Obama's Tax Plan part Duex

[skydivr]

On the spot:

- OBAMA's TAX PLAN - Penn & Teller and gang return to comment on Barack Obama's socialist plans to turn the United States into a Marxist wasteland! ** FEATURING Plumber, Joe Wurzelbacher. *** Vett Barack Obama, NOT Joe the Plumber! ***[/url]

 

[Fate]

Joe the Plumber living in a 140,000 house saves up and saves up to make a better life for his family by working his azz off and then watches his plan possibly fall apart by Obama's plan to give 58 percent of his hard work away. And this is something that would keep him from being to hire more Americans to work when the unemployment rate is the way it is now. Less jobs because of this plan as far as I see it which makes unemployment spiral even lower.

 

[skydivr]

My dad always said, "I'd rather work for a rich man, than a poor one". Eventually, he was very successful due to his own efforts. When he made money, he invested it in expansion, better pay and benefits for his employees, etc. When taxed heavily, he could not do that because all his cash went to pay taxes. I'd rather give people an opportunty vs. a handout.

 

[Dino]

My dad always said, "I'd rather work for a rich man, than a poor one". Eventually, he was very successful due to his own efforts. When he made money, he invested it in expansion, better pay and benefits for his employees, etc. When taxed heavily, he could not do that because all his cash went to pay taxes. I'd rather give people an opportunty vs. a handout.

My only question is whether or not your dad is the exception or the rule? The perception is more and more business owners are in it to make as much as they can at the expense of their employees. We are seeing many reports of layoffs but how many reports of upper management pay cuts to keep lower level employess employed? Loyalty works both ways and when business owners are not looking out for their employees the gov will step in and I think that is what we are seeing now.

 

[skydivr]

I believe the large amounts of excess belong to large corporations with absentee ownership who go out and hire "professionals" that are only in it for themselves. Some of these corporate execs with the Enron mentality ought to have their heads handed to them. AIG's execs are making fools of themselves right now.

I am now one of the recipients of my father's efforts and I work in the business that he struggled for - and I have taken a larger pay cut - dollar wise, and PERCENTAGE wise than ANY employee that we have been able to keep - and yes, we have laid some off in order to protect the future of the company and the jobs of those that remain (we even gave them a RAISE to try and help cover higher fuel costs). It's not just a discussion in theory for me, but real-world experience.

Most small business owners realize they can't make it without good employees, and try to find balance in pay, benefits along with making a profit for themselves and paying the leeches (taxes, insurance, unions, etc.) Tax us so hard we can't get ahead, and our incentive to create and grow goes away.

The tax plan that Obama is pushing, especially the capital gains and the inheritance tax is going to kill small business. Every parent wants to pass along the fruits of their lifelong efforts to their children - and should have the god-given right to do so - after all, they EARNED it. Why should the government get it? What is their incentive to create wealth if they can't pass it along? What happens when it's easier to sit on your ass and the government GIVE you money than it is to go and EARN it?

Ok, time to stop and count to 10 - and I realllly should get back to work!

 

[Dino]

I believe the large amounts of excess belong to large corporations with absentee ownership who go out and hire "professionals" that are only in it for themselves. Some of these corporate execs with the Enron mentality ought to have their heads handed to them. AIG's execs are making fools of themselves right now.

I am now one of the recipients of my father's efforts and I work in the business that he struggled for - and I have taken a larger pay cut - dollar wise, and PERCENTAGE wise than ANY employee that we have been able to keep - and yes, we have laid some off in order to protect the future of the company and the jobs of those that remain (we even gave them a RAISE to try and help cover higher fuel costs). It's not just a discussion in theory for me, but real-world experience.

Most small business owners realize they can't make it without good employees, and try to find balance in pay, benefits along with making a profit for themselves and paying the leeches (taxes, insurance, unions, etc.) Tax us so hard we can't get ahead, and our incentive to create and grow goes away.

The tax plan that Obama is pushing, especially the capital gains and the inheritance tax is going to kill small business. Every parent wants to pass along the fruits of their lifelong efforts to their children - and should have the god-given right to do so - after all, they EARNED it. Why should the government get it? What is their incentive to create wealth if they can't pass it along? What happens when it's easier to sit on your ass and the government GIVE you money than it is to go and EARN it?

Ok, time to stop and count to 10 - and I realllly should get back to work!

I do agree with you here.

Why do you think neither candidate has the nuts to propose a "Fair Tax Plan" (National Sales Tax)

 

[skydivr]

Here's some more food for thought:

Obama and the Tax Tipping Point

How long before taxpayers are pushed too far?

