Progressive tax

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: rchiu
Well McCain is just pointing to the fact that Obama's tax plan will give more handout to the bottom brackets, and his UHC plan will create one more big government program.

McCain is just trying hard to paint Obama as a socialist just like Obama trying to paint McCain as another Bush. Same political BS, nothing really new here.

Tax plans are not a hand outs no matter what. If you want to call using tax dollars to send checks in the mail to people handouts then that is fine, but the tax plans them self are not handouts.

Oh yeah? How would you call sending tax rebate checks to those who don't pay tax?

Quite frankly I would call it consolidation more than anything. The man wants to send those checks so that those people can also benefit from the purpose of the tax cuts in general.

Of course, Obama could do it another way which would piss you off more. He could use other government resources separately to work on creating checks and mailing them out to everyone who qualifies. That would cost you even more money than it would consolidating the process by utilizing tax rebate checks.



Regardless, I am really tired of debating social services and the poor. Obama's plans primarily focus on helping the working middle class. That's what should be concentrated on the most when discussing his tax plans.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: RY62
-snip-
Here is a much easier to understand explanation -

As a tax professional, I'd say that's a great analogy. Quite apt as well in describing how the Dems' go about complaining when there is a tax cut.

Fern

 

[351Cleveland]

Originally posted by: ohnoes
Thats a terrible metaphor. There's nothing about expenditures or disposable income. The cost of supplying the beer is still at $100, and the value of $1 to #6 is inherently different than the value of $1 to #10.

And thus the socialist train rolls on... Guy #10 didn't NEED it so take it from him

 

[351Cleveland]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I loved the Obama line about next week McSame will be accusing me of being a communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten.

Obama is more than welcome to share HIS toys... but not MY toys. That should be my decision to make shouldnt it? IMHO, he flubbed it up.

 

[351Cleveland]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: rchiu
Well McCain is just pointing to the fact that Obama's tax plan will give more handout to the bottom brackets, and his UHC plan will create one more big government program.

McCain is just trying hard to paint Obama as a socialist just like Obama trying to paint McCain as another Bush. Same political BS, nothing really new here.

Tax plans are not a hand outs no matter what. If you want to call using tax dollars to send checks in the mail to people handouts then that is fine, but the tax plans them self are not handouts.

When the tax plan ends up giving refundable tax credits to people who pay nothing in tax, then it most certainly is a handout. I dont know what else you would call it... other than welfare and socialism through legislation.

 

[351Cleveland]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Honestly though Socialism in its true form never redistributed wealth down. My sig says it perfectly. If Obama was a socialist he would tax all of us 100%, collect our wealth, and then make us wards of the state. We will all be poor while him and the political class are wealthy and control the power.

And you DONT think that is where we are doing? Government healthcare, govenment education, government daycare, goverment retirement plans... there are fewer significant areas left to takeover every day.

You really think, in the direction we are going, that we WONT be wards of the state someday?

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: rchiu
Well McCain is just pointing to the fact that Obama's tax plan will give more handout to the bottom brackets, and his UHC plan will create one more big government program.

McCain is just trying hard to paint Obama as a socialist just like Obama trying to paint McCain as another Bush. Same political BS, nothing really new here.

Tax plans are not a hand outs no matter what. If you want to call using tax dollars to send checks in the mail to people handouts then that is fine, but the tax plans them self are not handouts.

When the tax plan ends up giving refundable tax credits to people who pay nothing in tax, then it most certainly is a handout. I dont know what else you would call it... other than welfare and socialism through legislation.

So Obama is a Socialist? Ok, what is Socialism and why is Obama a Socialist? I sound like a broken record.

 

[Farang]

oops.. we had a good discussion going there folks. Nothing more to see here now, thanks 351 Cleveland.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I have heard him talk about raising the capital gains tax. At one point it was a bit ridiculous, something like 38%. But then he settled at 20%. But the last I heard he has backed away from it out of fear it will hurt the stock market and investment.

ridiculous. the "rich" will just hold their capital gains until a republican is elected again and lowers it or divert their investments to tax-shelter investments such as real estate, where you never have to pay capital gains tax.

 

[351Cleveland]

Originally posted by: Farang
"It's like these people take pride in being ignorant" - Barack Obama

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax

We have had a progressive income tax in the United States ever since there has been an income tax, nearly one hundred years. Conservatives generally favor a more regressive (but still progressive) tax system, while Democrats favor a more progressive tax system. This debate is not at all a debate over what is socialist and what is not.

