Obama's Tax Plan: "i Want To Spread The Wealth Around"

FirefightnRick · October 15, 2008

Obama explains his tax plan to Joe the Plumber.

Rick

Green Mean · October 15, 2008

They are saying this could very well be a landslide win for Obama.

meangreendork · October 15, 2008

Don't know about landslide win. A lot of folks are leaning for a 3rd party candidate these days. Though, someone has to pay that $700B bailout, it might as well be the taxpayers.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idU...0080812?sp=true

Edited October 15, 2008 by meangreendork

October 15, 2008

Even Karl Rove is seeing the landslide: Rove Election Map

MeanGreengdub · October 16, 2008

Wow, Joe Biden's comments are ridiculous. I'm all for helping out the less fortunate but how can you justify, whether or not you make $50,000 or $500,000, taking money that someone earned? If you feel that you should help out the less fortunate than you should. The government and Barrack Obama shouldn't decide what to do with YOUR money. Am I the only one with this thinking??

HoustonEagle · October 16, 2008

Wow, Joe Biden's comments are ridiculous. I'm all for helping out the less fortunate but how can you justify, whether or not you make $50,000 or $500,000, taking money that someone earned? If you feel that you should help out the less fortunate than you should. The government and Barrack Obama shouldn't decide what to do with YOUR money. Am I the only one with this thinking??

When will Republicans act like Republicans. I am all for small government. So looking over the last 16 years which party should I vote for? I am all for fiscal responsibility. So after the last 16 years which party should I vote for? Please simplify it for me because clearly history is proving quite confusing for my feeble mind.

NTPhiKap99 · October 16, 2008

When will Republicans act like Republicans. I am all for small government. So looking over the last 16 years which party should I vote for? I am all for fiscal responsibility. So after the last 16 years which party should I vote for? Please simplify it for me because clearly history is proving quite confusing for my feeble mind.

Right there with ya. I think the days of small government are gone. My hatred of hippies has always made me a republican but now I find myself without a party.

chrisfisher · October 16, 2008

The government and Barrack Obama shouldn't decide what to do with YOUR money. Am I the only one with this thinking??

You and I are a dying breed. I am starting to believe more and more that most people think it is the government's job to look after them through tax payer funded programs. The idea that I should look to and ask a politician to take care of me or solve my personal problems is so foreign I cannot understand this thinking.

MeanGreengdub · October 16, 2008

You and I are a dying breed. I am starting to believe more and more that most people think it is the government's job to look after them through tax payer funded programs. The idea that I should look to and ask a politician to take care of me or solve my personal problems is so foreign I cannot understand this thinking.

I agree. Maybe it's a pride thing or maybe it's an American thing but I want to support myself without anyone helping me buy groceries or anything else. I realize some people do need help and that's fine and I am willing to help them but it will come through me. Not through me, then the government, then the person in need.

Cr1028 · October 16, 2008

What I don't understand is why some of you who probably make under 250k would be against this? I'm no socialist but if someone tells me that they are going to tax Warren Buffett an extra $1 and it saves me $1, I'm going to say "ok, gimme my $1". I completely understand why those making above the 250k mark would be against it. I don't think "redistributing the wealth" is the best policy, but I cannot get behind giving an executive a several hundred thousand dollar tax cut when it would take me nearly 20 years to even sniff that amount in cumulative gross income. He gets a tax break, he gets a new Italian sports car, I get a tax break, I can pay a little extra on my student loans one month.

I can't believe I went to college and wasted all my money on a degree when I could've been a plumber making $250k a year.

MeanGreengdub · October 16, 2008

What I don't understand is why some of you who probably make under 250k would be against this? I'm no socialist but if someone tells me that they are going to tax Warren Buffett an extra $1 and it saves me $1, I'm going to say "ok, gimme my $1". I completely understand why those making above the 250k mark would be against it. I don't think "redistributing the wealth" is the best policy, but I cannot get behind giving an executive a several hundred thousand dollar tax cut when it would take me nearly 20 years to even sniff that amount in cumulative gross income. He gets a tax break, he gets a new Italian sports car, I get a tax break, I can pay a little extra on my student loans one month.
I can't believe I went to college and wasted all my money on a degree when I could've been a plumber making $250k a year.

