Progressive tax

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: 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.

What about the now retiring baby boomers who will be cashing in their retirement accounts?

If you are 63 and planning on retiring in 2 years what happens to you if Obama wins? You get two years of a MODEST tax cut, then cash out your retirement and lose a whopping ADDITONAL 10-15% more than you would under McCain. Suppose you have 1 million in capital gains, think that extra $150,000+ would be better left in your own pocket? Think your $500 a year tax cut for 2 years makes it even?

I'll take a smaller tax cut while business gets one as well. Obama's tax plan might mirror Clintons (middle class tax HIKES), but he will not reap the same prosperity. We saw the greatest influx of foreign investment capital since WW2 during Clinton's term, that drove the market from 3,000 to 10,000. What brought that about, not his tax plan, try balanced budgets & repayment of some of our debt. Obama wants to add another trillion to our deficit when the last thing we need is more fiscal irresponsibility.

I don't know how anyone can get past his association with ACORN or Ayers, his funneling of Fannie Mae & Freddy Mac $ for his pals to build deadly slums, his lack of experience, abysmal record producing/enacting significant national legislation, or his demonstrated preference to not reach out across the aisle. His economic plan is crapola, his health care plan even worse, his foreign policy/military qualifications are laughable, frankly I don't see the appeal. The dems should have used their power the last two years to make it possible for Bill to run again, he would have gotten my vote no questions asked.

Nice way to give Obama a pass on lying about accepting public financing. I guess he doesn't have to keep his word to gain your trust. Listen to those that know him best, his former preacher, "He will say whatever is needed to get elected". He's shown that to be true time and time again, nothing more than another corrupted, ineffective politician.


Need to have some fences put up around here, don't want the sheep to get loose.....

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
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:

I've read Kapital as well, and I know you haven't. The only idea of "Socialism" you've ever mentioned is the redistribution of wealth and then mentioned that progressive taxation is not. Obviously, progressive taxation has been used in Socialist ideology.

You've inherently limited the discussion by your lack of knowledge and history. I asked you earlier in the thread to define Socialism and describe why Obama is a Socialist. You didn't answer and went on some tirade about redistribution of wealth. You've clearly demonstrated your lack of education on the subject.

The reason I don't derive your probable outcome (the government taxes therefore it owns all wealth) is because you are using a slippery slope fallacy. When the government actually seizes control of private industry, you can call it Socialist. Until then, it is ignorant fear mongering.

"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.

Of course the quote sounds Socialist (Communist actually, but we'll avoid that for now), the man who wrote it put in writing many Socialist ideas. Why would I make an argument otherwise? My contention is that Obama is not a Socialist, not Marx.

However, it says nothing about taxation or redistribution of wealth. In his ideal Society, every member contributes to the best of their ability and their needs are provided by the state. This falls in line with state ownership of production, land, and wealth.

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.

So the rich don't benefit from the taxes they pay? What about schools, roads, police, military, communications, etc?

Quite honestly, I find Marx's tenet about progressive taxation to be superfluous anyway due to

Marx and Engels:
Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

The state owns your body anyway, and they don't need to tax you to own your labor.

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.

If the government confiscates all profit then it de facto owns the company. However, you are still making a slippery slope argument. It also goes something like, "If the government can tax anything from you, they can tax everything from you." It's a false argument. The only solution to your dilemma is to tax nothing at all. Most Western nations realize this and have a mixed economy. You can tax without owning the corporation you are taxing. When the government does actually confiscate all wealth, then you'll have a case.

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.

I'm not trying to act like an intellectual, I just get frustrated when people throw around titles for people when they don't understand the accusation they are making. I've asked several people on this board to defend their Socialist accusations and rarely do I get a response. This also applies to people I've asked in real life. Worse yet, in my opinion, when Americans think Socialism they think the Soviet Union which really belittles the people that actually suffered under the USSR's authoritarian regime. To try to get people to envision Stalin and the Soviet Union when they hear Obama's tax plan is really an insult.

It also small-minded. Yes, there are things about this country that are Socialistic in the Marxist sense. That includes progressive taxation but not redistribution of wealth. Taxation of corporations != public ownership of those corporations. Marxism also promotes free public education, something which the United States made universal in the 1800s. In fact, during the Reconstruction, the US achieved one of the highest literacy rates in the world due to an idea that was also grasped by Marx. But believing in free public education does not make one a Socialist. Neither does enjoying national parks although Marx believed that private land should be eliminated to be made public lands.

To call someone a Socialist because of him saying "spread the wealth" or because they believe in progressive taxation is just too simplistic. Hell, even Adam Smith discusses progressive taxation.

Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations: The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

This isn't on income specifically, but the idea is the same. Ultimately, the rich will, and should depending on your viewpoint, contribute more to the public good than the poor. This is redistribution of wealth and progressive taxation and it seems to be a nearly universal concept.

Edit: also had to fix a quote and tried to be less insulting from the beginning

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: 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.

What about the now retiring baby boomers who will be cashing in their retirement accounts?

If you are 63 and planning on retiring in 2 years what happens to you if Obama wins? You get two years of a MODEST tax cut, then cash out your retirement and lose a whopping ADDITONAL 10-15% more than you would under McCain. Suppose you have 1 million in capital gains, think that extra $150,000+ would be better left in your own pocket? Think your $500 a year tax cut for 2 years makes it even?

I'll take a smaller tax cut while business gets one as well. Obama's tax plan might mirror Clintons (middle class tax HIKES), but he will not reap the same prosperity. We saw the greatest influx of foreign investment capital since WW2 during Clinton's term, that drove the market from 3,000 to 10,000. What brought that about, not his tax plan, try balanced budgets & repayment of some of our debt. Obama wants to add another trillion to our deficit when the last thing we need is more fiscal irresponsibility.

I don't know how anyone can get past his association with ACORN or Ayers, his funneling of Fannie Mae & Freddy Mac $ for his pals to build deadly slums, his lack of experience, abysmal record producing/enacting significant national legislation, or his demonstrated preference to not reach out across the aisle. His economic plan is crapola, his health care plan even worse, his foreign policy/military qualifications are laughable, frankly I don't see the appeal. The dems should have used their power the last two years to make it possible for Bill to run again, he would have gotten my vote no questions asked.

Nice way to give Obama a pass on lying about accepting public financing. I guess he doesn't have to keep his word to gain your trust. Listen to those that know him best, his former preacher, "He will say whatever is needed to get elected". He's shown that to be true time and time again, nothing more than another corrupted, ineffective politician.


Need to have some fences put up around here, don't want the sheep to get loose.....

Fern can probably answer this better but I don't think you pay capital gains tax on retirement account gains. You just count your withdrawals as income.

 

[Alistar7]

"You just count your withdrawals as income. "

That is correct, as long as they are retirement accounts. Does not protect all capital gains though.

IMHO the capital gains tax should be cut for all, same with business & payroll taxes. I am willing to take a slightly smaller tax break so that business can get one as well.

 

[351Cleveland]

Originally posted by: 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.

I dont intentionally sidetrack anything. I post in burst because I respond as I read. Sorry, I wont participate in your shitty little, small minded conversations anymore.

FWIW, Obama isnt a socialist because we have progressive taxes. You know this, and you intentionally limited the scope of the conversation to provide your candidate some shelter and let you attack anyone who pointed out what is probably obvioius to most. Now that is has been pointed out, as you say, nothing to see here, move along.

 

[351Cleveland]

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
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:

I've read Kapital as well, and I know you haven't. The only idea of "Socialism" you've ever mentioned is the redistribution of wealth and then mentioned that progressive taxation is not. Obviously, progressive taxation has been used in Socialist ideology.

You've inherently limited the discussion by your lack of knowledge and history. I asked you earlier in the thread to define Socialism and describe why Obama is a Socialist. You didn't answer and went on some tirade about redistribution of wealth. You've clearly demonstrated your lack of education on the subject.

The reason I don't derive your probable outcome (the government taxes therefore it owns all wealth) is because you are using a slippery slope fallacy. When the government actually seizes control of private industry, you can call it Socialist. Until then, it is ignorant fear mongering.

"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.

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.

So the rich don't benefit from the taxes they pay? What about schools, roads, police, military, communications, etc?

Quite honestly, I find Marx's tenet about progressive taxation to be superfluous anyway due to

Marx and Engels:
Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

The state owns your body anyway, and they don't need to tax you to own your labor.

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.

If the government confiscates all profit then it de facto owns the company. However, you are still making a slippery slope argument. It also goes something like, "If the government can tax anything from you, they can tax everything from you." It's a false argument. The only solution to your dilemma is to tax nothing at all. Most Western nations realize this and have a mixed economy. You can tax without owning the corporation you are taxing. When the government does actually confiscate all wealth, then you'll have a case.

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.

I'm not trying to act like an intellectual, I just get frustrated when people throw around titles for people when they don't understand the accusation they are making. I've asked several people on this board to defend their Socialist accusations and rarely do I get a response. This also applies to people I've asked in real life. Worse yet, in my opinion, when Americans think Socialism they think the Soviet Union which really belittles the people that actually suffered under the USSR's authoritarian regime. To try to get people to envision Stalin and the Soviet Union when they hear Obama's tax plan is really an insult.

