Obama's tax plan equals SOCIALISM

[Yurt]

Obama Tax Plan Stresses Inequality, Clinton Focuses on Behavior

March 13 (Bloomberg) -- Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both propose significant changes to the tax code that would add to its complexity. His plan emphasizes income inequality, while hers seeks to change Americans' behavior.

Obama's proposal would shift the tax burden toward the rich from low- and middle-income workers. Clinton proposes targeted tax breaks designed to change the way Americans use energy, save money and care for elders.

Obama, 46, ``seems to have focused on redistribution,'' said Michael Graetz, a professor at Yale Law School in New Haven, Connecticut, and a former Treasury official.

Clinton, 60, ``is proposing tax credits for everything short of flossing your teeth,'' said Lee Sheppard, a tax lawyer and columnist at Tax Analysts in Falls Church, Virginia.

The two candidates' plans -- especially Clinton's -- would further complicate a tax system that experts say is already Byzantine. Obama would tweak and augment current laws, while Clinton would introduce even more rules by adding at least nine new credits with complex qualification requirements, phase-outs and sliding scales.

dems love to make more laws and things more complicated (http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080313/pl_bloomberg/are4y0wpjqxu;_ylt=AhjLgoDJQb6.3.bqdXh_yUUDW7oF)

[diuretic]

Stop it Yurt, it's not socialism at all, take that :poke: as a gentle reminder that socialism is about how the ownership of the means of production in a society's economy is worked out, it's not about how taxation is arranged.

Damn it now I've more red markings on my monitor.....:laugh2:

[DragonStryk72]

Obama Tax Plan Stresses Inequality, Clinton Focuses on Behavior

March 13 (Bloomberg) -- Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both propose significant changes to the tax code that would add to its complexity. His plan emphasizes income inequality, while hers seeks to change Americans' behavior.

Obama's proposal would shift the tax burden toward the rich from low- and middle-income workers. Clinton proposes targeted tax breaks designed to change the way Americans use energy, save money and care for elders.

Obama, 46, ``seems to have focused on redistribution,'' said Michael Graetz, a professor at Yale Law School in New Haven, Connecticut, and a former Treasury official.

Clinton, 60, ``is proposing tax credits for everything short of flossing your teeth,'' said Lee Sheppard, a tax lawyer and columnist at Tax Analysts in Falls Church, Virginia.

The two candidates' plans -- especially Clinton's -- would further complicate a tax system that experts say is already Byzantine. Obama would tweak and augment current laws, while Clinton would introduce even more rules by adding at least nine new credits with complex qualification requirements, phase-outs and sliding scales.

dems love to make more laws and things more complicated (http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080313/pl_bloomberg/are4y0wpjqxu;_ylt=AhjLgoDJQb6.3.bqdXh_yUUDW7oF)

we already have a socialist income tax, the progressive income tax, heck we put in a whole new amendment to the constitution just to do it. Karl Marx, author of the communist manifesto, believed that a progressive income tax was the basis of a communist society. so yeah, we're there already, but yeah, they're all (McCain included) gonna muck it up even more.

*shakes fist* Power to the Fair Tax!!!

[diuretic]

we already have a socialist income tax, the progressive income tax, heck we put in a whole new amendment to the constitution just to do it. Karl Marx, author of the communist manifesto, believed that a progressive income tax was the basis of a communist society. so yeah, we're there already, but yeah, they're all (McCain included) gonna muck it up even more.

*shakes fist* Power to the Fair Tax!!!

Marx did indeed advocate a progressive income tax. So did Adam Smith. Was Adam Smith a socialist or even communist?

[bullypulpit]

Marx did indeed advocate a progressive income tax. So did Adam Smith. Was Adam Smith a socialist or even communist?

Apparently he's never read Smith's "<i><a href=http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/Smith/smWN.html>The Wealth of Nations</a></i>". Follow the link for the on-line version.

[Yurt]

so you saying that the redistribution of wealth is not a socialist policy?

i agree the current tax plan needs to change, fair tax or flat tax, not sure which one i am for yet.