Because the idea of taking money away from someone who worked hard to get to the point of where they make that much money is ridiculous. It's really the principal of the idea.

I hear you about the plumber though, damn college degree.

meangreendork · October 16, 2008

What I don't understand is why some of you who probably make under 250k would be against this? I'm no socialist but if someone tells me that they are going to tax Warren Buffett an extra $1 and it saves me $1, I'm going to say "ok, gimme my $1". I completely understand why those making above the 250k mark would be against it. I don't think "redistributing the wealth" is the best policy, but I cannot get behind giving an executive a several hundred thousand dollar tax cut when it would take me nearly 20 years to even sniff that amount in cumulative gross income. He gets a tax break, he gets a new Italian sports car, I get a tax break, I can pay a little extra on my student loans one month.
I can't believe I went to college and wasted all my money on a degree when I could've been a plumber making $250k a year.

The money you make really changes your frame of reference here. It's a lot like paying alimony. If you make $30mil and your ex-wife wants $15mil, you're mad, but you're still getting by. If you make $30k and your ex-wife wants $15k, you may have to...well...yeah, you choose your own adventure here.

In other words, taxing $100,000/yr at 10% is $10k pulled out. $90k/yr is something a lot of us can get by on and much more than that. But when your annual gross is $40k and you're down to $36k after tax, that really changes your priorities. It's like an inverse relationship between your earning power and the perceived value of money because of it. And there's good reason for that since if you're making only $36k after taxes, your world is a different place and your priorities change as opposed to the person making $90k after taxes or the person making $225k after taxes.

chrisfisher · October 16, 2008

What I don't understand is why some of you who probably make under 250k would be against this? I'm no socialist but if someone tells me that they are going to tax Warren Buffett an extra $1 and it saves me $1, I'm going to say "ok, gimme my $1". I completely understand why those making above the 250k mark would be against it. I don't think "redistributing the wealth" is the best policy, but I cannot get behind giving an executive a several hundred thousand dollar tax cut when it would take me nearly 20 years to even sniff that amount in cumulative gross income. He gets a tax break, he gets a new Italian sports car, I get a tax break, I can pay a little extra on my student loans one month.
I can't believe I went to college and wasted all my money on a degree when I could've been a plumber making $250k a year.

You say that you don't like redistributing the wealth, but then spend your entire time advocating policies that do so. BTW, I feel your financial pain. I am a graduate student with a mountain of student loan debt.

Green Mean · October 16, 2008

This is why it is tough to be just a republican or just a democrat....I think both sides make valid points regarding fiscal responsibility. I am not a socialist but there are elements in that type of government that I believe in and agree with. I think taxes and if I have to pay more to make this country better in many aspects then I certainly am all for it.

untbowler · October 16, 2008

Fair share for everyone equals FAIR TAX!!!

Why the qualms if everyone pays a 10% flat tax, tired of having to pick up the tab for others who have chosen their paths and actions.

Eagle1855 · October 16, 2008

Why would I care about the taxes if I make less than 250k?

Well, for one, who do you think creates jobs? It isn't the guy that's making 45k per year. Incentive drives the economy. Start removing incentives to obtaining wealth and it will trickle down, from the highest income to the lowest. Then it will affect everyone, not just the "rich."

Taxes were 70% pre-Reagan. Im not sure Im interested in seeing a hike like that ever again. Otherwise, what's the point of making any money?

Im all for a flat-tax if it could be done right. I've read something like 17% across the board with no exemptions, deductions, etc is the key number. I'd also support people under a certain income level not paying any taxes.

FirefightnRick · October 16, 2008

Wurzelbacher on Good Morning America this morning.

