Is this why people voted for Obama?

[IDrinkaRum]

Ummm ... I have a problem with over taxing all those really rich entities. Because then where does it end? First it'll be the super dooper rich. Then it'll be the semi-rich. The so-so rich. Then it'll be anyone who makes more than minimum wage for God-knows-what-reason.

It's all those rich people that inspire others to want to make it. Again, sometimes it happens & sometimes it doesn't. It's a roll of the dice. It's always been the role of the dice. Don't forget: Alexander Graham Bell did not invent the telephone first, he just got to the patent office 30 minutes sooner than the guy who actually did. Bell rolled the dice and got lucky, the other guy didn't.

Why should we "punish" those who made it big because of a few who are jealous they weren't able to make it? Tom Cruise and the Wall Street people? They live in the U. S. They contribute to the economy by buying things in America. They buy homes. They buy clothing and food and other staples within our borders.

I might have a very unpopular view at the moment, but I really don't care. It's not like all the American rich have moved to Europe/Asia/Africa/South America/etc. They've stayed here. Because they know that's where they made their money & they're loyal to their country.

And as for Obama being the "Great Unifier" of this nation? If that were true, none of the States would have voted for McCain at all. (Kinda like the election of either 1980 or 1984 when Reagan swooped in and made a killing in the election - it looked like a red pen exploded all over the map of the continental United States).

I do not expect Obama to pull sprinkle ponies out of his anatomy. I do expect him to fiscally responsible. He needs to be able to reign in the Democrats who are gloating that because they won, the American people are going to welcome all the changes they have within the first 100 days of Obama taking office. However, all during the election Obama was saying he was going to cut taxes, tax the rich, give breaks for those 95% of the country, hand out money. And now, during his acceptance speech no less, he's backing away from his platform? *sigh*

[Boozy]

Don't forget: "Those who have the most toys wins!"

You've said that a few times now. At first I thought you were kidding, but now I'm not so sure.

Certainly you understand that people can value things far more than money and objects. They value their children, education, good health, clean air, safe streets, peace and diplomacy, and their civil liberties.

Rampant greed and consumerism is what we have to thank for the current economic crisis. Perhaps it's time to start changing the way we think about "winning." After all, you can't take it with you.

It's not like all the American rich have moved to Europe/Asia/Africa/South America/etc. They've stayed here. Because they know that's where they made their money & they're loyal to their country.

Loyal? Perhaps.

But I suspect the rich stay in America because that is where they will continue to make money. There is no other country in the world that offers such a generously low tax rate, government-subsidised business infrastructure, access to major markets, and a skilled labour pool. Where else would they go?

(Actually, if Canada and the E.U. work out this free trade deal, some American corporations may come to Canada. But that's another thread.)

On another note, I am having a lot of trouble finding a comprehensive outline of Obama's tax plan online. Does anyone have a link or a few suggestions? Thanks.

[katie kaboom]

On another note, I am having a lot of trouble finding a comprehensive outline of Obama's tax plan online. Does anyone have a link or a few suggestions? Thanks.

I just found this link that might be helpful (as long as you can open PDF files):
http://taxcut.barackobama.com/
Under More Info, click Full Obama Tax Plan

hope that helps

[IDrinkaRum]

Boozy - yes, I understand people can value more than just money and things. However, there are some people who value money over most other things. Be them the rich who want to be richer or those who don't have all that money and want the rich to pay by having their money taken away by taxes. Those obsessed with how much someone makes, IMHO, cares more for money than anything else.

I have no problem with the rich staying in America because they know it's the best place to make money and keep the money you make. Smart businessmen/women know certain things about the business world that those who aren't that into it.

And please everyone, not everyone who is rich was born into a rich family. Some were actually born poor, decided they didn't want to be poor and decided to do something about it. They did and boom! They got money and more money. If they're already helping out by buying stuff and employing people, etc., then they're doing their part.

Maybe it's me, but I truly don't understand why people who make more than average should be made to feel like they're not doing their "fair share" and therefore the Government has to step in and tell them they have to pay more and more and more to make the others in America happy.

