Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5
Results 81 to 93 of 93
  1. #81
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Socialism and the Presidential Election

    Did McCain argue for giving the poor and lower middle-class, who pay no taxes..."credits" or money back (that come from those who are paying taxes)?

    Also...what make of you...the fact that Obama purposefully and "carefully" chose Socialists and Marxists as his friends and mentors?
    http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10...-college-days/
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  2. #82
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,785
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Socialism and the Presidential Election

    Quote Originally Posted by tinkerbell View Post
    HAHA!! It is exactly what Obama is calling for!

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...cialism21.html

    Analyst: Obama plan isn't "socialism," it's traditional progressive taxation

    Critics point to Obama's plan to raise the top two tax rates on the wealthy as clear evidence of his socialist bent. However, Len Burman, the director of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, said that while Obama "would make the tax system more progressive overall, it would not be a radical shift."

    How is what Obama's tax plan really any different than McCain's Views on the wealthiest paying a higher amount? It wasn't Socialist when McCain defended it, no, it was "progressive"...When a Democrat says the same thing it's Socialist...I get it.
    Obama is planning on increasing taxes on the people who pay the vast majority of all taxes paid in order to give cash refunds to those who don't pay any. That's a socialist idea. You can characterize it any way you want, but it's socialist ideology pure and simple.

    Yes our current progressive tax system is socialist in its nature. But the question is, should it be MORE socialist by taking more taxes from the rich just to give cash to those who don't pay taxes period.

    The big issue here is that liberals want to see the rich pay more. It doesn't matter if the economy is good, bad or otherwise. They want the rich to pay. And in the end, they won't hurt the rich. The rich will simply structure their assets and income to reduce the taxes they pay - and in the process remove capital from our economic system which will result in slower growth and a slower recovery.

    Obama simply wants the rich to pay more in the interest of "fairness", regardless of the negative impact it may have on tax revenues. Here's an exchange with Charlie Gibson:

    GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.

    So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

    OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

    Given that he's proposing a trillion dollars in new spending, how can he support actions that will reduce receipts in the issue of "fairness".

  3. #83
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    SF,CA
    Posts
    2,133
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Socialism and the Presidential Election

    Quote Originally Posted by cds69 View Post
    What am I failing to understand [regarding the Laffer curve]?
    What you're failing to understand is that the Laffer curve does not say that increased taxes always results in reduced tax revenues. What the Laffer curve does say, however, is that tax rates increasing after a certain point (let's call that point the "equilibrium") would result in lower tax revenues. In other words, if the beginning of the curve is a 0% tax rate, the tax rate brings in 0 revenue and if the end of the curve is a 100% tax rate, the tax rate also brings in 0 revenue; thus the equilibrium is the point at which, in a given economy, the tax rate brings in the maximum amount of tax revenue. As applied to Obama's tax plan, I'm not convinced that increased taxes on the wealthy by the amount Obama is proposing would reduce tax revenues or tip us past the optimal equilibrium, particularly since Obama is proposing overall tax decreases on the middle class.

    Quote Originally Posted by cds69 View Post
    Again, I never called Obama a socialist. I said his policies are more socialist than John McCains.
    You're simply splitting hairs, and when it comes down to it, the only reason you're calling Obama's policies more socialist than McCain's is because Obama is proposing an increase on the wealthiest Americans, an increase that (again) would restore the tax rates McCain previously supported.

    Quote Originally Posted by cds69 View Post
    Amazing how you say "here's the facts" and then revert to your old worn out liberal talking points. Debate the subject of the thread. You sound like an eight year old.... What's next "I know you are but what am I?"
    lol. The only problem with your analysis is that those are the facts. Calling a spade a spade is not acting like a child.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    Wait...the Middle Class aren't going to get any further tax cuts than they have right now (despite the claims otherwise). They will see absolutely NO change whatsoever (for the time being).
    Completely incorrect analysis re "NO change whatsoever":

    In 2009, the Obama plan would reduce effective marginal tax rates (EMTR) for 61 percent of households and leave them unchanged for an additional 24 percent....In that same year, close to 80 percent of the population would see no change in their marginal rates under Senator McCain’s plan.

    Barring legislative action, almost all provisions in the 2001-06 [Bush] tax cuts will expire at the end of 2010. Senator Obama has proposed extending the 2001-06 tax cuts for couples with adjusted gross income (AGI) less than $250,000 (singles less than $200,000). The result is that measured against a current law baseline, the Obama proposal reduces marginal tax rates for a greater percentage of households in 2012 than in 2009. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/Uploa..._proposals.pdf

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    So there's NO change to the middle class or the poor (right now)...but there is a decrease in income to everyone making over $250K.
    Again, incorrect (see above). What you're also not taking into account is that in addition to keeping in place the Bush tax cuts for the middle class:

    Senator Obama would likewise change statutory rates and raise the AMT exemption, but he would also modify and expand existing credits and deductions and introduce new ones. Obama’s new and expanded credits would reduce the amount of tax owed by households and thus reduce average tax rates [and, as shown above, that reduction would affect 61% of households in 2009]. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/Uploa..._proposals.pdf

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    Also...Obama wants to do away with the Bush tax cuts.
    Also incorrect. Obama would leave in place the Bush tax cuts for those with AGI less than $250K (or $200K for singles):

    Both Senator McCain and Senator Obama would extend most provisions of the [Bush] 2001 and 2003 tax cuts (EGTRRA and JGTRRA), which are scheduled to expire after 2010. Under current law, the 10 percent income tax bracket will disappear in 2011 and the 25, 28, 33, and 35 percent brackets will increase to 28, 31, 36, and 39.6 percent, respectively. Senator McCain would extend the statutory rate schedule established by EGTRRA and JGTRRA. Senator Obama would extend the 10, 15, 25, and 28 percent tax rates but restore the 36 and 39.6 percent rates imposed on the highest income taxpayers. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/Uploa..._proposals.pdf

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    It's patently false that Bush's tax cuts didn't get passed on to the middle-class. I'm middle-class. There was a significant change for me when these tax cuts went into play. Obama wants to get rid of these cuts.
    Also incorrect. As shown above, Obama would extend the Bush tax cuts for the middle class and modify and expand existing credits and deductions and introduce new ones, thus resulting in a lower effective tax rate for the middle class.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    When that happens...I and every other middle-class American....will pay more taxes. Obama is costing me and my family MORE money. He isn't helping me whatsoever.
    Again, totally incorrect.

    Also, try the Obama tax calculator based on your estimated income: http://taxcut.barackobama.com/

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    So the question(s) I'd like to ask sociali...er...Obamanists...is this...
    lol @ Obamanists. Is that like McCainuts or Palineanderthals?

    Quote Originally Posted by tinkerbell View Post
    How is what Obama's tax plan really any different than McCain's Views on the wealthiest paying a higher amount? It wasn't Socialist when McCain defended it, no, it was "progressive"...When a Democrat says the same thing it's Socialist...I get it.
    At least some one is able to see through the bullsh*t. You get your very own signed copy of my new book, "The Permanent Majority that Wasn't."

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    Also...what make of you...the fact that Obama purposefully and "carefully" chose Socialists and Marxists as his friends and mentors?
    http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10...-college-days/
    Guilt by association bullhonky. You right wingers can push the Obama the Marxist-Commie-Terrorist line all day, but Americans are smarter than you think...


    _________________________________ Post Merged _________________________________


    Quote Originally Posted by cds69 View Post
    Obama is planning on increasing taxes on the people who pay the vast majority of all taxes paid in order to give cash refunds to those who don't pay any. That's a socialist idea. You can characterize it any way you want, but it's socialist ideology pure and simple.
    Again you're simply off the reservation with your thinking cap still on the rack. We have a progressive tax system that John McCain supports and President Bush supports. If Obama is socialist because he supports a progressive tax system, then so is McCain and so is Bush and so was Reagan and so was Nixon and so was Ford and so on and so forth. Get a grip.

    Quote Originally Posted by cds69 View Post
    The big issue here is that liberals want to see the rich pay more.
    You mean liberals like John McCain, who said of the 2001 Bush tax cuts:

    “I am disappointed that the Senate Finance Committee preferred instead to cut the top tax rate of 39.6% to 36%, thereby granting generous tax relief to the wealthiest individuals of our country at the expense of lower- and middle-income American taxpayers.” [McCain Senate floor statement, May 21, 2001]

    Is McCain a socialist? Was he then, is he now? As I've oft stated in this thread, this whole Obama is a socialist crap is for non-thinking, ignorant fools. And if you keep posting this absurd crap I'm going to keep calling you out. So how deep of a hole are you going to dig, cds?

    In the meantime, suck on this article from Human Events, a conservative publication that at the time was railing against John McCain campaigning for the Republican nomination:

    John McCain's Top 10 Class-Warfare Arguments Against Tax Cuts
    by Human Events http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24421
    01/16/2008

    1. “I don’t think the governor’s tax cut is too big—it’s just misplaced. Sixty percent of the benefits from his tax cuts go to the wealthiest 10% of Americans—and that’s not the kind of tax relief that Americans need. … Gov. Bush wants to spend the entire surplus on tax cuts. I don’t believe the wealthiest 10% of Americans should get 60% of the tax breaks. I think the lowest 10% should get the breaks. …

    “I’m not giving tax cuts for the rich.”

    —Discussion with media, reported in “Bush, McCain Snip Over
    Tax Cut Plans,” Los Angeles Times, and “GOP Rivals Bicker on Taxes,”
    Washington Post, Jan. 5, 2000.