It also small-minded. Yes, there are things about this country that are Socialistic in the Marxist sense. That includes progressive taxation but not redistribution of wealth. Taxation of corporations != public ownership of those corporations. Marxism also promotes free public education, something which the United States made universal in the 1800s. In fact, during the Reconstruction, the US achieved one of the highest literacy rates in the world due to an idea that was also grasped by Marx. But believing in free public education does not make one a Socialist. Neither does enjoying national parks although Marx believed that private land should be eliminated to be made public lands.

To call someone a Socialist because of him saying "spread the wealth" or because they believe in progressive taxation is just too simplistic. Hell, even Adam Smith discusses progressive taxation.

Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations: The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

This isn't on income specifically, but the idea is the same. Ultimately, the rich will, and should depending on your viewpoint, contribute more to the public good than the poor. This is redistribution of wealth and progressive taxation and it seems to be a nearly universal concept.

I dont believe my knowledge of the motives and intentions of socialism to be lacking. Can I quote works by socialists? Nope. Sorry. I've been out of college too long and I have other things to spend my time on. To that end, yes, your superior knowledge on the subject overwhelms my own. Grats man.

On the other hand, we seem to agree on most points. I dont disagree with you on any one point... except maybe that it IS that simple to me and most Americans. At the end of the day, I only care about the intent and spirit of socialism, not the mechanics. Whether it is explicitly stated or not (and I believe it is), socialism is first about the redistribution of wealth in the beginning, and on a continuing basis the equal distribution of wealth regardless of ability or effort.

 

[Rainsford]

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's a great analogy. Quite apt as well in describing how the Dems' go about complaining when there is a tax cut.

Fern

You mean "as a Republican", right? I might not be a tax professional, but that seems like a pretty ridiculous analogy to me, especially because the percentage of the "tax cut" in the beer story is progressive (the poorer people get the biggest cut percentage-wise), while Republican tax plans (like McCain's) actually give larger PERCENTAGE cuts to rich folks, making the cut regressive. If there are people complaining that rich folks get more money out of a cut in absolute terms, I have yet to hear from them. What I do see people complaining about is when the tax RATE at the top is decreased more than the rate at the bottom. Those are completely different things, which I imagine your background as a "tax professional" would allow you to understand.

In other words, in the beer analogy, while everyone pays less in absolute terms, the PERCENTAGE they pay is different.

In the original $100 scenario:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So the sixth man pays $3 out of a total bill of $100, so he pays 3%. The tenth man pays 59%.

In the "tax cut" scenario, where the cost is $80:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

The sixth man pays $2 out of $80, or 2.5%. The tenth man pays 61.25%. In other words, the rich guy got more money back, but his share of the beer tax actually went UP. This is not even remotely close to Republican tax plans (including McCain's), where the share payed by those at the top goes DOWN. In other words, while I have no reason to doubt you're a fine tax professional, the beer argument shouldn't be even remotely convincing to anyone with a 3rd grade math education who isn't hauling around a metric ton of Republican baggage.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

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's a great analogy. Quite apt as well in describing how the Dems' go about complaining when there is a tax cut.

Fern

You mean "as a Republican", right? I might not be a tax professional, but that seems like a pretty ridiculous analogy to me, especially because the percentage of the "tax cut" in the beer story is progressive (the poorer people get the biggest cut percentage-wise), while Republican tax plans (like McCain's) actually give larger PERCENTAGE cuts to rich folks, making the cut regressive. If there are people complaining that rich folks get more money out of a cut in absolute terms, I have yet to hear from them. What I do see people complaining about is when the tax RATE at the top is decreased more than the rate at the bottom. Those are completely different things, which I imagine your background as a "tax professional" would allow you to understand.

In other words, in the beer analogy, while everyone pays less in absolute terms, the PERCENTAGE they pay is different.

In the original $100 scenario:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So the sixth man pays $3 out of a total bill of $100, so he pays 3%. The tenth man pays 59%.

In the "tax cut" scenario, where the cost is $80:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

The sixth man pays $2 out of $80, or 2.5%. The tenth man pays 61.25%. In other words, the rich guy got more money back, but his share of the beer tax actually went UP. This is not even remotely close to Republican tax plans (including McCain's), where the share payed by those at the top goes DOWN. In other words, while I have no reason to doubt you're a fine tax professional, the beer argument shouldn't be even remotely convincing to anyone with a 3rd grade math education who isn't hauling around a metric ton of Republican baggage.

Furthermore, RY62's absurd example conveniently forgets to model the fact the most of these people paying "zero taxes" are in fact paying 7.65% of their income in payroll taxes (and if they're self-employed, they pay 15.3%, less any earned income credit). Payroll taxes are the MOST regressive tax of all.

For many low wage earners, payroll tax is a much larger tax burden than income tax. Yet the right keeps insisting "they pay no taxes." BS