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

meangreendork · October 17, 2008

You wanna talk economic crisis?

I can't remember which country exactly, but one of the less-than-stellar nations in Africa had inflation rates running so rampant that their government (for some short-sighted reason) cut off the last 6 ZEROES off of their currency so that the citizens could actually buy things without needing large piles of paper bills and without running into people being more unable to count money because of the excessive amount of decimal places in the currency.

SO yeah. We're not there. Thankfully.

GreenMachine · October 17, 2008

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.

doesn't really answer my question about the other 60% of debt. Yes or no, do other countries owe us back more than we owe them? If the national debt is $10 trillion and $6 trillion is to other nations, do they owe us more than $6 trillion in return?

Edited October 17, 2008 by GreenMachine

FirefightnRick · October 17, 2008

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.

The Dem's already have control of congress that has a 10% approval rating, and now you want a Marx Socialist to help them take us down even further? That's some kind of pendulum swing your talking about.

Rick

HoustonEagle · October 17, 2008

The Dem's already have control of congress that has a 10% approval rating, and now you want a Marx Socialist to help them take us down even further? That's some kind of pendulum swing your talking about.
Rick

2 years out of the last 8 the Dem's have controlled Congress. Before that the Republicans controlled congress back in to the Clinton Presidency. The approval rating plummeted through that time. So yes the approval rating of the congress is low but don't make it sound as if they were rosy before they took a slim majority. The American people are mad at their Government, there is no denying that. There is also no denying that this anger was built through a time when Republicans controlled every branch of government. If indeed the Dem's soon take control of the Presidency and subsequently find themselves in complete control of the national agenda then yes there will be no one else to blame. I am hopeful they get that chance. I will also accept the consequences and if needed change my mind as the facts change.

Also, calling a politician a Marxist or Socialist may help you elicit fear or contempt but in the end just proves you are uninformed. This country has swung from Democrat to Republican many many times. Shockingly we are still a capitalist society! Check back with me next election. I am willing to bet capitalism will still be alive and well.

For what it's worth, I regret Obama's choice of words to Joe the plumber. but it was a bad choice of words and nothing else. There is no mass conspiracy to supplant our beautiful capitalist society with socialism, communism or any other ism's you can dream up for us to be afraid of.

Edited October 17, 2008 by HoustonEagle

HoustonEagle · October 17, 2008

You wanna talk economic crisis?
I can't remember which country exactly, but one of the less-than-stellar nations in Africa had inflation rates running so rampant that their government (for some short-sighted reason) cut off the last 6 ZEROES off of their currency so that the citizens could actually buy things without needing large piles of paper bills and without running into people being more unable to count money because of the excessive amount of decimal places in the currency.
SO yeah. We're not there. Thankfully.

Zimbabwe, though I think their problems almost entirely existed due to a corrupt government. Hard to believe in Africa I know...

HoustonEagle · October 17, 2008

doesn't really answer my question about the other 60% of debt. Yes or no, do other countries owe us back more than we owe them? If the national debt is $10 trillion and $6 trillion is to other nations, do they owe us more than $6 trillion in return?

I did a quick look for some numbers to answer your question and as yet have not found anything definable. I will look some more when I have time but a quick point I would make is this. Does it matter? Can we call in these debts? Short answer, NO. Are we receiving interest on these debts? I assume so but that will still be accounted for in our total yearly deficit. We issue debt largely through securities sold at large. So any idea that there can be some sort of tit for tat with foreign entities purchasing U.S. debt seems unreasonable. Please post anything you find to the contrary.

Eagle1855 · October 17, 2008

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.

Chicken/Egg. There isnt a silver bullet for any economic issue. It's all about balance. You have to have both.

My opinion, of course. I don't claim to be an expert- I merely dabbled in it while in school. ha

Edited October 17, 2008 by Eagle1855

Bryan316 · October 17, 2008

Also, calling a politician a Marxist or Socialist may help you elicit fear or contempt but in the end just proves you are uninformed. This country has swung from Democrat to Republican many many times. Shockingly we are still a capitalist society! Check back with me next election. I am willing to bet capitalism will still be alive and well....There is no mass conspiracy to supplant our beautiful capitalist society with socialism, communism or any other ism's you can dream up for us to be afraid of.