By ADAM LERRICK

What happens when the voter in the exact middle of the earnings spectrum receives more in benefits from Washington than he pays in taxes? Economists Allan Meltzer and Scott Richard posed this question 27 years ago. We may soon enough know the answer.
Barack Obama is offering voters strong incentives to support higher taxes and bigger government. This could be the magic income-redistribution formula Democrats have long sought.
Sen. Obama is promising $500 and $1,000 gift-wrapped packets of money in the form of refundable tax credits. These will shift the tax demographics to the tipping point where half of all voters will receive a cash windfall from Washington and an overwhelming majority will gain from tax hikes and more government spending.
In 2006, the latest year for which we have Census data, 220 million Americans were eligible to vote and 89 million -- 40% -- paid no income taxes. According to the Tax Policy Center (a joint venture of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute), this will jump to 49% when Mr. Obama's cash credits remove 18 million more voters from the tax rolls. What's more, there are an additional 24 million taxpayers (11% of the electorate) who will pay a minimal amount of income taxes -- less than 5% of their income and less than $1,000 annually.
In all, three out of every five voters will pay little or nothing in income taxes under Mr. Obama's plans and gain when taxes rise on the 40% that already pays 95% of income tax revenues.
The plunder that the Democrats plan to extract from the "very rich" -- the 5% that earn more than $250,000 and who already pay 60% of the federal income tax bill -- will never stretch to cover the expansive programs Mr. Obama promises.
What next? A core group of Obama enthusiasts -- those educated professionals who applaud the "fairness" of their candidate's tax plans -- will soon see their $100,000-$150,000 incomes targeted. As entitlements expand and a self-interested majority votes, the higher tax brackets will kick in at lower levels down the ladder, all the way to households with a $75,000 income.
Calculating how far society's top earners can be pushed before they stop (or cut back on) producing is difficult. But the incentives are easy to see. Voters who benefit from government programs will push for higher tax rates on higher earners -- at least until those who power the economy and create jobs and wealth stop working, stop investing, or move out of the country.
Other nations have tried the ideology of fairness in the place of incentives and found that reward without work is a recipe for decline. In the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher took on the unions and slashed taxes to restore growth and jobs in Great Britain. In Germany a few years ago, Social Democrat Gerhard Schroeder defied his party's dogma and loosened labor's grip on the economy to end stagnation. And more recently in France, Nicolas Sarkozy was swept to power on a platform of restoring flexibility to the economy.
The sequence is always the same. High-tax, big-spending policies force the economy to lose momentum. Then growth in government spending outstrips revenues. Fiscal and trade deficits soar. Public debt, excessive taxation and unemployment follow. The central bank tries to solve the problem by printing money. International competitiveness is lost and the currency depreciates. The system stagnates. And then a frightened electorate returns conservatives to power.
The economic tides will not stand still while Washington experiments with European-type social democracy, even though the dollar's role as the global reserve currency will buy some time. Our trademark competitive advantage will be lost, and once lost, it will be hard to regain. There are too many emerging economies focused on prosperity and not redistribution for the U.S. to easily recapture its role of global economic leader.
Tomorrow's children may come to question why their parents sold their birthright for a mess of "fairness" -- whatever that will signify when jobs are scarce and American opportunity is no longer the envy of the world.

Mr. Lerrick is a professor of economics at Carnegie Mellon University and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

I do believe that, in order to pay for the war, I AM going to have to pay higher taxes, but I also believe that "vengance taxation" would not be healthy, and that government programs ALSO to get reduced. I see the Democrats seeing this as their golden opportunity to go ALL OUT and it's gonna be bad..

 

[skydivr]

I do agree with you here.

Why do you think neither candidate has the nuts to propose a "Fair Tax Plan" (National Sales Tax)

The Republicans HAVE in the past proposed a "Flat Tax" or "Consumption Tax" plan more than once, but the also know it's not passable with 80% of the voting public who would probably take the brunt of it - It would be suicide for McCain to even propose it.

Again, it's pretty obvious that some additional taxation is going to have to occur (no matter what both parties say - it's going to effect EVERYONE one way or another). My concern is that we 1) don't go hog wild in thinking the 'evil rich' should pay for it all, and 2) We not dig ourselves deeper into the hole on socialist programs (free health care, benefit programs for those 'not contributing to society' etc.)

 

[runeight]

The Republicans HAVE in the past proposed a "Flat Tax" or "Consumption Tax" plan more than once, but the also know it's not passable with 80% of the voting public who would probably take the brunt of it - It would be suicide for McCain to even propose it.

Again, it's pretty obvious that some additional taxation is going to have to occur (no matter what both parties say - it's going to effect EVERYONE one way or another). My concern is that we 1) don't go hog wild in thinking the 'evil rich' should pay for it all, and 2) We not dig ourselves deeper into the hole on socialist programs (free health care, benefit programs for those 'not contributing to society' etc.)

Two excellent posts! I have nothing to add here.

r8

 

[Lamb busa]

Lamb has never understood the inheritance tax being higher that the normal income tax rate. After all, that money has already been taxed once.