. So which is fair, that I actually pay in 10% of my income into taxes and they end up paying maybe 5% of their income. So what you end up with is the top bracket pay a lot more into taxes than your average Joe, but your average Joe is paying a lot more percentage wise into taxes than you average rich guy.
And I think that every American with very few exceptions should pay taxes. After all, if you drive a car, you drive it on a road that was paid for by taxes. When you interact with the police, somebody had to pay for them. When you land at an airport, somebody paid for that.
So we can thank that 10% that has millions upon millions of dollars for creating those low wage no benefit jobs? If you really think that the top dog is gonna stay the top dog without keeping the other dogs below them, then once again you are mistaken.
Oh and btw, you only pay Social Security taxes on the first 100,000 dollars you make, you don't pay anymore after that. So that's also fair that people who make under 100,000 dollars pay into SS 100% and people over that pay whatever percentage.
And before you even say that well people who make under a 100,000 dollars are the ones that are gonna use Social Security, Social Security is being borrowed against for all sorts of stuff, that's why it's in trouble.
According to the Tax Foundation, in 2006 the top 10% , had an AGI of $3,833,144, paid $724,740, share of total AGI 47.32%, shate of income taxes 70.79%, Avg. tax rate 18.86%. The bottom 50% had an AGI of $1,016,441, paid $30563, share of total AGI 12.51%, share of income taxes 2.99%, Avg. tax rate 3.01%. All dollar amounts are in millions. Figures in earlier post were for 2007,but appear comparable. You can see the entire table at http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
is that they use adjusted gross income.which is income after you take your deductions. Who has more deductions? The guy in the top 1% who is making at least 388k a year or the guy in the lower 50% who is making under 32k a year?
There are 1.3 million people who make over 388k a year. I wonder how many are making over a million a year. Almost everybody you see on television for any amount of time is making over a million a year doing that. That's quite a few people right there. I wonder how many deductions they get to claim for their adjusted gross income. I also wonder how much of our countries infrastructure they use up as well. I don't know very many people who make 30k a year owning more than one house and they're probably lucky to own that one house. They might own 2 cars, but I don't think many of them own 3 or more. How many thousandaires have you seen with their own personal jets or yachts?
I have no problem at all having wealthy people helping pay for a large percentage to help out the rest of the country. I'm not a big believer in welfare or any of that crap ( don't get me started) but I do think that anybody who wants to go to college should be able to pay for it, I do think that we should be able to have decent roads, I do think that we, as in everybody, should be able to afford a doctor when we need one.
It's not a redistribution of wealth, it's making this country a better place because even just one person who makes a better life for himself by being able to go to college who might not have been able to otherwise makes our society better as a whole.
AGI is computed by adjusting your gross income by certain "standard deductions", including class room expenses, qualified performimg arts, IRA deduction, student loan interest, tuition fees, moving expenses, self-employment tax, self-employement health insurance, Early withdrawal penalty, alimony paid, and a new one domestic production activities. These are all available to anybody who may have a qualifying expense, not just the wealthy Note that this is all calculated PRIOR to applying standard or itemized deductions. Based on the figyres in the source I referenced earlier, the top 10% of the population, control 47% of the wealth and pays 70% of the income tax,
By infrastructure I assume you mean roads, power grid, water supply and the like. The roads are supplied and maintained by those who use them. The power grid and water supply are made possble by utility customers. Therefore it would seem that those who use more of the resources would pay more for their maintenance. The roads for instance are most heavily used and most damaged by long haul truckers, Therefore the truckers pay the higher tax and additional fees to compensate.
You imply that you feel the wealthy should pay for or at least contribute to a college education for all.I agree that all who wish to go to college should be able to pay for it, but by their own sweat, not that of others. I went to college. I spent three years of my life in the service to enable me to do that. All of my children went to college and all of them paid their own way by work or by loans. My grandchildren are doing the same. Didn't seem to hurt them.
And it is redistribution of wealth. It is no different than using eminent domain to take one man's property and giving it to another. Taxing the rich and giving the proceeds to one in a lower income bracket is a form of eminent domain, and should be just as unpopular.
They aren't giving it to anybody, they are using it to pay for the betterment of this country. The military wouldn't exist without taxes. Government wouldn't exist without taxes.
And where do you think student loans come from? Somebody has to give up the money for the loan in the first place. And it's a loan, which means it's paid back with interest, which usually happens when you graduate from college. However, there are grants that the government gives out for colleges because student loans don't pay for everything a lot of the time. That comes from taxes as well. I got the pell grant, it wasn't a lot of money, but it sure did help. Your three years in the service were paid for by taxes as well as the GI BIll that you got when you left the service.
So if we lower the taxes for the people who have, by your calculation 47% of the money, then who's gonna pick up the balance. The people who aren't making the money?
Many programs have spread out the wealth
But when U get to the point that it’s not worth while for the company to keep the doors open they will close…
Obama’s latest programs are worth about a Trillion $ ain’t no way we can afford that.. U figure 35 % of the people on the low end don’t pay taxes, and 25 % on the hi end don’t either so who pays for all Obama’s programs??? The 40 % in the middle…
See we have to redistribute the wealth…
Isn’t that still called Socialism? Or is it Communism?
You say 25% on the high end don't pay taxes, so let's make sure that they pay their fair share. John McCain wants to give them more tax breaks, as well as continuing to give tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas. It's not socialism for rich people to pay taxes. It's their duty, especially when they're getting fat off the laborers and consumers who do pay their taxes.
Because anyone who makes more than $250 grand can hire a tax attorney and he will hide Your money and U will not pay any tax that U will not get back...U pay over here and invest over there and that fails and U get a write off and cancels what U paid in the first place... I had a golf shop and every round I played for years was a write off, U think I would pay $300 to play Pebel Bach? it was a write off...
I was there about 20 years & never paid a dime.
the $440,000 IGA spent on the junket was tax free... that’s the whole mess,
the 15% across the board is a good idea, no exceptions no hold outs,
15% on everyone PIERiOD....
I don’t think any of them would do it???
IRs stats show that the top 10% pay 68% of the taxes. The bottom 50% pays 3%. Are you advocating that the top 10% should pay the taxes for the bottom 50%? In effect, that is Obama's proposal. That is socialism. Remember, if the top 10% don't get a considerable return on their investments,the jobs dry up and the bottom 50% will have no labor to do.
This tax break for companies working overseas is really a tax deferral. The U.S. company is taxed 35% on earnings outside the U,S. The payment of the tax is deferred as long as the money is used in the overseas operation --"unrepatriated income". Since the tax is only deferred, not eliminated, and it must be spent in the company operation, there isn't much incentive to locate a branch firm overseas. Should the company not put the money back into the overseas operation or closes the overseas plant this deferred tax would become payable. There are a raft of loop holes in the corporate tax structure that reduces the tax percentage, but that applies to both oversea and domestic operations. Other things enter in, primarily wages and other costs of doing business which are lower overseas, plus some firms (McDonalds for one) are multinational and the decision to locate overseas branches has nothing to do with taxation.No U.S. politician controls that. McCain's proposal to reduce the corporate income tax to 25% would induce multi-national companies to locate in the U.S., bringing more jobs stateside.
But we all know that those companies don't use the tax savings to "create jobs". They ship those jobs overseas and pay their CEOs and other officers outrageous "compensation packages". You can see now where the Bush/Republican corporate-friendly tax scheme has gotten us. That business about cutting corporate taxes creating jobs is bunk, or else we'd have a lot more jobs and a lot less economic misery. McCain is just more of the same.