He has a great point that many seem to forget in this interview and drives home the point about the socialistic views of Obama in that it's OK today to tax someone MORE at $250K for succeeding, then what's to stop them from lowering it down to say $150K next year or the year after that, "It's a slippery slope". Obama has made it quite clear by now, and I don't see how anyone could be sitting on the fence with this by now, that he's going to "spread the wealth".

And this goes back to the character issues and the concerns of "WHO IS THE REAL BARACK OBAMA". Some political pundits are saying that John McCain needs to stop the aggressive attacks towards Obama and get back to the economy issues because that's what American's are more concerned with right now. I say it's directly related. Obama's sordid past scares the hell out of people and that is why McCain needs to do exactly the opposite, stay on the character issue offense and drive them on thru to November. Obama is a socialist with socialist/marxist radical ties and he will govern as such. His lap dog media redirects and responds that he's fully answered all the concerns about his past and that people should get on with the issues of the economy. What they won't remind you is that he's denounced and distanced himself from those questionable associates only recently when his past started to get national vetting interest for the presidential election. And even though he told the country last night that Bill Ayers does not advise him, work for his campaign or that he would not appoint him to a cabinet position does nothing to strike the fact that he still agrees with Ayers failed socialistic educational reform views to this day. The plain fact that he still showed his respect for such a dispicable person by stating Ayers professional status at UIC tells me all I need to know about where he ranks in Obama's oppinion and it's discusting to me.

I say if Obama wants a socialist nation to run then he needs to move to France and run for office over there. And the next time they get their ass in a crack the United States of America will kindly step to the side and let them handle it on their own for once and let him handle it his way and see how that turns out for them.

Rick

Edited October 16, 2008 by FirefightnRick

FirefightnRick · October 16, 2008

Why would I care about the taxes if I make less than 250k?
Well, for one, who do you think creates jobs? It isn't the guy that's making 45k per year. Incentive drives the economy. Start removing incentives to obtaining wealth and it will trickle down, from the highest income to the lowest. Then it will affect everyone, not just the "rich."
Taxes were 70% pre-Reagan. Im not sure Im interested in seeing a hike like that ever again. Otherwise, what's the point of making any money?
Im all for a flat-tax if it could be done right. I've read something like 17% across the board with no exemptions, deductions, etc is the key number. I'd also support people under a certain income level not paying any taxes.

Exactly. When Obama mentioned last night how much the oil companies were making in profit last night I was wishing McCain would remind people what they also pay in taxes and how many hundreds of thousands of jobs they create as well. How is it that this concept is lost on so many?

Rick

HoustonEagle · October 16, 2008

Exactly. When Obama mentioned last night how much the oil companies were making in profit last night I was wishing McCain would remind people what they also pay in taxes and how many hundreds of thousands of jobs they create as well. How is it that this concept is lost on so many?
Rick

As with any political discussion I think you make some good points. You also paint with a broad brush without looking at nuances of a particular Bill. Most legislation looks like a no brainier when taken at face value. The actual bill is normally much different.

Still, in regards to taxes, what I never hear from anyone is what we are suppose to do about our huge national debt. You want all of these tax cuts but ladies and gentleman we have bills to pay. Most of you teach your children better money management than we are practicing on a national level. Last I checked the service on the national debt was around 12 percent of our yearly budget.

So the solution is smaller government you say? Well then why did the party of fiscal responsibility increase spending at unprecedented levels? We can't blame the Dem's for that one. Why is if that that those dirty big government liberals left office with a surplus. It is all so confusing. we are told one thing but recent history tells us another.

I know this, the party in power did a horrible job. So my vote will be to fire them. Let the pendulum swing to the other side for a while. I feel that balance of power is good for our country.

GreenMachine · October 16, 2008

Still, in regards to taxes, what I never hear from anyone is what we are suppose to do about our huge national debt.