QFT.

meangreendork · October 17, 2008

Zimbabwe, though I think their problems almost entirely existed due to a corrupt government. Hard to believe in Africa I know...

It's okay. I know the media says a lot of untrue things about Africa, but it's made up of peaceful, organized nations with small, meaningless military forces (that are still well organized and trained) as well as countries made of strong, yet small economies. It's a lot like Iran, which for the record, has no homosexuals living in its borders.

I also want to say it feels real McCarthy around here.

DeepGreen · October 17, 2008

Watch the fun when the Credit Card business comes crashing down. Guess Uncle Sam will bail out those folks out too.

FirefightnRick · October 17, 2008

2 years out of the last 8 the Dem's have controlled Congress. Before that the Republicans controlled congress back in to the Clinton Presidency. The approval rating plummeted through that time. So yes the approval rating of the congress is low but don't make it sound as if they were rosy before they took a slim majority. The American people are mad at their Government, there is no denying that. There is also no denying that this anger was built through a time when Republicans controlled every branch of government. If indeed the Dem's soon take control of the Presidency and subsequently find themselves in complete control of the national agenda then yes there will be no one else to blame. I am hopeful they get that chance. I will also accept the consequences and if needed change my mind as the facts change.
Also, calling a politician a Marxist or Socialist may help you elicit fear or contempt but in the end just proves you are uninformed. This country has swung from Democrat to Republican many many times. Shockingly we are still a capitalist society! Check back with me next election. I am willing to bet capitalism will still be alive and well.
For what it's worth, I regret Obama's choice of words to Joe the plumber. but it was a bad choice of words and nothing else. There is no mass conspiracy to supplant our beautiful capitalist society with socialism, communism or any other ism's you can dream up for us to be afraid of.

I didn't say a thing about a mass conspiracy, I said he's a marx socialist. I'm not uninformed at all and I'm greatly concerned about his socialistic ties of which he has plenty and if you don't realize it by now I can't help you my friend. And his comments to JTP are nothing but a bad choice of words? Good grief! Oh, yes, I remember. "Just words, Just speeches!".

Rick

Edited October 17, 2008 by FirefightnRick

chrisfisher · October 17, 2008

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.

I think that we are having more of an honest conversation now. I do not agree with you, but I respect your beliefs. If you want a taste of liberal policies and what to expect, you have to look no further this history itself. I am no historian and do no claim to have anything close to a complete working knowledge of history. However, take a look at the 1970's. This time period isn't exactly considered era of economic prosperity; yet, the dems will squarely in control and implemented a variety of their policies. During this time, the top tax bracket was an unbelievable 70 or 80%. Reagan came in and cut that to around 30% (can't recall exactly). And you know what happened? Tax revenues increased... a ton.... history has shown that when you raise taxes unfairly, and believe me, 40-50% of anyone's (wealthy or not) income is unfair, people just stop reporting income or "find" new business deductions. They will even make large business purchases at the end of year to offset income. Businesses would rather give their money away to anyone but the government... even if it is wasteful or questionable spending. Believe me. I know. I was an independent businessman in San Antonio for over a decade.

My guess is that the policies that Obama wants to implement, including raising taxes, socialized medicine, etc. will decrease actual tax revenues and have a devastating impact on the current fragile economy.

Edited October 17, 2008 by chrisfisher

HoustonEagle · October 17, 2008

I didn't say a thing about a mass conspiracy, I said he's a marx socialist. I'm not uninformed at all and I'm greatly concerned about his socialistic ties of which he has plenty and if you don't realize it by now I can't help you my friend. And his comments to JTP are nothing but a bad choice of words? Good grief! Oh, yes, I remember. "Just words, Just speeches!".
Rick

Fair enough, and to be honest I don't really know why I allow myself to engage in political discussions. It is akin to talking religion, no one will be changing their views because of a few points on a message board. Those of us that post our political views are looking for a fight and to be honest when I see these topics posted here I want to give you what you want. Can't help myself. But I certainly stand by what I said.

MDH · October 17, 2008

Watch the fun when the Credit Card business comes crashing down. Guess Uncle Sam will bail out those folks out too.

Banks issue your credit cards. If you're in credit card debt, you're in debt to the issuing bank, not VISA, MC, Discover.