And if I may take a quote out of the article:

In the U.S., the vast majority of economists (81%) support progressive taxation.[17][18]

I understand partisans aren't going to bother reading facts but if you are being duped into confusion about this line of attack from McCain I thought you might like to read about what the debate really is about and make up your mind based on the facts.

Clever. No, a progressive tax system all by itself is not socialist. It's when you couple that progressive tax system with other tax initiatives meant to give money to people who dont have tax liability... then it is socialist in nature... thus the concept of refundable tax credits. When you tax someone MORE so you can give it to someone else (usually someone who makes less) then it is socialist. We can argue if that is good or bad, but the definition isnt really up for debate.

Socialist apologists generally point to the "ownership of production" as the defining characteristic of socialism. I would disagree and state that when the results of that production are largely confiscated primarily for redistribution, it doesnt matter who owns the capital. The product is being confiscated by the state. That is the new socialism. Government realizes it cannot do things as efficiently, so it lets private sector do the work, and then swoops in to take the reward.

Are we there yet? Not completely... but every change to the tax code taks us closer and closer. So while a progressive tax system isnt by itself socialist, when it is paired with the means to distribute wealth disproportionately to a different social class, it becomes part of a socialist system.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: RY62
-snip-
Here is a much easier to understand explanation -

As a tax professional, I'd say that a great analogy. Quite apt as well in describing how the Dems' go about complaining when there is a tax cut.

Fern

It's a poor analogy because it assumes (or leads one to assume) that everyone got the same amount of beer. And we all know that's not the case.

 

[351Cleveland]

Originally posted by: Farang
oops.. we had a good discussion going there folks. Nothing more to see here now, thanks 351 Cleveland.

What? I cant participate? I didnt mention ANY political candidates not already mentioned. You cant discuss with someone who disagrees with you?

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland

Originally posted by: Farang
oops.. we had a good discussion going there folks. Nothing more to see here now, thanks 351 Cleveland.

What? I cant participate? I didnt mention ANY political candidates. You cant discuss with someone who disagrees with you?

but he's an open minded liberal!

 

[MikeyLSU]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: RY62
-snip-
Here is a much easier to understand explanation -

As a tax professional, I'd say that a great analogy. Quite apt as well in describing how the Dems' go about complaining when there is a tax cut.

Fern

It's a poor analogy because it assumes (or leads one to assume) that everyone got the same amount of beer. And we all know that's not the case.

so rich people get more from the government than poor people? This is in reference to a tax refund.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland

Originally posted by: Farang
oops.. we had a good discussion going there folks. Nothing more to see here now, thanks 351 Cleveland.

What? I cant participate? I didnt mention ANY political candidates. You cant discuss with someone who disagrees with you?

It's because the OP's purpose in this thread was to provide some education on this subject, and your "disagreements" have been to crap on his thread by spreading the same old ignorance and FUD.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: RY62
-snip-
Here is a much easier to understand explanation -

As a tax professional, I'd say that a great analogy. Quite apt as well in describing how the Dems' go about complaining when there is a tax cut.

Fern

It's a poor analogy because it assumes (or leads one to assume) that everyone got the same amount of beer. And we all know that's not the case.

I hate to indulge this analogy further but I think it is better thought of this way--all 10 are alcoholics who need the beer or will suffer sever withdrawals. Depending on your number, that is how many beers you get (#1 gets one, #5 gets five beers, etc.). The owner of the bar then takes a higher percentage from #10 because if #10 gets 30% of his beers taken away, he still has 7 and can get a buzz. If he does a flat tax on all of them and takes 15%, #1 is left with only 85% of one beer and will start suffering spasms on the floor, causing 2-10 to help in out and ruining everyone's night.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland

Originally posted by: Farang
oops.. we had a good discussion going there folks. Nothing more to see here now, thanks 351 Cleveland.

What? I cant participate? I didnt mention ANY political candidates. You cant discuss with someone who disagrees with you?

I welcome disagreements with the policy of progressive taxation but that is not at all what you've been posting about. You've been posting about the same crap I posted this thread to stop because it is a distortion of the real discussion.

You didn't see me tell RY62 to get the hell out of here even though I think he is way off base in his analogy. At least he is addressing progressive taxation.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland

Originally posted by: Farang
"It's like these people take pride in being ignorant" - Barack Obama

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax

We have had a progressive income tax in the United States ever since there has been an income tax, nearly one hundred years. Conservatives generally favor a more regressive (but still progressive) tax system, while Democrats favor a more progressive tax system. This debate is not at all a debate over what is socialist and what is not.

