Socialist Obama Redistribution of Wealth
Find a Conversation
Socialist Obama Redistribution of Wealth
| Tue, 10-28-2008 - 12:18am |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck
At least Obama is telling us exactly what his philosophy of government actually.

Pages
Wadjya decide?
How did the government prevent the Church from helping the needy?
To answer your earlier question, in 1996, Clinton ended welfare as a lifestyle choice.
<>
I think that is the crux of the problem right there.
Do you think anyone wants her income taxes increased?
Of course not.
oh yes i forgot!
The middle class is already
What I am "belittling" is government cronyism.
What Obama wants to do is to take money from successful, productive businesses, and give it to people with political connections who don't have a good enough idea to get funded by a venture capitalist.
It's just another way Obama wants to move money from productive sectors of the economy to government control.
Can I please see your (credible) sources?
Chrissy
mom to Aidan 8/21/03
Grayson Blaine 12/30/07
There's a world of difference between making more than (now based on the latest from Biden) $100,000 and the billions of an ExxonMobil.>>
Sorry, but big does matter because most big business whether they are successful or not have gotten some kind of tax break/subsidy.
"Except the tax is levyed on income, not time. For example, the roughly 1/3 who pay no taxes are not required to donate community service time."
Your argument was that taxation was like taking time from people and if you tax the wealthier at higher rates, you are taking more time from them. My point was that because their average hourly wage is higher, that may not be the case and a flat tax, by that logic, would disproportionately affect those that make less.
One third pay no taxes because either they filed with such low incomes that their tax deductions and credits took away any bill they may have had or they did not file. Those that did not file would typically fall in the same category (at least according to the Tax Foundation). I would guess that for those people, a tax bill could actually affect their ability to get by day-to-day.
I have gotten the impression that you generally dislike taxes for their inherent immorality and lack of fairness. I think a flat tax would not fix an inherent lack of fairness (and you might agree) particularly when you add on pay-roll taxes, etc. which disproportionately affect certain types of workers. I'm not saying I have a good answer - I've actually just really enjoyed the back and forth arguments on this with you.
For now, I guess I think that taxes are a necessary thing even if I don't love them. I think there are projects/programs that are certainly wasteful and wish the government didn't spend our money on them (ethanol subsidies for one). However, I also think that there are things that need to be funded at scale and that require the sort of collective pooling of moneys that federal taxing offers - national defense, public education, protection of the environment, investment in new industry or infrastructure (like the original telegraph lines) that private companies could not fund at the same scale (and I do think this is necessary in the clean energy sector in conjunction with private sector activity), etc.
Since I do not see taxes as immoral and do not believe private individuals or local governments could provide for the "public good" in the same way for some key public health, safety and economic issues, I think a progressive tax that is equivalent to each tax brackets level of wealth is the most fair. That way, each group is paying at tax rates that are proportionally (rather than absolutely) equal. I'm sure there are problems with this argument.
Pages