    2. “I have never engaged in class warfare. I am very much in favor of tax cuts for middle-income and lower-income Americans. I’m deeply concerned about a kind of class warfare that’s going on right now. It’s unfortunate. There’s a growing gap between the haves and have-nots in America, and that gap is growing, and it’s unfortunately divided up along ethnic lines.

    “I feel very strongly that we ought to have middle-income and lower-income tax cuts, and we’ll be getting into it, I’m sure, later on in this program. Mine are basically comparable to Gov. Bush’s, in some cases far better. But I’m not sure we need to give two-thirds of that tax cut, of that money, to the wealthiest 10% of America.”

    —Michigan Republican Debate, Jan. 11, 2000.

    3. “I always thought that class warfare was to take away from the rich. I always believed that that was what class warfare was all about. As I said, there are tax breaks and money for the richest in America and the very rich, but I think that it’s clear that there’s a growing gap between rich and poor in America, the haves and the have-nots. And many studies have indicated that, and I think that the people who need it most and need the relief most are working middle-income Americans and that’s what I want to give to them. And at the same time, the greatest benefit that I can give them is to make sure that their Social Security benefits are there. And I also don’t think it’s fair for us to lay a $ 5.6 trillion debt down on future generations of Americans.”

    —NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Jan. 16, 2000.

    4. “We give the millionaire a $2,000 refund. Gov. Bush gives him $50,000.”

    —Quoted in “John McCain: How Straight a Shooter?” by Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe, Jan. 27, 2000.

    5. “There’s one big difference between me and the others—I won’t take every last dime of the surplus and spend it on tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthy. I’ll use the bulk of the surplus to secure Social Security far into the future to keep our promise to the greatest generation.”

    —McCain campaign commercial, January 2000.

    6. “I don’t think Bill Gates needs a tax cut. I think you and your parents do.”

    —Michigan State University rally, Feb. 20, 2000.

    7. “Mr. President, the principle that guides my judgment of a tax reconciliation bill is tax relief for those who need it the most—lower- and middle-income working families. I am in favor of a tax cut, but a responsible one that provides significant tax relief for lower- and middle-income families. And I commend Sen. Grassley for moving in that direction. But I am concerned that debt will overwhelm many American households. That is why tax relief should be targeted to middle-income Americans. The more fortunate among us have less concern about debt. It is the parents struggling to make ends meet who are most in need of tax relief.

    “I had expressed hope that when the reconciliation bill was reported out of the Senate Finance Committee, the tax cuts outlined would provide more tax relief to working, middle-income Americans. However, I am disappointed that the Senate Finance Committee preferred instead to cut the top tax rate of 39.6% to 36%, thereby granting generous tax relief to the wealthiest individuals of our country at the expense of lower- and middle-income American taxpayers.”

    —Senate floor statement during debate over President Bush’s tax relief package, May 21, 2001.

    8. “During the debate on the Senate version of the tax reconciliation bill, I had urged my colleagues that substantial tax relief to middle-income Americans should be our top priority. While I regret that my amendment to cut the top rate by one percent to 38.6% so millions more middle-class Americans would fall into the 15% tax bracket failed on a tie vote, Sen. Grassley did move in that direction in the Senate bill by insisting that the top rate should be cut to only 36%. As a result, I reluctantly voted for the bill but pledged to vote against the conference report should further reductions in the top tax rate be made at the expense of the majority of Americans who are in much greater need of tax relief.

    “Unfortunately, the conference report did just that by jettisoning the commendable work both Senators Grassley and Baucus did in crafting a Senate reconciliation bill that provided more tax relief to middle-income Americans. This conference report lowers the top rate cut to 35%, at the cost of delaying, for several years, much needed tax relief for married couples unfairly penalized by our tax code. …

    “We had an opportunity to provide much more tax relief to millions of hard-working Americans. . . . I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief.”

    —Senate floor statement before voting against President Bush’s tax cut, May 26, 2001.

    9. “I am concerned that repeal of the estate tax would provide massive benefits solely to the wealthiest and highest-income taxpayers in the country. A Treasury Department study found that almost no estate tax has been paid by lower- and middle-income taxpayers. But taxes have been paid on the estates of people who were in the highest 20% of the income distribution at the time of their death. It found that 91% of all estate taxes are paid by the estates of people whose annual income exceeded $190,000 around the time of their death. …

    “We have no idea what our financial or economic situation will be ten years from now. … We may want to have the flexibility to provide significant tax relief for lower- and middle-income taxpayers. Other unforeseen issues may arise. The point is that we must think beyond the horizon. Making the repeal of the estate tax permanent fails to take these new circumstances into account.

    “We will need resources to deal with … responsible tax reform that benefit lower- and middle-income taxpayers.”

    —Senate floor statement opposing HR 8, a bill to permanently eliminate the death tax, June 11, 2002.