Someone please educate me on this national debt thing, I know there are people on here that are much more knowledgeable than me. From what I understand, this number is really only half of the equation. Sure we owe England $350B and that is figured into our national debt # but they on the other hand owe us $750B that is not figured into the national debt #. 40% of our national debt is to ourselves (fed reserve, private investors etc) while 60% is to outside countries. I read somewhere that if we combined all other countries debts to us, it would cover our debt to them 3 fold. If this is correct, isn't the national debt number just a fart in the wind figure?

KRAM1 · October 16, 2008

You want to raise tax revenues...LOWER TAXES.

It's not the deficit we should even worry about...IT'S SPENDING LEVELS!

Simple enough...so why do so many people have no clue???????? :blink:

Cr1028 · October 16, 2008

You say that you don't like redistributing the wealth, but then spend your entire time advocating policies that do so. BTW, I feel your financial pain. I am a graduate student with a mountain of student loan debt.

I guess you're right, I contradicted myself. I guess I am for it in a way but against it at the extreme.I don't think business taxes should be raised but if individuals will be getting a tax cut I think it will better served with the general public as opposed to the wealthy. I am for a progressive system.

Cr1028 · October 16, 2008

Why would I care about the taxes if I make less than 250k?
Well, for one, who do you think creates jobs? It isn't the guy that's making 45k per year. Incentive drives the economy. Start removing incentives to obtaining wealth and it will trickle down, from the highest income to the lowest. Then it will affect everyone, not just the "rich."
Taxes were 70% pre-Reagan. Im not sure Im interested in seeing a hike like that ever again. Otherwise, what's the point of making any money?
Im all for a flat-tax if it could be done right. I've read something like 17% across the board with no exemptions, deductions, etc is the key number. I'd also support people under a certain income level not paying any taxes.

Who makes up the majority of the comsuming public that drives demand and in turn creates jobs? Joe the plumber is SOL if Mr. $45K can't afford his services any longer because there won't be nearly enough Mr. $250Ks to compensate for the lack o Mr $45Ks consuming his services.

HoustonEagle · October 16, 2008

You want to raise tax revenues...LOWER TAXES.
It's not the deficit we should even worry about...IT'S SPENDING LEVELS!
Simple enough...so why do so many people have no clue????????

Seems to be working smashingly well so far! Thanks for the sound logic.

HoustonEagle · October 17, 2008

Someone please educate me on this national debt thing, I know there are people on here that are much more knowledgeable than me. From what I understand, this number is really only half of the equation. Sure we owe England $350B and that is figured into our national debt # but they on the other hand owe us $750B that is not figured into the national debt #. 40% of our national debt is to ourselves (fed reserve, private investors etc) while 60% is to outside countries. I read somewhere that if we combined all other countries debts to us, it would cover our debt to them 3 fold. If this is correct, isn't the national debt number just a fart in the wind figure?

Why exactly do you think it does not matter if the debt is held by American citizens? Have you thought about the interest on this debt? How much of our budget should be spent servicing an ever increasing debt? So if the debt as a percentage of GDP is maintained at a level or decreases we are fine right? So all we have to do is constantly maintain growth in our economy. Scary thought considering we are in the midst of a recession. Even scarier with all this talk of a Depression. Now how big of a burden has the national debt become? As we slide down this slippery slope our choices become even more difficult. You can not and would not raise taxes on the general public during tough economic times. We have a ever increasing debt that will raise exponentially as the government is forced to increase spending to help the economy. All the while GDP is shrinking and thus decreasing tax revenues. What can we do now? We will have to print more money further diluting the dollar. What does this mean for you? Hyper inflation.

I am not saying this will happen. But, it certainly can and we are as close now as we have been in a long while. The U.S Government should have debt. It is necessary for economic growth and fundamental to our monetary system. It is the rampant increase in debt over such a short period of time that for me is deeply troubling. I was speaking with one of my traders from Argentina. His basic premise was that we should quit using the word crisis to define the dire straights the U.S. financial system is in. He mentioned that at one point Argentinian inflation rates were around 200%. That store prices were generally changed twice a day on most goods. I agreed we are not in the middle of a crisis. But, we are scrambling to avoid one. It is frightening just how close we are.