Spring Break
Wealthy and poor alike, what do you think about no taxes?
Abstract:
The Presidential debates are over. Anyone who followed the last debate (and probably many who didn't), became very familiar with an Ohio resident by the name of Joe Wurzelbacher or, "Joe the Plumber." Regardless of how one might feel regarding either candidate, Joe was able to get Obama to admit something he had previously denied: Obama wants to "spread the wealth around....
- Displaying 1 - 6 of 6
Mike
posted 10/22/08 @ 5:03 PM PST
You criticize Obama for having a plan but don't offer alternatives. The "things cost more" argument doesn't work when you consider that health care prices will lower quite a bit, consumer confidence would be restored, and there is still not a solid argument the net difference for the middle class would be negative.
The trickle-down theory has worked really well over the last 8 years, now we're going to trash a pretty sound plan promoted by Warren Buffet (richest man in the world) and Robert Reich (economic advisor for Clinton and former Secretary of Labor). Why? Because balancing trickle-down with some trickle-up is socialist?
Would you prefer we lower taxes, shift all power to the states, and pray more?
Where is your proof that 250k plus is inadequate when combined with cuts in ineffective programs? Obama is reforming major programs in order to shift priorities and focus. Did you look at tax revenue distribution versus wealth distribution?
On the socialist state front, I agree that if that was our policy for the next 50 years, that's in conflict with our core ideology as a nation and how we view the role of federal government. But to say that it's an ineffective plan for balancing and strengthening the middle class with an upper class that is soaking up more and more wealth is an uneducated opinion. Fact is, there has to be some equality for the American people when it comes to wealth opportunity. I'll let you in on a little secret -- the US is already conducting a lot of socialist business but it's only for that same group of people crying about tax increases.
Your Nazi comparison is sort of where I lost you. While you're at it, you should convince people that Obama is responsible for the Kennedy assassination. Or, better yet, maybe you could get the president to call democrats Nazi appeasers in front of the Knesset.
Oh wait, already happened.
It's ironic you use the Nazi comparison, given the republican campaign sounds a lot like the Nazi party, which is short for "National Socialism". While you were researching the rest of your article on what I am sure is Wikipedia, I wonder if you read the part on Nazism that described the Nazi party as lacking clear economic policies, using 'socialism' as a campaign buzzword and challenging the patriotism of their opponents.
Anyway, here's an idea for your Halloween costume: Senator Joseph McCarthy.
The trickle-down theory has worked really well over the last 8 years, now we're going to trash a pretty sound plan promoted by Warren Buffet (richest man in the world) and Robert Reich (economic advisor for Clinton and former Secretary of Labor). Why? Because balancing trickle-down with some trickle-up is socialist?
Would you prefer we lower taxes, shift all power to the states, and pray more?
Where is your proof that 250k plus is inadequate when combined with cuts in ineffective programs? Obama is reforming major programs in order to shift priorities and focus. Did you look at tax revenue distribution versus wealth distribution?
On the socialist state front, I agree that if that was our policy for the next 50 years, that's in conflict with our core ideology as a nation and how we view the role of federal government. But to say that it's an ineffective plan for balancing and strengthening the middle class with an upper class that is soaking up more and more wealth is an uneducated opinion. Fact is, there has to be some equality for the American people when it comes to wealth opportunity. I'll let you in on a little secret -- the US is already conducting a lot of socialist business but it's only for that same group of people crying about tax increases.
Your Nazi comparison is sort of where I lost you. While you're at it, you should convince people that Obama is responsible for the Kennedy assassination. Or, better yet, maybe you could get the president to call democrats Nazi appeasers in front of the Knesset.
Oh wait, already happened.
It's ironic you use the Nazi comparison, given the republican campaign sounds a lot like the Nazi party, which is short for "National Socialism". While you were researching the rest of your article on what I am sure is Wikipedia, I wonder if you read the part on Nazism that described the Nazi party as lacking clear economic policies, using 'socialism' as a campaign buzzword and challenging the patriotism of their opponents.
Anyway, here's an idea for your Halloween costume: Senator Joseph McCarthy.
Fred
posted 10/29/08 @ 9:00 AM PST
I wrote a letter to the editor about this article, and blogged about it as well: http://fredericiana.com/2008/10/29/tax-policies-and-inappropriate-nazi-comparisons/
Ian
posted 11/03/08 @ 10:42 AM PST
Good article. It's amazing how 'rich' people paying 40% of the nation's taxes is still not enough in the eyes of some.
Bill
posted 11/06/08 @ 4:13 PM PST
Ian, because the 40% claim is a MYTH. The top 10% pay lower taxes per net worth (this is the key here) than the rest of the 90%. Yes, they pay 40% in income tax, but because of corporate loopholes, tax breaks on capital gains, overseas investments, and tax loopholes on estates, they actually pay less (percentage wise) then everyone below them. Warren Buffet, one of the richest men in America, said it was a crime that he pays lower taxes (in terms of net worth) than his secretary.
Anna
posted 11/12/08 @ 8:00 AM PST
It is refreshing to know that there are some people out there who realize it is not fair to tax the rich and give to the poor. This has never worked for our society. The big businesses are going to continue to move out of the country, the small businesses will struggle or go under, and the poor will continue to get things for free and be less motivated to ever work. The only "fair" tax is a flat rate tax, the same for everyone. Why should people who work harder and longer hours have to pay more than someone who choses to work little or not at all?
- Displaying 1 - 6 of 6
Geoffery Parsons
posted 10/22/08 @ 2:17 AM PST