    10. MCCAIN: “Shouldn’t we give relief to average citizens who also are double taxed every single day?”

    HOST KATIE COURIC: “But, Sen. McCain, if you listen to Commerce Secretary Don Evans, and he just appeared on this program, working Americans, the middle-class Americans, under the Bush proposals will get a major break. A family of four making $39,000 a year, according to Mr. Evans, will get a $1,100 tax cut for several years, allowing them to plan their individual budgets. That sounds like something that won’t just simply benefit the wealthy.”

    MCCAIN: “Well, I think it will. But when you look at the percentage of the tax cuts that—as the previous tax cuts—that go to the wealthiest Americans, you will find that the bulk of it, again, goes to wealthiest Americans. … A lot of Americans now are paying a very large a—low and middle-income Americans are paying a significantly larger amount of their income in taxes. I’d like to see them get the bulk of the relief.”

    Socialist! Socialist!
    Last edited by Booger; October 29th, 2008 at 12:43 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

  4. #84
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    770
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Socialism and the Presidential Election

    How would capitalism address these problems? How about socialism?

    Quoting from the OECD study of Income Distribution and Poverty:

    The United States is the country with the highest inequality level and poverty rate across the OECD, Mexico and Turkey excepted.

    Since 2000, income inequality has increased rapidly, continuing a long-term trend that goes back to the 1970s.

    Income inequality and poverty continue to increase, especially since 2000

    Rich households in America have been leaving both middle and poorer income groups behind. This has happened in many countries, but nowhere has this trend been so stark as in the United States.

    The average income of the richest 10% is US$93,000 US$ in purchasing power parities, the highest level in the OECD. However, the poorest 10% of the US citizens have an income of US$5,800 US$ per year – about 20% lower than the average for OECD countries.

     The distribution of earnings widened by 20% since the mid-1980s which is more than in most other OECD countries. This is the main reason for widening inequality in America.

     Redistribution of income by government plays a relatively minor role in the United States. Only in Korea is the effect smaller. This is partly because the level of spending on social benefits such as unemployment benefits and family benefits is low – equivalent to just 9% of household incomes, while the OECD average is 22%. The effectiveness of taxes and transfers in reducing inequality has fallen still further in the past 10 years.

     Child poverty – that is, children in a household with less than half the median income – has fallen since 1985, from 25% to 20% but poverty rates among the elderly increased from 20 to 23%. Both of these trends are in the opposite direction to those of the other countries in the OECD.

     Social mobility is lower in the United States than in other countries like Denmark, Sweden and Australia. Children of poor parents are less likely to become rich than children of rich parents.

     Wealth is distributed much more unequally than income: the top 1% control some 25-33% of total net worth and the top 10% hold 71%. For comparison, the top 10% have 28% of total income.
    It is less important what you believe, than why you believe it.

  5. #85
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Socialism and the Presidential Election

    Sounds incredibly vague.

    Who defines "rich"? What specifically is "rich"? What is inherently wrong with having a divide between earning categories/levels? How is it possible to compare poverty levels between different countries when poverty levels in different countries mean different things? Why is it bad to pay someone part time wages when they work part time (you don't distinguish type of work...only $$$ earned...which includes part time pay)?

    Obviously, either a highly flawed study or a flawed analysis of the study. Either way, it is problematic and highly misleading.

    Also Boog...wtg in showing what conservatives already knew about McCain...he's not a traditional conservative...and is why he wasn't supported by conservatives. Just because someone argues against Party A (Obama) doesn't mean they agree with or support Party B.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  6. #86
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    1,252
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Socialism and the Presidential Election

    A few clarifications are needed, here:

    First, Capitalism has been 'spreading the wealth' sonce Adam Smith. A functional capitalist economy requires a vibrant middle class, and it works so well because capitalism is the best economic principle for creating jobs which accellerates the velocity of purchasing power and, quite explicitly, spreads the wealth. Socialism hoards the levers of power and production in a centralized pool of elites (hopefully the ideologically sound), so with time a very clearly defined two class society is created primarily because the wealth is NOT spread.

    Second, the Laffer Curve merely postulates that taxation - especially of the investor class - suppressed velocity because the government is demonstrably worse at generating productivity than the private sector. However, when Art Laffer was introducing the principle in the late 1970's, the disintermediating externalities of globalization and carry trade based leveraged arbitrage programs were not even contemplated. Also government investments tended to be flaccid monolithic efforts, so his imperical impression of the 'government' component was much less positive than it is now.

    In practice, lowering taxes in the upper tax bracket created jobs when Kennedy and then Reagan did it because, indeed, the wealthy had more disposable EAITDA and, as Art had proposed, invested this surplus capital in new businesses that created new jobs. This happened for no other reason than because this was what the plutarchs knew and therefore what they felt comfortable doing.

    By the time of the Bush tax cuts of the 21st century, the game had changed. Most of the good new manufacturing and services jobs that were created were located in China, India, and Eastern Europe. Mergers proved more economical than hiring to compete in existing space, and mergers deflate employment. Investing one's tax savings in hedge funds proved less hassle than starting a business anyway, and yielded as well and much quicker. Further, investing in the communication age no longer requires lots of employees. Nor brick and mortar.