But then I grew up with an Aunt who lived through the Bolshevik Revolution who, even though she's in her 90's, still shakes like a leaf when describing the day her family woke up and the servants were gone from the house. And she shakes like a leaf when she's recalling the Red Army coming through the town, looking for the nobility/aristocracy there. The woman was 7 years old when this started and she and her family lived through 5 years of this before they got the money my Great-Grandfather sent over (5 times - only the 5th time the money got to them) for them to come to America.

[Pedersen]

IDrinkARum, if you want to be upset about who pays what in taxes, then be upset at the largest corporations.

Microsoft and Cisco, both, have managed to have years where they paid no taxes. That's right, Microsoft, a company that has reported sales of ~$12,000,000,000, and Cisco, a company which has reported sales of ~$23,000,000,000, have managed to pay zero dollars in taxes on at least one occasion, each.

The estimated tax that they should have paid on those years is somewhere in the $2,000,000,000 range (and that's each).

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. These mega-companies find sufficient tax breaks to manage to avoid billions of dollars of taxes. That shortfall has to be made up somewhere, right? Which means normal people get to pay the difference.

References:

• http://www.google.com/search?q=microsoft+paid+no+taxes
• http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../09/MN3707.DTL
• http://www.ctj.org/html/corp0402.htm

[Saydrah]

The top 20% of earners control 91.2% of financial wealth in this country. The top 1% control 39.7% of wealth. Their tax burden should reflect this. Those who have benefitted the most from this country should give the most back to their country.

And why is everyone saying that a check will be sent to people who already receive a refund on all taxes paid?

Cut the tax rates. Deduct less from each paycheck. Let low-income earners decide what to do with that extra $10 or so every two weeks NOW, not in the spring when they get a tax return. Currently people with low to lower-middle incomes essentially give the government an interest free loan for a year, then get the money back when they file a tax return. An extra $5 a week can make a big difference to a low-income family or individual. Why keep forcing these people to give the government a loan when they could have the freedom to do what they want with their money now, not a year from now? That's what a tax cut for people who earn less will mean.

[Rapscallion]

Ummm ... I have a problem with over taxing all those really rich entities.

I'm certainly against undertaxing them. What level of taxation do they currently labour under? What would be fair?

At some level, you have to say that it will penalise the hard work that they do, and they'll either bugger off to another country with lower taxation or stop trying, thereby reducing the benefit to the country in either case. At a lower level, you're effectively saying that people should pay less tax because they have more money.

To paraphrase what Willie Sutton allegedly said, a government won't be able to finance a country by taxing poor people. They don't have that much to take in the first place.

The middle classes (the UK version of it - maybe the earners in the 40% to 80% bracket for ballpark figures) are the ones who would suffer most under a higher tax regime, I would imagine. Poor people who are conscientious won't have many debts/outgoings. The filthy rich have enough to squander. The middle classes are living within their earnings and outgoings, but they do live up to their income levels, and another burden on them is going to be where it hurts.

Just an observation from a Limey.

Rapscallion

[BlaqueKatt]

BlaqueKatt - thank you for helping me make a point. I'm not sure of your political leanings, but thank you for helping me out.

Firmly in the middle-thank you-I agree with both major parties on some things and disagree with them on others-I vote for the candidate that shares my views on the issues I deem important, regardless of party. I would've voted for Ron Paul had he not dropped out, my vote went to Nader.

[Darkwolf]

This is why I would be in favor of a flat tax. Everyone pays, say 15% of their income. No exceptions. No loopholes.

[Boozy]

This is why I would be in favor of a flat tax. Everyone pays, say 15% of their income. No exceptions. No loopholes.

A flat tax might be okay, but so-called "loopholes" are necessary in a free capitalist country.

Tax write-offs are the only way a government can coerce free entities into doing what is necessary for the common good. For example, it has become necessary for many governments to address the problem of carbon production and pollution. An excellent way to reduce carbon is to encourage people to install solar panels, switch to energy-saving light bulbs and appliances, and use renewable energy wherever possible. Of course, some of these things are much more expensive than their polluting alternatives, so many companies and individuals are not inclined to do these things out of the goodness of their hearts.

