Obama's Ideas on Taxes; Severely Flawed!

@rodney850 (2145)
United States
July 28, 2008 3:08pm CST
Okay, someone explain to me again how we can unfairly tax the successful simply because they have the audacity(there's that word again) to be successful! Why is it fair to impose severe punisment taxes on people just because they are better at what they do than others? What this type of policy is, is an attempt to redistribute wealth in America and every time that has been tried in history, not only has the attempt failed, it usually brought the whole house down! The following article points out the severely flawed ideas Obama's tax plan has and it's impending and certain consequences! http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm1973.cfm
4 people like this
7 responses
• United States
29 Jul 08
The super rich would just find new tax shelters and therefore make Obama's grandiose scheme not worth a damn. Personally I think everyone should be taxed evenly and fairly using a fair scale while reaping the same benefits.
3 people like this
@rodney850 (2145)
• United States
29 Jul 08
Whiteheather, You are right about that! They would take the money normally used to create new jobs or raise salaries and put it in shelters for a "rainy day" because they know when a liberal gets started punishing the wealthy for being wealthy it usually gets worse!
2 people like this
• United States
29 Jul 08
To tell you the truth the difference between the 2 tax plans ar not all that different if you look at the long term effects. McCains tax plan lowering taxes for everyone would help the rich more than the middle class people. Obama's plan in lowering taxes for low income household and raising it for high income household helps the lower class. Both however will have a huge effect on our federal deficit. McCains plan will increase the deficit by 4.5 trillion dollars. Obama's will raise it by 3.3 trillion dollars. Being in the lower income household I will probably support Obama's plan. McCain's plan will give nearly one quarter of its benefits to the people making 2.8 millions doallars annually. Obama's will benefit mostly the middle class. I think McCain might be thinking about his wife's bank account.
2 people like this
@missybal (4489)
• United States
29 Jul 08
Yeah when you look at dollar and cents then yes the percents will give you more cash if you are paying less tax on more money. However you got to think also that the people with the money are companies that are the ones doing the hiring and giving the lower class paychecks. The tax cuts for the upper class will help companies to be able to give raises... help them be able to support the higher minimum wages that are being applied without raising the cost of their products that we buy. It will help to create more employment opportunities. Help encourage people to start up new companies. If Obama raises the taxes on the upper class it will only hurt the lower class more. You don't care about how much tax is coming out of your paycheck when you don't have a paycheck at all. As far as thinking of his wife's bank account, a great deal of the money in that bank account she uses for various charities.
3 people like this
• United States
29 Jul 08
An informed response--well done. Even if I was absurdly rich, I'd favor Obama's tax plan--I'd never be so greedy as to want MORE on top of all of the tax cuts I got from Bush.
1 person likes this
@rodney850 (2145)
• United States
29 Jul 08
ClarusVisum, It is easy to say something off the wall like "I would be in favor of Obama's plan even if I were filthy rich" until you are actually faced with giving up 60% of your income! Danimalhite, Your response sounds good, like ClarusVisum said but it is a little misinformed. The tax cuts given during the Bush administration ACTUALLY raised the incoming revenue from taxes because the "filthy rich" were able to open more businesses and therefore create more jobs. Yes, they got to keep more of their money but the also made it possible for others to make a living. Exactly how many middle class and poor create any jobs? But of course I'd give up my job to get 3 or 4 hundred more dollars back on my taxes, wouldn't you? The problem with Obama's 3.3 trillion deficit is that it doesn't factor in his enormous give away programs which will multiply the deficit several times!
2 people like this
@gewcew23 (8007)
• United States
28 Jul 08
It is as simple as saying that some just hate those who are wealthier than themselves. We have in America some that distrust capitalism, yes even though American capitalism has made there life better than any other country in the world. The greed tag is for the most part applied to those that want to keep their own money, but greed is the man that wants to take money from someone else for their own good. Taxation is a way to fulfill this greed that is in the heart of some. Sure they could actually earn a living but where is the fun in that, when they could just hire a politician to commit larcenous on the wealth. The point that you are missing is that some want the house to come down. Some American hate America, and if taxation will be the tool that destroys this country so be it.
1 person likes this
@Destiny007 (5805)
• United States
29 Jul 08
This is the way that communism.... or as the liberals would say... socialism works. Even that it has proven to be a failed economic model, the democrats still embrace socialist ideology just because they "care". They hate capitalism and success, and these tax increases are aimed directly at both groups. Obama is an idiot, and doesn't have a clue as to what he is talking about in the first place.