    The Laffer Curve has seen its day.
    Last edited by 3rdPersonPlural; October 29th, 2008 at 11:25 AM.
    To begin to think is to begin to be undermined.
    Albert Camus, An Absurd Reasoning

    Who knows most, doubts most.
    Robert Browning

  7. #87
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    SF,CA
    Posts
    2,133
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Socialism and the Presidential Election

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    Sounds incredibly vague.

    Obviously, either a highly flawed study or a flawed analysis of the study. Either way, it is problematic and highly misleading.
    Facts? What facts? The U.S. is the best...and God loves us the most!

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    Also Boog...wtg in showing what conservatives already knew about McCain...he's not a traditional conservative...and is why he wasn't supported by conservatives. Just because someone argues against Party A (Obama) doesn't mean they agree with or support Party B.
    Great, then I assume you don't support Party B.

    Also, I hope I was able to clear up your misconceptions on how Obama's tax plan is better for you...but you go ahead and vote against your pocket book in the hopes that the wealthy can keep their tax cuts. The wealthy appreciate your support!

  8. #88
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Socialism and the Presidential Election

    Quote Originally Posted by Booger View Post
    Great, then I assume you don't support Party B.
    I don't support McCain...but I will vote for him because I oppose Obama more. I think both administrations are going to be c-r-a-p. I just think the Obama Crap Administration will be more harmful.

    Also, I hope I was able to clear up your misconceptions on how Obama's tax plan is better for you...but you go ahead and vote against your pocket book in the hopes that the wealthy can keep their tax cuts. The wealthy appreciate your support!
    I haven't had the time to research it yet. But I can tell you I won't accept handouts. It isn't right for the earnings of another to be handed out to others.

    It's one thing to get tax breaks, it's another to get handouts...and this is definitely what Obama will be doing regardless of the tax cut issue. The money that I put into my bank account...is money that I earn, it is what I deserve. I've had plenty of extremely lean years, never once have I even considered asking for government handouts...and what support my family has been given during various economic downturns, is always paid back in full. I will never be dependent upon the state for the future of my family.
    Last edited by Apokalupsis; October 29th, 2008 at 09:21 PM.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  9. #89
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    SF,CA
    Posts
    2,133
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Socialism and the Presidential Election

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    It isn't right for the earnings of another to be handed out to others.
    OK, so you oppose McCain's tax plan as well (or any other progressive tax for that matter).

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    It's one thing to get tax breaks, it's another to get handouts...and this is definitely what Obama will be doing regardless of the tax cut issue. The money that I put into my bank account...is money that I earn, it is what I deserve. I've had plenty of extremely lean years, never once have I even considered asking for government handouts...and what support my family has been given during various economic downturns, is always paid back in full. I will never be dependent upon the state for the future of my family.
    I'm not quite sure what you mean. You have a job and an income and will pay tax on that income regardless of who is elected President. Under Obama's tax plan, however, you would pay less in taxes than under McCain's tax plan, with the shift in what you otherwise would have received as a tax cut to the wealthy class under the McCain plan. So, once again, the wealthy thank you for your continued support.

  10. #90
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Socialism and the Presidential Election

    I'm not impressed with McCain's plan either, no.

    Again, I'm not referring to the tax cuts that both candidates are offering. I'm referring to handouts that Obama is offering in addition to tax cuts. Those who do not pay taxes, will get money back to compensate for their lack of earnings. That is a socialistic ideal that I do not support.

    Also, you ignored key points in my original post. Care to address them? Marriage tax penalty will come back under Obama, etc...
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  11. #91
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    SF,CA
    Posts
    2,133
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Socialism and the Presidential Election

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    Again, I'm not referring to the tax cuts that both candidates are offering. I'm referring to handouts that Obama is offering in addition to tax cuts. Those who do not pay taxes, will get money back to compensate for their lack of earnings. That is a socialistic ideal that I do not support.
    Once again, you don't understand what you are talking about. As I have posted previously, everybody pays taxes, even those that don't pay income taxes, in the form excise taxes, taxes at the pump, etc. From Factcheck.org:

    Obama's "Welfare"

    McCain calls Obama's refundable tax credits "welfare," but calls his own "reform."

    Summary

    The McCain campaign has taken to denigrating some of Obama's tax proposals as "welfare" rather than tax cuts. And it continues to mislead about who would see a tax increase.

    • A new McCain-Palin Web ad characterizes Obama's proposed refundable tax credits as "welfare." But McCain himself proposes refundable tax credits, too, as part of his health care plan, and calls them "reform."
    • The ad also says "hard-working families" and "seniors" would pay higher taxes. But – need we say this again? – that would be true only for the affluent few, not for the many.


    Analysis

    "Welfare" or "Reform"?


