redistribution of wealth

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Awesome. Lets do it.

:disgust:

Tax policy is where Obama/Dems fail completely. You actually support raising taxes on hard working Americans and handing that money directly to people who sit at home collecting welfare? That's pure communism and has no place in America.

People who do not work and do not pay income tax should be ineligible for any sort of tax credit from the government. I would hope any reasonable person would be up in arms over this plan; this is your money going to people who do nothing for a living.

It is just as rediculous to raise taxes on hard working people making over $200,000 and redistribute that wealth via tax cuts to people earning less. But we can forget about that because majority wins an election and the majority are not going to care about what is right, only what benefits them.

Same idea with the idea of giving away free money to people who don't work. People in that group will be happy to vote for Obama in turn for free money.

Poor Dems, thos f'ing tards - IT"S ALL THEIR FAULT, THEY DON"T UNDERSTAND - THIS IS PURE COMMUNISM!!!. Good thing the EIC was implemented under the administration of Gerald Rudolph Ford, Jr (republican), increased largely under Reagan, Bush Sr, and Bush Jr.

"Enacted in 1975, the initially modest EIC has been expanded by tax legislation on a number of occasions, including the more widely-publicized Reagan EIC expansion of 1986. The EIC was further expanded in 1990, 1993, and 2001 regardless of whether the act in general raised taxes (1990, 1993), lowered taxes (2001), or eliminated other deductions and credits (1986). Today, the EITC is one of the largest anti-poverty tools in the United States (despite the fact that most income measures, including the poverty rate, do not account for the credit), and enjoys broad bipartisan support."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_Income_Tax_Credit

What a bunch of FUD. :roll:

It's rediculous no matter who introduced it; it is Obama's responsibility as Pres. to see that it is stopped.

The bottom line is, Obama would certainly support such programs/ideas stronger than a Republican would. Obama is the one who wants to raise taxes on higher earners and distribute that wealth to lower earners. Obama is the one who talks about higher earners "paying their share" when they already pay by far the largest % of taxes of any group. Obama is the one who talks about taking wealth from people and handing it to others as if it is a good thing.

Please, the republicans have done the EXACT SAME THING, and McCain would have been no different. Lets tar and feather the man (Obama) for actually being HONEST about our tax policy in America, not painting a rosy picture of a free market to the electorate while funneling money right back to those who did not earn it. McCain would have increased the child tax credit from 2,500 to 7,000 IIRC - how would that not have been redistribution of wealth to lower earners. Don't have kids if you can't support them, eh?

 

[OutHouse]

Voting for a tax bill that does not affect you is stealing and is taxation without representation.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Citrix
Voting for a tax bill that does not affect you is stealing and is taxation without representation.

No it's not in either case.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Citrix
Voting for a tax bill that does not affect you is stealing and is taxation without representation.

Oh sh1t!

Last time that happened we overthrew British rule!

Rawn Pall R3v0lution!!!

 

[fskimospy]

Well at least I know what we can look forward to for the next four years. Poorly educated and misinformed rants about Marxism and unfair taxation, along with dire predictions of gloom and doom because of the libruls.

At least with the Bush administration people complained about actual horrible things that happened. (for the most part)

 

[BigDH01]

[

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Awesome. Lets do it.

:disgust:

Tax policy is where Obama/Dems fail completely. You actually support raising taxes on hard working Americans and handing that money directly to people who sit at home collecting welfare? That's pure communism and has no place in America.

People who do not work and do not pay income tax should be ineligible for any sort of tax credit from the government. I would hope any reasonable person would be up in arms over this plan; this is your money going to people who do nothing for a living.

It is just as rediculous to raise taxes on hard working people making over $200,000 and redistribute that wealth via tax cuts to people earning less. But we can forget about that because majority wins an election and the majority are not going to care about what is right, only what benefits them.

Same idea with the idea of giving away free money to people who don't work. People in that group will be happy to vote for Obama in turn for free money.