In a dictatorship, the government would simply force everyone to do it anyway. No one would have a choice. But in a free society, the government instead changes the economic incentives. A regular light bulb is cheaper than an energy-saver, but that's only because the regular light bulb does not have all of the "real" costs built in; environmental degradation comes with a price, and in order for consumers to make good choices for themselves and the society they live in, these costs must be reflected in the price of goods.

So a government can do two things: They can tax the regular light bulbs so that they are more expensive than their energy-saver counterparts, or they can offer tax rebates on the energy savers. Either option will change the economic incentive. The problem with taxing regular bulbs is that it has a disproportionately negative effect on the poor. If you can barely afford a $1 light bulb, the poor may not be able to afford any lighting whatsoever if the price goes up. So many governments choose instead to offer the tax rebate on the energy-savers.

Thus, a hugely profitable corporation such as Wal-mart may get a tax write-off for switching over their stores to more efficient lighting. I can understand why that may not sit well with us poorer folk, but we still benefit in the form of cleaner air (I'm speaking now of the cumulative effects of thousands of companies doing the same). Because if it hadn't been for the tax write-off, there would have been no economic incentive for any of these companies to switch. And as we all know, corporations rarely do anything out of the goodness of their hearts.

[Slytovhand]

What... a newly elected politician has to 'postpone' an election promise? And also that said election promise doesn't suite everyone??

What's so unusual about that?

And it's on his first day... yep, heard that one before too....

How about (and this just might get me flamed for uttering complete insanities and all, but...) .. how about just waiting and seeing what happens first before either deriding or praising him???

For that matter - how about waiting until he even gets into the White House. Bush still has plenty of time to ensure that he doesn't make it there....

And, for that matter, we now get to see who wins the great debate - who dies within what time period? McCain from natural causes, or Obama from assassination....


And IDAR and others... new thread coming....

[wanderingjoe72]

For that matter - how about waiting until he even gets into the White House. Bush still has plenty of time to ensure that he doesn't make it there....

Another conspiracy theory in the making? Bush plans to assasinate Obama?

I believe a flat tax would make a lot of sense for the country. Granted there will have to be incetives to keep business around. I work in the financial industry. I see taxes applied deducted and the penalties levied with them. A flat tax would probably hurt my company quite a bit, but I would gladly look for another job if it came to pass. (now I have a guarantee it won't for at least 4 years)

How is it the uber rich were the ones backing Obama? The most visible were the Hollywood millionaires. They do so because they have good accountants that know how to shelter their money. They don't pay as much as you would think. Then again they can afford the luxury of a team of accountants.

I am not rich by any means, but I am very fearful of the taxation I expect to see under the incoming administration.

[Boozy]

How is it the uber rich were the ones backing Obama? The most visible were the Hollywood millionaires. They do so because they have good accountants that know how to shelter their money.

That's pretty jaded. Isn't it possible that they are voting based on their conscience instead of their wallets? I'm sure more than a few rich people voted for Obama knowing that it might cost them.

My husband and I vote against our financial self-interest all the time, and we don't have any major tax shelters other than our registered retirement fund and charitable donations. Many people recognize the inherent value of things like clean air, safe food, and good public education. They'll trade tax cuts to pay for these things.

[Flyndaran]

That's pretty jaded. Isn't it possible that they are voting based on their conscience instead of their wallets? I'm sure more than a few rich people voted for Obama knowing that it might cost them.

My husband and I vote against our financial self-interest all the time, and we don't have any major tax shelters other than our registered retirement fund and charitable donations. Many people recognize the inherent value of things like clean air, safe food, and good public education. They'll trade tax cuts to pay for these things.

Yeah, the idea that rich people might value something more than a little more money is interesting.
Or heck, they might value a lot more money far down the road more than a little more soon. As in they believe that Obama would be better for the economy.

[anriana]

Wasn't the out of touch liberal media still incredibly liberal and vocal in their dislike of Bush even after he gave them a lot of tax breaks?