    The "welfare" claim rests on the argument, made in an Oct. 13 editorial in the Wall Street Journal, about refundable tax credits. Obama proposes to grant a number of refundable tax credits to low- and middle-income workers. For example, he would give a $500 tax credit ($1,000 for a couple) for workers, which would phase out for single workers making $75,000 or for couples making $150,000 per year. As the Journal editorial says: "You can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability." That's true enough. Whether or not that makes them "welfare" is a matter of interpretation, however. As the Journal editorial also says in its headline, "It depends on what the meaning of 'tax cut' is."

    Fair enough. But McCain himself is proposing refundable tax credits of up to $2,500 a year for individuals, or $5,000 for families, as part of his health care plan. McCain doesn't call his credits a "tax cut" but he doesn't call them "welfare" either. He does call it tax "reform," right there on his own Web site:

    McCain Web site: John McCain Will Reform The Tax Code . . . [E]very family will receive a direct refundable tax credit - effectively cash - of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families to offset the cost of insurance.

    McCain makes his tax credit refundable to make it worth just as much to low-income workers as to high-income workers. If it were not refundable, it would be worth $0 to anyone who makes too little to pay any federal income taxes. A non-refundable credit would be worth the full amount only to individuals who owe at least $2,500 in federal income taxes, or couples who owe at least $5,000. Obama makes his tax credits refundable for the same reason – so they will benefit workers who earn too little to pay federal income tax.

    Who's a "Taxpayer"?


    Furthermore, the Journal's editorial misstated a key fact in its "welfare" argument. It said that anyone who doesn't pay federal income taxes is not a "taxpayer," which is simply incorrect. Here's what the editorial said:

    Wall Street Journal editorial, Oct. 13: [Refundable credits] are an income transfer – a federal check – from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare." ... Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.

    The fact is, a worker can be a "taxpayer" whether or not they owe any income tax. Just about every worker is subject to federal Social Security and Medicare taxes totaling 7.65 percent on every dollar of earnings, up to $102,000 per year. (For earnings over $102,000, only the 1.45 percent Medicare tax applies.) Low-income workers, and retired and jobless persons as well, also pay federal excise taxes whenever they buy gasoline or pay a telephone bill, for example. Obama and other Democrats argue that for low-income workers, refundable tax credits are not “welfare” but, in effect, a reduction in their overall federal tax burden, counting payroll taxes.

    Congressional Budget Office figures show that even those in the lowest-earning fifth of households pay an effective federal tax rate, on average, of 4.3 percent of their income, despite benefiting from existing federal refundable tax credits to a major degree. This group had average income of $15,900 in 2005, the most recent year for which CBO has done the calculations. But despite receiving "a federal check" through the income tax system that boosted income by an average of 6.5 percent (this shows up as a negative tax rate in the CBO tables), they still paid an average of $600 in federal taxes. That's true even after subtracting the effects of refundable tax credit "welfare."

    Once again, Apok, you simply need to get your facts correct. And, once again, the wealthy thank you for your support.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    Also, you ignored key points in my original post. Care to address them? Marriage tax penalty will come back under Obama, etc...
    I ignored no "key points." Your key point was that you wouldn't benefit under Obama's tax plan (wrong) and that Obama would repeal the Bush tax cuts (wrong, at least with respect to the middle class). For example, from factcheck, "According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, by 2012 middle-income people (those in the middle one-fifth of all households) would get to keep an extra $2,200 per year in after-tax income on average under Obama than they do now." What other key points were there?

    And, re marriage penalty, once again you are just wrong:

    The candidates do have some large areas of agreement. Both agree that:

    • The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) should be indexed for inflation to prevent more and more taxpayers from being forced to pay the AMT. Senator McCain wants to increase the AMT exemption even more in future years;
    • Many elements of the Bush tax cuts should be made permanent, such as the child tax credit, provisions that reduce the marriage penalty, and lower tax rates for most income brackets;
    • The capital gains tax rate and the tax rate for qualified dividends should be equal; and
    • The portion of estates that is tax exempt should be increased. (The candidates differ on lowering the estate tax rate. McCain wants to increase the exemption to $5 million and supports a tax rate of 15 percent while Obama wants to keep the exemption at the 2009 level of $3.5 million and supports a tax rate of 45 percent).


    The Obama Tax Plan

    Senator Obama's plan will make several provisions of President Bush's tax cuts permanent. Significantly, Senator Obama proposes that capital gains and dividends be taxed at the same rate. He would raise taxes on those making more than $250,000 a year, effective in 2009, by repealing the Bush tax cuts for those taxpayers.

    Some Expiring Provisions from 2001 and 2003 Made Permanent. Senator Obama also extends several provisions of the 2001 and 2003 tax bills:

    • Marriage penalty relief;
    • Doubled child tax credit ($1,000);
    • Earned-income credit expansion for married couples;
    • 10 percent tax bracket;
    • Reductions in all regular income tax rates except the top two; and
    • Tax cuts on dividends and capital gains for tax*payers in all but the top two brackets, which will increase from 15 to 20 percent.


    http://www.heritage.org/Research/taxes/cda08-09.cfm

    Once again, Apok, you simply need to get your facts correct. And, once again, the wealthy thank you for your support.