You, my friend, are an idiot.

1) One of Marx's tenets is that all citizens have an equal obligation to work. In a Marxist country, there would be no welfare as Marxists would not let people sit at home and collect checks. They would be sent to work camps. But, of course, you only know how to sit around and repeat talking points and cannot be bothered to do any research yourself. I'm afraid any discussion of "pure Communism" would clearly be over your head.

2) If you earned 0 income last year, you get 0 earned income tax credits from the government. The whole idea behind tax credits (like the EIC) is that you encourage people to work. See my income analysis above. Neither you or I know anything about Obama's tax credits, but if they are anything like EIC (one of the largest anti-poverty programs in the US) you have to work to collect credit (especially maximum credit).

3) It is not ridiculous when tax increases on the wealthy or in line with overall income and wealth distribution. Even Adam Smith recognized this.

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

If the top 1% of the country last year owned 60% of the total wealth, is it not fair to expect them to pay 60% of the tax burden? After all, they get more use out of infrastructure needed to generate and maintain their wealth.

Same idea with the idea of giving away free money to people who don't work. People in that group will be happy to vote for Obama in turn for free money.

Sigh, typical parrot. I guess people who don't bother to examine current policies and data will be happy to vote for McCain in return for prolonged ignorance. But hey, your gut says Obama is going to take your money to give it to lazy bums, right?

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

When it comes to this redistribution, why does the state require urine testing of employees? They tax employees earnings who are required to pass a drug test, but then it's given to recipients who don't have to pass a drug test.

So you have to be clean to earn it, but don't have to be to receive it?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
When it comes to this redistribution, why does the state require urine testing of employees? They tax employees earnings who are required to pass a drug test, but then it's given to recipients who don't have to pass a drug test.

So you have to be clean to earn it, but don't have to be to receive it?

Because drug testing for employees is done for safety and job efficiency purposes, not to make sure that they are worthy of getting government money.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
Most people who make over $200,000 voted for Obama.

Country First?

Is that true? If that be the case I wish people here would stop posting on behalf of the rich people in this country. They don't want you speaking for them evidently.

I get tired of hearing the opinions of the plumber Joes of the world who complain about these taxes despite not making anywhere near this amount of money a year.

Just because you someday plan on making $250K a year doesn't make your taxes go up and makes your opinions on tax increases for the rich, moot, especially if they as Ferocious suggested, voted for the guy who was going to increase their taxes.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
When it comes to this redistribution, why does the state require urine testing of employees? They tax employees earnings who are required to pass a drug test, but then it's given to recipients who don't have to pass a drug test.

So you have to be clean to earn it, but don't have to be to receive it?

Because drug testing for employees is done for safety and job efficiency purposes, not to make sure that they are worthy of getting government money.

So someone getting high at home on their own time is dangerous the next day when answering phones at the DMV?

 

[Xavier434]

God, another thread like this?

Look, before you asshats go any further let's just get one thing straight. The vast majority of Obama's plan including his tax plans are aimed at helping middle class working Americans. Yes, those on welfare are also going to get a piece of the pie just like they always do like it or hate it, but they are not the prime focus here.

So, instead of comparing extremes (rich vs poor), let's talk the real turkey here and compare rich vs working middle class because that is what it is all about.

 

[loup garou]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Ferocious
Most people who make over $200,000 voted for Obama.

Country First?

Is that true? If that be the case I wish people here would stop posting on behalf of the rich people in this country. They don't want you speaking for them evidently.

I get tired of hearing the opinions of the plumber Joes of the world who complain about these taxes despite not making anywhere near this amount of money a year.

Just because you someday plan on making $250K a year doesn't make your taxes go up and makes your opinions on tax increases for the rich, moot, especially if they as Ferocious suggested, voted for the guy who was going to increase their taxes.

Beat McCain by 6% in voters making >$200,000. 15% higher than Kerry did.

