Obama’s tax plan = wealth redistribution
September 23rd, 2008 2:02 pm · 14 comments
Interesting piece at RealClearPolitics.com by Ken Blackwell, a senior fellow at the Family Research Council and the ACLU, about Barack Obama’s plan to cut taxes for 95 percent of income earners:
The statistics speak for themselves. Only 62 percent of Americans pay federal income tax, meaning that 38 percent get a 100 percent refund of any taxes withheld. So Mr. Obama’s 95 percent that will receive money from the government includes roughly 33 percent of Americans who pay no income tax. One-third of Americans pay no income taxes yet would receive a government check of perhaps $1,000 or more.
That is pure income redistribution. Some pundits argue that this is Keynesian demand-side economics. It is not. Having the government take money from business entities or affluent individuals and giving it to those who pay no federal income taxes is not Keynesian. It’s Marxist.
[snip]
Then we come to the Team Obama fantasy that the Obama plan would cut taxes for most Americans. Yes, Mr. Obama says he will cut rates for lower-income Americans, but will more than offset that by raising taxes on dividends, capital gains, higher incomes, corporations, estates, and payrolls. But most Americans own stock, either directly or through their IRA, 401k or union pensions. Dividend and capital gains taxes will take money from all those. Those Americans on Main Street who own a house or have other investments will be punished by a capital gains tax increase.
Share and Enjoy:
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Tags: Issues: Taxes · Presidential Politics · Barack Obama
There are currently 14 comments on this blog postView Topic | Comment on this blogarea man
9/23/08
2:17 PM | QUOTE The statistics speak for themselves. Only 62 percent of Americans pay federal income tax, meaning that 38 percent get a 100 percent refund of any taxes withheld. So Mr. Obama’s 95 percent that will receive money from the government includes roughly 33 percent of Americans who pay no income tax.
This has had me scratching my head for awhile. If more than a third of American adults pay no federal income taxes, how is his plan going to cut taxes for 95% of Americans?
I do not necessarily buy into the 'wealth redistribution' hysteria but feels this is more of the politics as usual. Hollow (see: false, fictitious, etc,) promises that prey on the ignorance of most Americans who do not know better. Say what they want to hear to get votes. |
buddha
9/23/08
2:53 PM | I'm afraid that nobody's plans will stay intact after the huge bailout debacle. We'll all be paying more taxes to bailout the Wall Street crooks for years and decades to come.
Now that's wealth redistribution! |
dragonrider
9/23/08
4:23 PM | You call it wealth redistribution, I call it wealth distribution. There is a limited amount of wealth created how it is distributed is a question for society. Revolutions have been fought and entire nations destroyed and powerful guilitined for inequitable distribution of wealth. When one group takes upon itself an unfair portion of the limited wealth created then revolution follows. One could argue that when CEO's earned 30 X's the rate of the production that this was equitable distribution of wealth but when CEO's as presently they do and as they did in the previous guilded age of 300 X's then you could say that the rate is inequitable and revolution will follow. When the monarchies took upon themselves too much of the wealth of society, democracy followed. When Robber Barons took upon themselves too much of the wealth of production, the union revolution followed. When England tried to take upon itself too much of the wealth of the colonies revolution followed.
I have difficulty understanding why a CEO earning 17,000 and hour is ok but the NY Times has a full story about a freight train engineer earning 300 and hour as indicating abuse of the system. Both are an abuse but only one seems to elicit anger of greed and that is of the worker. During the monarchies the kings said they were ordained of god to lead their contries and therefore deserving of its wealth, now we have CEO's saying I work harder and am smarter therefore I deserve the massive share of the wealth both are fallacous both have and will lead to ruin. |
cyberscribbler
9/23/08
11:00 PM | QUOTE (DragonRider) You call it wealth redistribution, I call it wealth distribution. I call it disassmbeling every remnant of the Bush Regime. Let the tax cuts expire. Give tax credits to firms working on the next source of inexpensive renewable abundant energy or watch as we approach the waning days of being as a world power. |
oh geez
9/23/08
11:15 PM | What about the poor guy who busts his butt to pay for college...graduates and gets a good job and after several years is making say...$85,000. Then there's the guy who doesn't care about attending high school and wants to eek out a living to exist week to week getting food stamps and working under the table. Maybe extremes..but we all know both these folks exist.