  12. #92
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Socialism and the Presidential Election

    Boog, you do much better when you use your own argumentation instead of copy/pasting from less educated bloggers....eg...

    1) Tax Payers - Red Herring. Obviously, everyone pays sales tax, restaurant tax, etc... We aren't talking about "all tax" or even taxes in general...we are talking about a very specific sort of tax...income tax.

    Obama isn't going to raise the restaurant tax for people who earn over $250k/yr. Nor is Obama saying he will give the lower to middle classes a break on sales tax. The issue is income tax. Obama will increase the taxes on the wealthy...then give 40% of Americans who do not pay [income] taxes, a check. It's taking from the wealthy and giving to the nonwealthy...just as Obama himself said..."spreading the wealth around".

    2) Palin's "spreading the wealth"...also another fallacious argument. The natural resources of Alaska are state owned (not owned by an individual). The residents of Alaska therefore share the income that the resources create. There's a huge difference between sharing a resource and profits...and taking earned money from someone and giving it someone else.

    3) McCain's $5,000 for insurance. It isn't taking from the wealthy and handing out to those who aren't. It's giving everyone $5000 to be spent on health care. This is his health care plan. This has nothing to do with the argument that Obama is taking from the rich and giving it to the non-rich in the physical form of a check.

    4) Re: your last point there about Obama's tax plan...from the same article:
    Senator Obama believes that the current tax system is not progressive enough and that higher taxes on the rich should be used to give money to low-income individuals or those who do not work at all,
    That is the point of contention here Boog. That is socialism...or more accurately, Marxism.

    Also, the same article you cite, through analysis of both systems, proves Obama's tax plan to be inferior. Thank you for the article.


    1. Jobs respond more to McCain's plan than to Obama's. Job growth over the 10-year forecast horizon is more than twice as high under McCain's plan than under Obama's. Total employment grows an average of 915,800 jobs under Obama, and by 2,126,000 under McCain. Both plans encourage job creation in each year of the forecast, but McCain's approach leads to sig*nificantly larger job growth, and sooner. By 2018, McCain's plan, which makes the Bush tax reduc*tions permanent and lowers the tax rate on cor*porate profits, creates an additional 3,426,500 jobs. Senator Obama, however, raises taxes on many of the economy's key investors and busi*ness owners. Job growth under his plan for that same year is lower, at 1,576,200.
    2. Overall economic activity more vigorous under McCain's plan. Senator McCain's plan yields consistently higher forecasts of economic output than does Senator Obama's. Increases in gross domestic product (GDP) under McCain are, on average, nearly three times higher than under Obama. The growth rate of the economy increases a full half percentage point in 2011 and 2012, when taxes will increase under cur*rent law. Under McCain's plan, the average annualized GDP growth rate increases by 0.3 percent. The Obama plan also leads to higher rates of economic growth as a result of making some parts of the Bush tax reductions perma*nent. The economy as measured by GDP grows modestly more than does the CBO baseline: Growth rates are 0.1 percent higher on average for the 10-year period. By 2018, GDP is $320.7 billion (after inflation) higher under the McCain plan than under Obama's.
    3. More after-tax spending potential under McCain than under Obama. Using the same model to evaluate both plans, our analysis shows that a family of four will have an average of $5,138 more in disposable income under McCain's plan, and $3,631 more under Obama's. This average increase in disposable income is the combination of lower taxes on the average family, higher employment, and increased growth under both plans. By 2018, family-of-four disposable income under McCain is forecast to be $9,750 (after infla*tion) higher than baseline. This same family unit would see its inflation-adjusted disposable income surpass the baseline by $5,620 under Senator Obama's plan.

    Conclusion
    The economy improves under each plan as compared to the baseline. The baseline forecast assumes that all of the Bush tax cuts disappear, which raises the cost of capital and marginal tax rates. Both candidates plan to reduce taxes com*pared to this scenario.

    Senator McCain's plan is substantially better at spurring economic growth than Senator Obama's. This is not surprising, since Senator McCain focuses on economic growth and job creation while Senator Obama focuses on the redistribution of income. As Tax Policy Center Director Len Burman states, "the major themes of the two plans are, in the case of Senator McCain's plan, that the major emphasis is on economic efficiency—cuts marginal tax rates, improves economic incentives…. In the case of Obama's plan, the goal is primarily to improve pro*gressivity…to lower tax burdens on low-income people and raise them on higher-income people."[10] Each presidential candidate achieves his stated goal,with Senator McCain generating the most new jobs, growth, and additional income for individuals. Sen*ator Obama's plan drives up the tax rate for individ*uals with annual incomes above $250,000 and redistributes money to workers with lower incomes.