[JohnDoe]

so you saying that the redistribution of wealth is not a socialist policy?

i agree the current tax plan needs to change, fair tax or flat tax, not sure which one i am for yet.But would you rather see a Plutocracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy, an oligarchy of the wealthy?

jd

[manu1959]

But would you rather see a Plutocracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy, an oligarchy of the wealthy?

jd

i would rather see neither....i would like to see a dollar taxed equally no matter who earns it......

[Hobbit]

That's a big ole' can of

http://www.insidefurniture.com/insidefurniture/images/duh_can.jpg

[manu1959]

That's a big ole' can of

http://www.insidefurniture.com/insidefurniture/images/duh_can.jpg

agreed.......but if the rich are to pay more in taxes than the poor.....why do we not have a sliding scale for all taxes......sales tax, gas tax, sin tax, fines......

you know you have to type your tax id code and if you are poor your tax rate would be low and if you are rich it would be high.....you mnow like speeding tickets in finland.....

[DragonStryk72]

so you saying that the redistribution of wealth is not a socialist policy?

i agree the current tax plan needs to change, fair tax or flat tax, not sure which one i am for yet.

Our current crap tax system was born out of the flat tax, so I'd lean more toward fair tax, since it hasn't already been warped into a completely unmanageable system.

[DragonStryk72]

Marx did indeed advocate a progressive income tax. So did Adam Smith. Was Adam Smith a socialist or even communist?

On that one point, yes, on others no. I only said that our current tax system is socialist, and based off of Karl Marx's plan for a communist society (we adopted the progressive tax in 1931 just after the russians did, back during our 'let's one up the ruskies without putting thought into it' days).

I do not pretend to advocate that everything he said is wrong. On this one point, however, I believe that he was wrong, although, given that there was no model to work from at the time of his writing the Wealth of Nations, it is understandable that the ramifications of it were not apparent at the time.

[5stringJeff]

Here's the quote from Adam Smith (http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/won-b5-c2-article-1-ss3.htm) (sixth paragraph):

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. 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. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. 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."

I would disagree with Mr. Smith, however, in that while the rich can bear the higher tax burden, it does not necessarily follow that they should. Moreover, America has a 12.7% poverty rate ($19,307 for a family of four, as of 2004 (http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/005647.html)), all of whom get money from the government when they file taxes. So it's not like the impovershed in this country pay taxes in the first place.

[JohnDoe]

Here's the quote from Adam Smith (http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/won-b5-c2-article-1-ss3.htm) (sixth paragraph):

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. 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. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. 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."

I would disagree with Mr. Smith, however, in that while the rich can bear the higher tax burden, it does not necessarily follow that they should. Moreover, America has a 12.7% poverty rate ($19,307 for a family of four, as of 2004 (http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/005647.html)), all of whom get money from the government when they file taxes. So it's not like the impovershed in this country pay taxes in the first place.

They DO PAY about 9% in SS taxes and medicare taxes plus the other 6.5% that their employer pays to SS that WOULD be in their salaries.

So, it is not like they pay "no taxes" to fund the federal government....in fact they have been ripped off like the rest of us, with the Fed using the excess SS monies that we all have paid, to pay for things that ONLY income taxes should pay for.....thus the country going in to debt, at a faster rate than any other time.

for example....due to many many reasons involved with us making a move from Mass to Maine, my hubby did not work but just few months last year and for the first time in nearing 20 years together we had to pay no income tax last year....Combined our income was only 15 grand....we paid "no income tax" for the two of us on that 15 grand AND YOU PAID NONE EITHER on that first 15 grand for 2 people in our TAX CODE.

It is not like you are giving poor people a break for the money they earn, YOU and the Tax code behind you, GIVES YOU and all others THAT SAME TAX FREE $15 grand.... in standard deductions. (NO ONE PAYS income taxes as a couple on the FIRST $16 grand that they make)

But here is the kicker, we DID HAVE TO PAY $1200 in Payroll taxes, even with making as a combined status, $7500 each.... AND WE DID NOT QUALIFY fro an earned income credit.... Family of 2 making a gross pay of $15 k, AND it was NOT considered "in Poverty" and did not qualify for a tax credit.

To tell ya the truth, I WAS SHOCKED that under these circumstances we did not qualify..... Not that we really needed it because we do have other investments that we were able to draw on to live, BUT WHAT IF WE DIDN'T?

i don't know how any one person can live on $7500 GROSS a year or $6900 after they take SS and medicare tax out!

Now all of this was a RUDE AWAKENING to me.... because for the first time in my life, I actually had to SOMEWHAT experience poverty and the taxes they still TAKE from people that have less than nothing to live on is unconscionable.

Just thought I'd share :D

jd

[Kathianne]

Here's the quote from Adam Smith (http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/won-b5-c2-article-1-ss3.htm) (sixth paragraph):

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. 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. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. 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."

I would disagree with Mr. Smith, however, in that while the rich can bear the higher tax burden, it does not necessarily follow that they should. Moreover, America has a 12.7% poverty rate ($19,307 for a family of four, as of 2004 (http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/005647.html)), all of whom get money from the government when they file taxes. So it's not like the impovershed in this country pay taxes in the first place.

Sure the poor in this country pay taxes. With each stop at the grocery store, the gas pump, the phone bill, the electric bill, the gas bill, the clothing store, etc. Sales taxes have always been regressive. Add on the utility taxes, gasoline taxes, tolls, etc., the poor pay just as much in reality and much more percentage wise of income.

We've had this argument many a times, somehow we never 'hear' each other. :laugh2:

[Yurt]

They DO PAY about 9% in SS taxes and medicare taxes plus the other 6.5% that their employer pays to SS that WOULD be in their salaries.

So, it is not like they pay "no taxes" to fund the federal government....in fact they have been ripped off like the rest of us, with the Fed using the excess SS monies that we all have paid, to pay for things that ONLY income taxes should pay for.....thus the country going in to debt, at a faster rate than any other time.

for example....due to many many reasons involved with us making a move from Mass to Maine, my hubby did not work but just few months last year and for the first time in nearing 20 years together we had to pay no income tax last year....Combined our income was only 15 grand....we paid "no income tax" for the two of us on that 15 grand AND YOU PAID NONE EITHER on that first 15 grand for 2 people in our TAX CODE.

It is not like you are giving poor people a break for the money they earn, YOU and the Tax code behind you, GIVES YOU and all others THAT SAME TAX FREE $15 grand.... in standard deductions. (NO ONE PAYS income taxes as a couple on the FIRST $16 grand that they make)

But here is the kicker, we DID HAVE TO PAY $1200 in Payroll taxes, even with making as a combined status, $7500 each.... AND WE DID NOT QUALIFY fro an earned income credit.... Family of 2 making a gross pay of $15 k, AND it was NOT considered "in Poverty" and did not qualify for a tax credit.

To tell ya the truth, I WAS SHOCKED that under these circumstances we did not qualify..... Not that we really needed it because we do have other investments that we were able to draw on to live, BUT WHAT IF WE DIDN'T?

i don't know how any one person can live on $7500 GROSS a year or $6900 after they take SS and medicare tax out!

Now all of this was a RUDE AWAKENING to me.... because for the first time in my life, I actually had to SOMEWHAT experience poverty and the taxes they still TAKE from people that have less than nothing to live on is unconscionable.

Just thought I'd share :D

jd


http://japanese.about.com/library/weekly/graphics/matrix.jpg

[5stringJeff]

What I meant was, the poor don't pay income taxes, which is the "progressive" tax system that people were referring to. Obviously, they pay SS/Medicare taxes - which they should, since they depend on those benefits more than upper class earners will when they retire. And they obviously pay gasoline taxes, sales taxes, etc. etc. - and they receive their equal share of the beneifts those things buy.