I'll give people a handup anytime...but getting tired of the handouts. I'm working to darn hard to play these games. |
dragonrider
9/24/08
6:40 AM | I keep reading on here about references to people living on welfare and foodstamps. You all are aware that since the Clinton administration welfare reform act that one can only collect welfare for a limited number of months, there are strict requirements for looking for work, failure to accept work kicks you off welfare, there is a requirement to attend classes on finding and keeping a job. There are no permanent welfare mothers anymore except in your imagination. |
Big Dog
9/24/08
7:09 AM | Here is what bothers me about wealth redistribution. I worked hard in high school to get good grades so I could go to a good college. Got a full scholarship to college. I worked hard in college so I could get a good job. Got a good paying job. While working, pusued my pHD in one area and achieved that. After that, decided I wanted to enhance my skill set further so got my MS in another scientific arena. After all of that time and work, I deserve to keep what I have earned.
|
Shawn
9/24/08
9:26 AM | Here is what bothers me about wealth redistribution. I worked hard in high school to get good grades so I could go to a good college. Got a full scholarship to college. I worked hard in college so I could get a good job. Got a good paying job. While working, pusued my pHD in one area and achieved that. After that, decided I wanted to enhance my skill set further so got my MS in another scientific arena. After all of that time and work, I deserve to keep what I have earned.
I'm sure everyone feels that way. So, how should we go about funding the government if everyone keeps what they earn?
Later...Shawn |
8220GRUMPY
9/24/08
9:57 AM | I keep reading on here about references to people living on welfare and foodstamps. You all are aware that since the Clinton administration welfare reform act that one can only collect welfare for a limited number of months, there are strict requirements for looking for work, failure to accept work kicks you off welfare, there is a requirement to attend classes on finding and keeping a job. There are no permanent welfare mothers anymore except in your imagination.
Really... My ex-wife went on welfare in 1995 when I received custody of our son so she wouldn't have to pay child support. She has been on it ever since. There are ways to get around that reform bill! |
Big Dog
9/24/08
10:26 AM | I'm sure everyone feels that way. So, how should we go about funding the government if everyone keeps what they earn?
Later...Shawn
Obviously, taxes need to fund the government. I should have said keep the same percentage as everyone else. People are very much in favor of redistribution of wealth. If they weren't, we would have a flat tax rate and there would be no discussion of raising my taxes to fund social security and other social programs. |
Shawn
9/24/08
10:38 AM | Obviously, taxes need to fund the government. I should have said keep the same percentage as everyone else. People are very much in favor of redistribution of wealth. If they weren't, we would have a flat tax rate and there would be no discussion of raising my taxes to fund social security and other social programs.
I agree there should be a flat tax rate, with no deductions. However, under the current system, I still only pay about 10% of my income to taxes, which isn't to bad. Ultimately though it doesn't bother me too much that someone who makes a small fraction of what I make pays little to no taxes. I view it as a contribution to the greater good of society. I benefit much more from infrastructure, social stability, and defense than someone who makes far less than I do. Mainly because I have much more to lose when those things fail.
Later...Shawn |
littledutchboy
9/24/08
11:01 AM | I agree there should be a flat tax rate, with no deductions. However, under the current system, I still only pay about 10% of my income to taxes, which isn't to bad. Ultimately though it doesn't bother me too much that someone who makes a small fraction of what I make pays little to no taxes. I view it as a contribution to the greater good of society. I benefit much more from infrastructure, social stability, and defense than someone who makes far less than I do. Mainly because I have much more to lose when those things fail.
Later...Shawn
I think the question is; should our tax system be (even more then present) converted into a welfare program where a large segment of the population gets refunds over and above what they pay in?
There is something intuitively wrong with giving people cash for the non achievement of an income threshold, or punishing a worker for going over an income threshold. We may end poverty by giving people money but will we really end poverty, or just expand some people’s total reliance on government?
|
InterestRP08
9/24/08
12:08 PM | I don't use government programs.
Government does a crappy job at whatever it does. Find me an instance that it doesn't if you want to refute that statement I just made.
Mostly all of us pay at least 5 months of our wages in taxes. About 2.7 months of the year directly to the federal government and about 2.3 in random taxes that hit purchases and properties.
Why on earth am I required to do this? I thought this was the land of the free....... |
View Topic | Comment on this blog