This really hit home for me a week or so before the election. We were having dinner at my friend's father's house, amidst his six figure wine cellar and Ferrari. He was arguing with another one of my friends -- who is solidly middle class, about why he (friend) was voting McCain. It just didn't make any sense. Here's a guy who is going to be impacted most by "spreading the wealth around" (insert :roll: here), but the guy who was going to benefit from it was voting McCain. Obviously many of the people impacted by Obama's tax plans aren't concerned...why are others? And if I hear one peep of socialism, I swear...

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: TallBill
Well, the last stimulus check that people got went towards paying bills and credit cards.

And this time around, that's exactly what I will be doing again.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
When it comes to this redistribution, why does the state require urine testing of employees? They tax employees earnings who are required to pass a drug test, but then it's given to recipients who don't have to pass a drug test.

So you have to be clean to earn it, but don't have to be to receive it?

Because drug testing for employees is done for safety and job efficiency purposes, not to make sure that they are worthy of getting government money.

So someone getting high at home on their own time is dangerous the next day when answering phones at the DMV?

No, it's that drug testing that is affordable cannot differentiate between drug use last night and drug use that morning.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: loup garou
Beat McCain by 6% in voters making >$200,000. 15% higher than Kerry did.

This really hit home for me a week or so before the election. We were having dinner at my friend's father's house, amidst his six figure wine cellar and Ferrari. He was arguing with another one of my friends -- who is solidly middle class, about why he (friend) was voting McCain. It just didn't make any sense. Here's a guy who is going to be impacted most by "spreading the wealth around" (insert :roll: here), but the guy who was going to benefit from it was voting McCain. Obviously many of the people impacted by Obama's tax plans aren't concerned...why are others? And if I hear one peep of socialism, I swear...

That's simple to answer:

EVERYONE benefits when the economy does well. The rich will happily roll back their tax rates to the Clinton-era if it means the economy is growing. What they lose in extra taxes, they gain back (and then some) in profits.

Then there are idiots like Joe The Plumber, who make a lower-middle-class salary and support McCain because Obama's tax cut for their demographic is too big. :roll:

Americans saw through McCain's bullshit quite easily this year, which is why he got his shit beat in on November 4th.

 

[Skitzer]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
When it comes to this redistribution, why does the state require urine testing of employees? They tax employees earnings who are required to pass a drug test, but then it's given to recipients who don't have to pass a drug test.

So you have to be clean to earn it, but don't have to be to receive it?

Because drug testing for employees is done for safety and job efficiency purposes, not to make sure that they are worthy of getting government money.

So someone getting high at home on their own time is dangerous the next day when answering phones at the DMV?

No, it's that drug testing that is affordable cannot differentiate between drug use last night and drug use that morning.

In that case I say they shouldn't drug test at all.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Citrix
Voting for a tax bill that does not affect you is stealing and is taxation without representation.

Maybe you should read up on "taxation without representation"

 

[OCGuy]

Look ma! The gubbament knows best what do to with my monies!


I quit my job yesterday and am ready for the handouts. All you evil people who have acquired wealth through hard work and dedication be damned!

 

[quest55720]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
God, another thread like this?

Look, before you asshats go any further let's just get one thing straight. The vast majority of Obama's plan including his tax plans are aimed at helping middle class working Americans. Yes, those on welfare are also going to get a piece of the pie just like they always do like it or hate it, but they are not the prime focus here.

So, instead of comparing extremes (rich vs poor), let's talk the real turkey here and compare rich vs working middle class because that is what it is all about.

No 99% of his tax plans are for people with kids or the poor. I will be lucky to break even once the bush tax cuts expire. All the Obama tax plan is welfare for the poor and those with kids. The price will be paid by those who lose jobs thanks to taxes going up on business.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: loup garou

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Ferocious
Most people who make over $200,000 voted for Obama.

Country First?