And if I may take a quote out of the article:

In the U.S., the vast majority of economists (81%) support progressive taxation.[17][18]

I understand partisans aren't going to bother reading facts but if you are being duped into confusion about this line of attack from McCain I thought you might like to read about what the debate really is about and make up your mind based on the facts.

Clever. No, a progressive tax system all by itself is not socialist. It's when you couple that progressive tax system with other tax initiatives meant to give money to people who dont have tax liability... then it is socialist in nature... thus the concept of refundable tax credits. When you tax someone MORE so you can give it to someone else (usually someone who makes less) then it is socialist. We can argue if that is good or bad, but the definition isnt really up for debate.

Marx would disagree with you.

Marx and Engels from The Communist Manifesto:
A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

That's one of their ten planks. Giving that money directly to the poor isn't found in any ten of them. Educate yourself.

Socialist apologists generally point to the "ownership of production" as the defining characteristic of socialism. I would disagree and state that when the results of that production are largely confiscated primarily for redistribution, it doesnt matter who owns the capital. The product is being confiscated by the state. That is the new socialism. Government realizes it cannot do things as efficiently, so it lets private sector do the work, and then swoops in to take the reward.

"Socialist apologists?" You mean people who actually understand Socialism and the work of people like Marx. They mention ownership of production because Marx and Engels state as such directly in The Communist Manifesto. Taxation of business is not Socialism because in Socialism there would be nothing to tax. Businesses would not turn a profit because production would be owned by the state. The money belongs to the collective.

Are we there yet? Not completely... but every change to the tax code taks us closer and closer. So while a progressive tax system isnt by itself socialist, when it is paired with the means to distribute wealth disproportionately to a different social class, it becomes part of a socialist system.

Again, you don't understand Socialism so I'd wish you'd quit claiming that's where we are going.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: MikeyLSU

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: RY62
-snip-
Here is a much easier to understand explanation -

As a tax professional, I'd say that a great analogy. Quite apt as well in describing how the Dems' go about complaining when there is a tax cut.

Fern

It's a poor analogy because it assumes (or leads one to assume) that everyone got the same amount of beer. And we all know that's not the case.

so rich people get more from the government than poor people? This is in reference to a tax refund.

Are you saying that everyone wants to be poor? Of course not. So what is your argument again?

Overall, it is unquestionable that rich people get the govt they pay for. This is one reason why the overwhelming number of people who make these "progressive taxes are socialism" arguments are NOT rich by any means (while it's those evil "liberal elites" who do argue for them). They don't get it. Usually because they're right-wing authoritarian "law and order" types ideologically incapable of understanding (by virtue of accepting authority simply because it is Authority) the simple fact that these social programs are, for the most part, the rich bribing the poor into acceptance of being poor so that they can stay rich. And the best part for the rich is that the money goes right back to them anyway because the poor, by definition, aren't savers.

 

[351Cleveland]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland

Originally posted by: Farang
oops.. we had a good discussion going there folks. Nothing more to see here now, thanks 351 Cleveland.

What? I cant participate? I didnt mention ANY political candidates. You cant discuss with someone who disagrees with you?

I welcome disagreements with the policy of progressive taxation but that is not at all what you've been posting about. You've been posting about the same crap I posted this thread to stop because it is a distortion of the real discussion.

You didn't see me tell RY62 to get the hell out of here even though I think he is way off base in his analogy. At least he is addressing progressive taxation.

a) I addressed a specific post within the thread. If that is against the spirit of a DISCUSSION FORUM, then why the fuck have them?
b) I addressed the OP directly. In my opinion, you cannot just talk about one aspect and not the others. Progressive taxation does NOT exist in a vacuum. It's a cute trick... but it is not honest to the debate of socialism as it exists in the US tax code (or will exist even further after the election).
c) By definition, handouts/refundable tax credits are moneys taken from other tax payers and given to someone who has less (no) tax liability. Take progressive taxation out of the equation, that is socialism.

So, feel free to not discuss my postings. Personally, I think limiting the discussion to progressive taxation is an intellectually dishonest debate, as the idea of a progressive system as you want to discuss it (in a vacuum) cannot possible be socialism because it never addresses the distribution of those moneys.

EDIT: Something cannot be progressive and regressive at the same time. You might give thought to editting your original post to say "less progressive, but still progressive."