Edited October 17, 2008 by mdh0192

Cr1028 · October 17, 2008

I think that we are having more of an honest conversation now. I do not agree with you, but I respect your beliefs. If you want a taste of liberal policies and what to expect, you have to look no further this history itself. I am no historian and do no claim to have anything close to a complete working knowledge of history. However, take a look at the 1970's. This time period isn't exactly considered era of economic prosperity; yet, the dems will squarely in control and implemented a variety of their policies. During this time, the top tax bracket was an unbelievable 70 or 80%. Reagan came in and cut that to around 30% (can't recall exactly). And you know what happened? Tax revenues increased... a ton.... history has shown that when you raise taxes unfairly, and believe me, 40-50% of anyone's (wealthy or not) income is unfair, people just stop reporting income or "find" new business deductions. They will even make large business purchases at the end of year to offset income. Businesses would rather give their money away to anyone but the government... even if it is wasteful or questionable spending. Believe me. I know. I was an independent businessman in San Antonio for over a decade.
My guess is that the policies that Obama wants to implement, including raising taxes, socialized medicine, etc. will decrease actual tax revenues and have a devastating impact on the current fragile economy.

I am completely against socialized medicine, I think our current system is way better than that of Canada and others because there is incentive for doctors to excel here.

In fairness, only the income above the 250k mark is taxed at the higher percentage, their first 250k is taxed the same. I guess I just look at ability to pay when looking at taxes. As much as everyone of us would like to pay for the stadium, we simply don't have the ability to pay. Those in the extreme income brackets have that ability to pay unless they somehow live paycheck to paycheck which is foolish when you make that kind of money.Extravagant spending can be a killer for the wealthy who are irresponsible.

We disagree but I too repect your opinion. I just think there is a bigger chance of the wealthy who get tax breaks sitting on that money than the middle class which would be more likely to use it. In my opinion that would be a greater stimulus to the economy.

October 17, 2008

In fairness, only the income above the 250k mark is taxed at the higher percentage, their first 250k is taxed the same. I guess I just look at ability to pay when looking at taxes.

Precisely... This Joe the Plumber dude threw out the line about taxes and higher bracket and inability to afford owning the company at the higher bracket. He doesn't understand the progressive tax system. If he really would have made 280k with that company (never mind that company really made 100k last year), he would have been on the hook for $900 more dollars under Obama's plan. OMG! $900!?!? With that $900 he could have hired another employee! Reinvested! He surely can't afford to pay the extra $900... and therefore he can't buy the company anymore.

Eagle1855 · October 17, 2008

In fairness, only the income above the 250k mark is taxed at the higher percentage, their first 250k is taxed the same. I guess I just look at ability to pay when looking at taxes. As much as everyone of us would like to pay for the stadium, we simply don't have the ability to pay. Those in the extreme income brackets have that ability to pay unless they somehow live paycheck to paycheck which is foolish when you make that kind of money.Extravagant spending can be a killer for the wealthy who are irresponsible.

I guess I just have a problem with the governemnt "deciding" for me what I can afford to pay in to support programs, what is deemed "extravagant" and what is considered a "prudent" use of my money- that I earned. I'd prefer to make that decision myself.

Edited October 17, 2008 by Eagle1855

Mean Green 93-98 · October 17, 2008

We disagree but I too repect your opinion. I just think there is a bigger chance of the wealthy who get tax breaks sitting on that money than the middle class which would be more likely to use it. In my opinion that would be a greater stimulus to the economy.

I find it strange the terminology and concept that implies that by extending a tax break the government is giving anything to anybody. What somebody earns or receives as a gift is rightfully theirs--by letting someone keep a little bit more of what is rightfully theirs anyway, you aren't giving anybody anything.

By my choice of profession, I long ago resigned myself to the fact that I will never make $100k/yr, much less $250k. But just as it makes my blood boil when I see the weak taken advantage of, it turns my stomach to see the way the government tries (and succeeds!) to lay its greedy paws on other people's money.

FirefightnRick · October 17, 2008

Precisely... This Joe the Plumber dude threw out the line about taxes and higher bracket and inability to afford owning the company at the higher bracket. He doesn't understand the progressive tax system. If he really would have made 280k with that company (never mind that company really made 100k last year), he would have been on the hook for $900 more dollars under Obama's plan. OMG! $900!?!? With that $900 he could have hired another employee! Reinvested! He surely can't afford to pay the extra $900... and therefore he can't buy the company anymore.

