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
"We live in a monetary economy. Everyone's labor is effectively converted into dollars. For example, one often sees studies of economic well being saying it takes "X number of hours" for the average worker to buy a washing machine, or a car, or what have you... Therefore, effectively, by taking our money, they are taking our time, and hence a portion of our lives."
Okay, let's go with that. Doesn't this logic also back up that those who receive higher salaries for their jobs are rewarded at a higher rate for their time spent? Thus, if everyone was taxed at the same rate, taxation would effectively be taking away less time for people with higher wages than it would for someone with lower wages? The impact of a flat tax would be disproportionately hard on those that make less. This seems like an argument for graduated taxation.
As for the serfs, it's an interesting comparison. However, as a class they were purposefully kept on wage schedules that would keep them from ever becoming land owners. The way land was distributed (inherited) made social mobility incredibly difficult in economies that were based on agriculture and family trades. It essentially created a caste system. If we do not want to reinvent serfdom, doesn't it make sense to tax those with lower wages at a lower rate so that they have a chance at keeping enough of their earnings to allow the potential for social mobility? Again, this seems like an argument for graduated taxation.
"But even if it isn't their lives, why does the desire of the 95% give them a right to take from the other 5% against their will?"
Those in the top 5% have far more lobbyists working on their behalf and way more ability to influence policymakers (both in their access and in the dollars they can give) than the other 95% of people. It could easily be argued that the interests of the top 5% are disproportionately represented by the government. Regardless, I don't believe it is the desire of the 95% that is driving taxation. I think it is those in government trying to address multiple factors - an annual deficit, a growing national debt, a need for improved infrastructure, on-going wars, a desire to provide a good education system, etc - with the thought of serving the public good and knowing the level of dollars that will be required for that to happen.
>>You either live your life according to your own moral code, or you're an opportunist.<<
Don't you think one can do both?
Good points. :-)
Chrissy
mom to Aidan 8/21/03
Grayson Blaine 12/30/07
"If you make over $250, 000 to $650,000 your taxes will only go up by a small amount, about $1700"
You have got to be kidding me???!!!
"People really need to turn off Fox news and do some thinking and research of their own. "
YOU really need to LEARN more before you speak!!!
>>But even if it isn't their lives, why does the desire of the 95% give them a right to take from the other 5% against their will?<<
Excellent! The constitution is supposed to protect individual rights, to include minority groups--regardless of what the majority decide is best for themselves.
"which means we take home 160,000.00 which Obama would consider the middle class."
That's middle class? Golly I must be considered poverty stricken then. Hitler would've tossed me in the 'showers'.
Edited 10/28/2008 7:03 pm ET by sisterlisa
Pages