 

[351Cleveland]

Originally posted by: BigDH01
That's one of their ten planks. Giving that money directly to the poor isn't found in any ten of them. Educate yourself.

Awww... arent you cute. Let's pick andchoose what aspects of socialism we talk about by limiting ourselves to a view of socialism supported by ONE literary work. Since I never mentioned a single work or a single author, merely discussed the ideas of socialism, bite me. I didnt limit the discussion. You did... and in a very poor fashion I might add. I never said it was in any document, but it doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure it out. However, since you seem to have a need to have direct quotes in order to know it is there (in other words, not be able to take two ideas and derive a probable outcome), here it is:

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" - Karl Marx, "Critique of the Gotha Program", 1875

Now, I havent read it in context, but to the point where you can provide context for that quoe that DOESNT end up socialist, please, by all means give it to me.

"Socialist apologists?" You mean people who actually understand Socialism and the work of people like Marx. They mention ownership of production because Marx and Engels state as such directly in The Communist Manifesto. Taxation of business is not Socialism because in Socialism there would be nothing to tax. Businesses would not turn a profit because production would be owned by the state. The money belongs to the collective.

Okay... where do you put the moneys obtained from a progressive tax system? Do you give them back to the rich people you took them from? No you dont. You give them to the people who "need" them. No shit there wouldnt be a tax in socialism... but at a certain point where the government confiscates enough of the rewards from industry, then they might as well own the means of production. In other words, if those means of production hold no promise of return for the private sector, they become worthless to anyone BUT the government, and are effectively owned by the government at that point.

You might try discussing instead of acting like an intellectual and looking down your nose at people. I am more than happy to listen and learn, but only to and with people who are willing to do the same in return.

editted to fix quote tags, be less vulgar, and more condescending. 🙂

 

[Farang]

b) I addressed the OP directly. In my opinion, you cannot just talk about one aspect and not the others. Progressive taxation does NOT exist in a vacuum. It's a cute trick... but it is not honest to the debate of socialism as it exists in the US tax code (or will exist even further after the election).

This thread was meant to be about progressive taxation because I was tired of this being discussed as a means to label Obama a socialist, rather than discussed on the merits (or lack thereof) of progressive taxation. I'm not attempting to have a debate on socialism as it exists in the US, the point of my post was that socialism is an inflammatory wrench thrown into the debate of progressive taxation and let's try to have a discussion by avoiding that label. You made your point, that it is wrong to tax the rich more and give what you call handouts to the poor. But you have posted, sometimes 4-5 replies in a row, intentionally trying to sidetrack the discussion. So I'm glad we had a few good points back and forth here until you came along, I expected it much earlier in this forum so I'll take this to be a success.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: RY62
-snip-
Here is a much easier to understand explanation -

As a tax professional, I'd say that a great analogy. Quite apt as well in describing how the Dems' go about complaining when there is a tax cut.

Fern

It's a poor analogy because it assumes (or leads one to assume) that everyone got the same amount of beer. And we all know that's not the case.

Are you suggesting that when you make more money (thus pay more taxes), you get more government services?

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: RY62
-snip-
Here is a much easier to understand explanation -

As a tax professional, I'd say that a great analogy. Quite apt as well in describing how the Dems' go about complaining when there is a tax cut.

Fern

It's a poor analogy because it assumes (or leads one to assume) that everyone got the same amount of beer. And we all know that's not the case.

Are you suggesting that when you make more money (thus pay more taxes), you get more government services?

Fern

That's pretty much a certainty. Policies enacted by our government favor the interests of the rich by a wide margin. That is unless you think the poor benefit more from the invasion of Iraq, from outsourcing, cuts in capital gains taxes, etc. You pay more, you get more influence.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: rchiu
Well McCain is just pointing to the fact that Obama's tax plan will give more handout to the bottom brackets, and his UHC plan will create one more big government program.

McCain is just trying hard to paint Obama as a socialist just like Obama trying to paint McCain as another Bush. Same political BS, nothing really new here.

Tax plans are not a hand outs no matter what. If you want to call using tax dollars to send checks in the mail to people handouts then that is fine, but the tax plans them self are not handouts.

When the tax plan ends up giving refundable tax credits to people who pay nothing in tax, then it most certainly is a handout. I dont know what else you would call it... other than welfare and socialism through legislation.

It's *backdoor* welfare.

Since welfare is a politicaly undesirable word, in typical fashion, Congress masks it by calling it something more palatable.

I.e., they've perverted the tax system to achieve a non-tax objective (and thereby mask it's nature).

Fern