That's not what he said nor implied. And yesterday on Good Morning America he reiterated that raising his companies tax bracket 3 percent more from 36% to 39% simply because he could pay it would not only make it MORE difficult in many regards, it was unfair, and I think the UNFAIR part is his main concern. He then drove his best point when he reminded that even more concerning is that what's to keep Obama from trying to lower it to say from $250 to $150?

CR1028 posted:

I am completely against socialized medicine, I think our current system is way better than that of Canada and others because there is incentive for doctors to excel here.

It's interesting that you posted this here today.

Hawaii Ending Universal Child Healthcare.

Hawaii is dropping the only state universal child health care program in the country just seven months after it launched.
Gov. Linda Lingle's administration cited budget shortfalls and other available health care options for eliminating funding for the program. A state official said families were dropping private coverage so their children would be eligible for the subsidized plan.

CLASSIC!!!!!

Rick

Edited October 17, 2008 by FirefightnRick

The Fake Lonnie Finch · October 17, 2008

Obama explains his tax plan to Joe the Plumber.

Rick

What Obama wants is to spread around my paycheck to people who don't work. It's not rocket science, it's what Democrats always do. They call drunks, prostitutes and drug addicts "homeless." They call lazy people "underemployed", "disadvantaged" or whatever the new term is for people who won't get off their butts and work. Then, they try to find ways to take money from those of us to do work in the name of "fairness."

This will be Jimmy Carter II: Free reign around the world for terrorists and folks like Chavez in Venezuela, deferring to the UN and NATO, and an abandonment of Isreal on the foreign policy side. And, a domestic policy that punishes small businesses like our family runs.

The upside is that we hold elections every four years, and congressional elections every two years. Two years into Clinton's presidency, people figured out that their pocketbooks were being pounded and they threw out the Democrats. The same will happen in 2010 to Obama, if he is elected. Then, he will be forced to shelf his agenda the way Clinton was forced to shelve his.

It doesn't matter. I was on the phone with my attorney this morning discussing the best ways to put money into tax free status until the Obama is off the scene or Republicans take the Congress again. It's the thing I love about the tax code...there are plenty of legal ways to keep the government's hands off your money. Tax attorneys also love this, especially former IRS attorneys. They make good money when Democrats are in power. Those former IRS attorneys know how to "hide the ball" legally.

It's the reason I'll never support a flat tax or an abolishment of the code. If you know how to use the code - or have an attorney who does - the code is your best friend. If we ever had a flat tax, or national sales tax, we'd be allowing Congress the power to raise taxes at their discretion with no way to opt out. And, believe me, your tax dollars and mine are the crack cocaine of politics - the politicians can't spend it fast enough.

Obama and McCain are both liars. They're out on the campaign trail calling for "accountability" on Wall Street on the one hand, while the other hand is back in Washington voting to give the criminals $1,000,000,000,000 if yours and mine tax dollars - even before we've paid it. They're both talking out of their backsides because neither one of them knows what to do - except promise to give the crooks (their friends from Ivy League days gone by) our tax money. It's the easiest out for politicians who have nothing to offer - and that is McCain and Obama to a T. Both have a big bag of nothing when it comes to the economy.

Edited October 17, 2008 by The Fake Lonnie Finch

greenminer · October 17, 2008

When are some of these people going to spread the wealth? I've got some student loans they could pay off with a few minutes of interest accrued...

New York's Cuomo probes "outrageous" AIG spending

By Joseph A. Giannone NEW YORK, Oct 15 (Reuters) - New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is investigating what he contends is "unwarranted and outrageous" spending by American International Group Inc even as the struggling insurance giant receives $123 billion of U.S. government funding to stay alive.

In a letter to AIG's board Wednesday, Cuomo demanded the company cease the kind of spending that sent executives on luxury retreats costing hundreds of thousands of dollars after a taxpayer bailout.

..........

The company earlier this year had provided a former chief executive a $5 million bonus plus a $15 million golden parachute. It also let a terminated executive responsible for much of AIG's losses keep $34 million of bonuses, Cuomo said.