2 people like this
@xfahctor (14113)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
29 Jul 08
One important point I don't feel the article addressed enough was the capital gains tax. You can increase the income tax all you want and it only generaly effects the upper middle to lower income tax payers. Many people in the upper brackets have their money in stocks and such. so income tax really doesn't effect them as much as the lower brackets. The other edge of the sword is that capital gains aren't generaly taxed until they are cashed out or sold. So if you increase that tax people will simply not sell or cash out and instead hold out for the next administration.
1 person likes this
@ClarusVisum (2163)
• United States
29 Jul 08
Bush's tax cuts already gave huge breaks to the wealthiest Americans. When are the rest going to get their turn at some tax breaks? Isn't it only fair that the 'bottom 95%' get the long end of the stick SOMETIME? Why does Exxon-Mobil deserve (on top of Bush's tax cuts, which McCain would make permanent) ANOTHER $1.2 billion in tax breaks every year, as McCain wants? Why doesn't the middle class deserve that $1.2 billion, as the price of everything goes up and people can't even afford to get new jobs because they can't afford to drive to interviews? This is the real question: after all these year's of Bush's tax cuts HEAVILY favoring the wealthiest, why doesn't the middle class now deserve any help? You know, just because they're called the middle class doesn't mean they deserve to get the middle finger.
1 person likes this
• United States
29 Jul 08
"First and foremost, the Bush tax cuts for the "wealthy" impacted every taxpayer from top to bottom." I'm sure all of these people unable to even go to a job interview because gas is so expensive would agree. "Arbitrarily, a percentage tax cut, although it looks unfair is actually the most fair way to give tax cuts! 10% is 10% no matter what the number you are taking it from!" If you're struggling, 10% is no help at all. You need a fixed amount that makes a difference--taking a percentage of a low income isn't going to mean anything, while for the wealthiest it means millions upon millions of 'bonus' dollars that they sure have far less use for than the hard-working Americans who can't make ends meet thanks to the rising price of everything, especially oil. "these are paychecks that will start to disappear if big business is forced to start hiding capital" Please. What are the big business owners going to do when none of their employees can AFFORD TO DRIVE TO WORK? This has already happened to a lot of people--one publicized family went from $70,000 a year to going to a food bank ( http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/personal/03/27/foodbank.family/index.html )! Instead of bailing out Bear Stearns, the government should be bailing out these hard-working families who definitely deserve that $1.2 billion a year more than an oil company that keeps breaking its own (and world!) records for profit year after year! Your ridiculous slippery slope fallacy tying giving the working class some well-deserved tax breaks with there being NO JOBS AT ALL FOR ANYONE EVER is so ridiculous that I'm not even going to refute it.
@rodney850 (2145)
• United States
29 Jul 08
ClarusVisum, First and foremost, the Bush tax cuts for the "wealthy" impacted every taxpayer from top to bottom. Arbitrarily, a percentage tax cut, although it looks unfair is actually the most fair way to give tax cuts! 10% is 10% no matter what the number you are taking it from! YES, the wealthy who make more money realized more gain monetarily but I ask you; who took the risks, hired the people, opened more businesses? The middle class? No, we are too busy living from paycheck to paycheck and these are paychecks that will start to disappear if big business is forced to start hiding capital, which they will under Obama's plan and just as they did under Carter's administration! I ask you one question and this is just personal to you, you don't even have to answer to me just yourself. At what point would you personally throw up your hands and say, "It just isn't worth the trouble"? 40% taxation? 50% taxation 60% taxation 70% taxation you get the picture, don't you? I want you to understand, if you will, these "fat cats" that you believe make too much money and are dragging this country down because they "don't pay their fair share" are the people who provide the jobs, paychecks, benifets, raises and everything else that goes along with being employed. If we take away their desire to succeed by making it unprofitable or not profitable enough and they decide to close their doors (just as many did during the Carter taxation years) we will ALL be out of jobs. Then where will Obama's taxes come from?
3 people like this
@Smith2028 (797)
• United States
29 Jul 08
It is permissible simply because the public has made it so. The Democrat Party has always been an advocate from taking things away from the successful for the betterment of those more needy (AKA Stealing from the rich to give to the poor). However, this only adds to the problem. You can not bring someone up by taking others down. Taking more taxes from the rich will only encourage people to work less, make less and therefore have to pay less tax. Obama is simply following the party lines on this one. They need to fund all of their programs, regardless of whether or not they work because as Democrat Bill Foster once said "There is no problem that can't be fixed by throwing more money at it."