Is that true? If that be the case I wish people here would stop posting on behalf of the rich people in this country. They don't want you speaking for them evidently.

I get tired of hearing the opinions of the plumber Joes of the world who complain about these taxes despite not making anywhere near this amount of money a year.

Just because you someday plan on making $250K a year doesn't make your taxes go up and makes your opinions on tax increases for the rich, moot, especially if they as Ferocious suggested, voted for the guy who was going to increase their taxes.

Beat McCain by 6% in voters making >$200,000. 15% higher than Kerry did.

This really hit home for me a week or so before the election. We were having dinner at my friend's father's house, amidst his six figure wine cellar and Ferrari. He was arguing with another one of my friends -- who is solidly middle class, about why he (friend) was voting McCain. It just didn't make any sense. Here's a guy who is going to be impacted most by "spreading the wealth around" (insert :roll: here), but the guy who was going to benefit from it was voting McCain. Obviously many of the people impacted by Obama's tax plans aren't concerned...why are others? And if I hear one peep of socialism, I swear...

Well this is very good news to know. Now I will respond to all similar "But the poor rich getting taxed" posts with this thread ending information. Thanks.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
I quit my job yesterday and am ready for the handouts. All you evil people who have acquired wealth through hard work and dedication be damned!

Name one person who traded in a high paying job for a life of living on welfare.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Skitzer

Originally posted by: eskimospy

No, it's that drug testing that is affordable cannot differentiate between drug use last night and drug use that morning.

In that case I say they shouldn't drug test at all.

While I am fully for the legalization of all drugs, that seems a bit silly to me. The salient case about drug testing was one involving train operators. The USSC concluded that there was an important public safety concern that those driving trains were not under the influence of any drugs or alcohol. Sometimes it is difficult to tell if someone is high or not, but it is never difficult to notice if someone is drunk or not.

I have a vested interest in not having my train driven by someone who is high, and I fully support that business screening their employees in that way, even though the screening is imperfect. The same goes for police officers, firefighters, etc... etc. Sure there are some jobs that it doesn't matter for (hell, it might even help), but as a general principle drug testing as a condition of employment does not bother me.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Look ma! The gubbament knows best what do to with my monies!


I quit my job yesterday and am ready for the handouts. All you evil people who have acquired wealth through hard work and dedication be damned!

I encourage you to do exactly that. Since its such a sweet deal go for it! Catalogue your life on the federal teat and how sweet you have it, I dare you.

You won't of course, because you know that it's not how things work. You just want something to whine about. I'd love for you to put your money where your mouth is though.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
I quit my job yesterday and am ready for the handouts. All you evil people who have acquired wealth through hard work and dedication be damned!

Name one person who traded in a high paying job for a life of living on welfare.

How many people on welfare could have made different choices in thier lives and had good jobs?

You think living a nice life is random? The trust fund babies, maybe. But even then, SOMEONE worked hard for that money.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Awesome. Lets do it.

:disgust:

Tax policy is where Obama/Dems fail completely. You actually support raising taxes on hard working Americans and handing that money directly to people who sit at home collecting welfare? That's pure communism and has no place in America.

People who do not work and do not pay income tax should be ineligible for any sort of tax credit from the government. I would hope any reasonable person would be up in arms over this plan; this is your money going to people who do nothing for a living.

It is just as rediculous to raise taxes on hard working people making over $200,000 and redistribute that wealth via tax cuts to people earning less. But we can forget about that because majority wins an election and the majority are not going to care about what is right, only what benefits them.

Same idea with the idea of giving away free money to people who don't work. People in that group will be happy to vote for Obama in turn for free money.

You on the right need to get a clue that for every dollar going to the poor you whine about, there are $100 going to extremely rich in some form of corrupt government policy.

As long as the put the policy in a nice propaganda name, you are for it.

You could end all welfare tomorrow and not make much of a dent in the budget issues - but we should not stop helping the poor, in sensible ways that increase productivity.