....... Cuomo threatened to pursue legal action if the board does not immediately comply. (Editing by Richard Chang) ((joseph.giannone@thomsonreuters.com; +1 646 223 6184; Reuters Messaging: joseph.giannone.reuters.com@reuters.net)) Keywords: AIG/CUOMO

Keywords: AIG/CUOMO

Edited October 17, 2008 by greenminer

FirefightnRick · October 17, 2008

When are some of these people going to spread the wealth? I've got some student loans they could pay off with a few minutes of interest accrued...
New York's Cuomo probes "outrageous" AIG spending
By Joseph A. Giannone NEW YORK, Oct 15 (Reuters) - New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is investigating what he contends is "unwarranted and outrageous" spending by American International Group Inc even as the struggling insurance giant receives $123 billion of U.S. government funding to stay alive.
In a letter to AIG's board Wednesday, Cuomo demanded the company cease the kind of spending that sent executives on luxury retreats costing hundreds of thousands of dollars after a taxpayer bailout.
..........
The company earlier this year had provided a former chief executive a $5 million bonus plus a $15 million golden parachute. It also let a terminated executive responsible for much of AIG's losses keep $34 million of bonuses, Cuomo said.
....... Cuomo threatened to pursue legal action if the board does not immediately comply. (Editing by Richard Chang) ((joseph.giannone@thomsonreuters.com; +1 646 223 6184; Reuters Messaging: joseph.giannone.reuters.com@reuters.net)) Keywords: AIG/CUOMO
Keywords: AIG/CUOMO

Good Lord?

Rick

meangreendork · October 17, 2008

My guess is that the policies that Obama wants to implement, including raising taxes, socialized medicine,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not free medical care for anyone without it, but it's an option to buy into the same system the US government uses. So if you're like me and you're independently working, you can either find something through Aetna or BlueCross/BlueShield, Kaiser, what have you, OR buy into the US government system.

Also, if you're at the CEO level and you NEED a golden parachute if you get fired, you need to re-evaluate your spending habits since you know people who work for you don't have the same benefit.

Edited October 17, 2008 by meangreendork

KRAM1 · October 17, 2008

Why do so many folks have such disdain for anyone who makes a great deal of money???? Class envy perhaps. I guess that's why the idea of re-distributing wealth meets with so many fans. can't see it.

You make what you make....want more? Work harder, go back to school, change jobs, start your own business, take some risks...I have a nephew who cries about teacher salaries all the time. I cannot recall seeing a gun stuck to his head forcing him to become a public school teacher. He chose that profession and he is darn good at it. Just like my wife who spent a career in the public schools.

Just because someone makes a good bit of money is not a reason to vilify them. Are there BUMS who make a ton of cash and do it in a less than professional and honest manhner, sure there are! But, are there folks who makes less and still cheat doing it? Sure there are....but, do not blame everyone or put everyone in the same boat. Class warfare does no one any good. And taking from one person to give to someone else is just plain wrong!

Paying one's fair share of taxes is fine...paying more than one's share to give a hand out to someone else is not. Hand up, you bet, hand out...not so much.

I would love to be one of those RICH people Obama likes to talk about...but, alas, I am not....but that does not make those folks BAD people....they pay a good bit of taxes.....and create a good many jobs...and support a bunch of fine causes and unviersities, etc., etc.

OK, 'nuf said. America...great place...you want to be rich...go do it! It is 100% possible IF you are willing to take the risks and put in the effort.

greenminer · October 17, 2008

Why do so many folks have such disdain for anyone who makes a great deal of money???? Class envy perhaps. I guess that's why the idea of re-distributing wealth meets with so many fans. can't see it.

Oh, you read this wrong. I certainly can't fault people who have earned they're stakes. I don't fault them if they don't want to share.

But the inflation is staggering. I consider myself fairly intelligent, but very adaptable and hard-working. And I am going to spend the next 20 years paying off some loans unless some miracle happens.

I sit a few feet from people who make generous 6 figures. Just a few steps up the ladder, so I can only hope? And I've heard my department VP is in the 7 figure range.

But what the hell does one do with 34 million dollars? How the heck did a board let this guy walk, after they can acknowledge he was at fault for their losses, and be okay with him keeping 34 mil?

Something smells. I hope Cuomo digs it up.

Edited October 17, 2008 by greenminer