    You did get one thing right though...the Marriage credit. I'll concede that point.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  13. #93
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    SF,CA
    Posts
    2,133
    Post Thanks / Like

    Post Re: Socialism and the Presidential Election

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    Boog, you do much better when you use your own argumentation instead of copy/pasting from less educated bloggers....eg...
    Um...what? The Tax Policy Center the Heritage Foundation are "less educated bloggers"?

    It's OK, Apok; you didn't know what you were talking about. We all make that mistake sometimes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    1) Tax Payers - Red Herring. Obviously, everyone pays sales tax, restaurant tax, etc... We aren't talking about "all tax" or even taxes in general...we are talking about a very specific sort of tax...income tax.
    Doesn't matter. Under both McCain's plan and Obama's plan refundable tax credits, essentially cash, are offered. You can't pee on Obama's plan because you think he's making "handouts" when McCain's does the same thing.

    And, as shown above, you personally would do better under Obama's plan than McCain's. Under McCain's plan, the wealthy do better and, once again, the wealthy thank you for your continued support.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    Obama isn't going to raise the restaurant tax for people who earn over $250k/yr. Nor is Obama saying he will give the lower to middle classes a break on sales tax. The issue is income tax. Obama will increase the taxes on the wealthy...then give 40% of Americans who do not pay [income] taxes, a check. It's taking from the wealthy and giving to the nonwealthy...just as Obama himself said..."spreading the wealth around".
    McCain's plan does the same thing. In fact, McCain's plan would give $5K to EVERY AMERICAN ($2,500 for singles) who doesn't pay income taxes.

    And, as shown above, you personally would do better under Obama's plan than McCain's. Under McCain's plan, the wealthy do better and, once again, the wealthy thank you for your continued support.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    2) Palin's "spreading the wealth"...also another fallacious argument. The natural resources of Alaska are state owned (not owned by an individual). The residents of Alaska therefore share the income that the resources create. There's a huge difference between sharing a resource and profits...and taking earned money from someone and giving it someone else.
    Not fallacious at all. In fact, making oil a state-owned commodity is much more "marxist" than anything Obama is proposing, like say, Venezuela.

    And, as shown above, you personally would do better under Obama's plan than McCain's. Under McCain's plan, the wealthy do better and, once again, the wealthy thank you for your continued support.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    3) McCain's $5,000 for insurance. It isn't taking from the wealthy and handing out to those who aren't. It's giving everyone $5000 to be spent on health care. This is his health care plan. This has nothing to do with the argument that Obama is taking from the rich and giving it to the non-rich in the physical form of a check.
    Nonetheless, its a refundable tax credit, essentially cash, given to everyone (of course what McCain doesn't tell you is that he'll tax your health care benefits, offsetting the value of the credit). Also, since it's refundable, if you don't owe any tax, you'd get a check...a tax refund. This is EXACTLY what Obama is proposing -- refundable tax credits like the earned income credit, etc., to help families offset their overall tax liability.

    And, as shown above, you personally would do better under Obama's plan than McCain's. Under McCain's plan, the wealthy do better and, once again, the wealthy thank you for your continued support.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    4) Re: your last point there about Obama's tax plan...from the same article:
    Senator Obama believes that the current tax system is not progressive enough and that higher taxes on the rich should be used to give money to low-income individuals or those who do not work at all,
    That is the point of contention here Boog. That is socialism...or more accurately, Marxism.
    Oy vey. It's called a progressive tax system, Apok. At what point, exactly, does a progressive tax system turn into "socialism?" Were we socialists during the Clinton years? Nixon? Ford?

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    Also, the same article you cite, through analysis of both systems, proves Obama's tax plan to be inferior. Thank you for the article.
    Huh? I thought the Heritage Foundation (a conservative think tank) was a "less educated blogger"? In any event, the article makes a case, but does not prove, Obama's tax plan to be "inferior." Also, it's a conservative argument on the tax plans...and the inferority of one over the other depends on what the outcome is: helping the middle class or widening the gap.

    And, as shown above, you personally would do better under Obama's plan than McCain's. Under McCain's plan, the wealthy do better and, once again, the wealthy thank you for your continued support.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    You did get one thing right though...the Marriage credit. I'll concede that point.
    As shown above, you personally would do better under Obama's plan than McCain's. Under McCain's plan, the wealthy do better and, once again, the wealthy thank you for your continued support.

    By the way, gotta love this poll result:



    How's that "Barack the Wealth Spreader" rhetoric working out for you, McCain?
    Last edited by Booger; October 31st, 2008 at 12:51 PM.

 

 
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5

Similar Threads

  1. Canadian Election
    By Bobson52 in forum Politics
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: September 14th, 2008, 10:23 PM
  2. Open Source/Free Software, is it Socialism?
    By KneeLess in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: March 4th, 2004, 06:21 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •