Obama’s tax plan and the redistribution of wealth

[DjTj]

YES! However, you pay your employee and that employee pays taxes... If you don't pay your employee, the employee won't pay taxes... Hence, it is because you pay an employee that your employee contributes to the Federal Government in the first place. Therefore, creating jobs creates more revenue for the Government.

Actually, no.

If you didn't pay your employee, and you kept that money, then YOU would have to pay taxes. And since you're probably in a higher bracket, you would probably pay more taxes than your employee does.

So creating that job actually results in less taxes for the government.

[JMS]

Im trying to make the point that its really easy for people to blame "EVIL CORPORATIONS" and think "lets tax the hell out of THEM" and no one realizes the far-reaching impact this would have..

I'm not saying corporations are evil. I'm saying it's extremely misleading when McCain says our corporations have among the highest tax rates in the world and theirfore need a huge freaking tax cut. As I said and the GAO supports; the vast majority of corporations in this country pay zero corporate taxes. None of the small businesses do if they know anything about taxes and those folks are the one's creating all the jobs. The folks who do pay corporate taxes, certainly don't pay anywhere near the precentage mentioned, because the loop holes are so plentiful in corporate tax law.

I'm saying certain tax policies over the last few decades have been extremely unfair and some even evil.

I also think it's misleading for you to claim folks want to "tax the hell out of corporations", when what we are really talking about is not giving them a humongus honking tax cut; at the expense of the middle class.

The middle class who have seen their tax burden increase over the last few decades, their standard of living decrease, and their percenge of weath more than cut in half.

[techboy]

Side note: I would agree, though, that corporate welfare is indeed upward income redistribution, and that sucks too.

[81artmonk]

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/10/14/obamas-tax-plan-and-the-redistribution-of-wealth/

I am really hoping that this issue gets tracktion. I think this is another "trap" conversation that Obama is looking forward to having. It's about time somebody started dismantling this whole "socialism" bull.

I do too, I think it will start to reviel who Obama really is. As to the the notion that his tax plan is socialist BS. Some guy tried to pull that on me a while ago. No, it's not the strict definition of socialism, but it is, and does have the mantles of it. Redistribution of wealth is a form of socialism.

What scares me the most is how many people support this notion. But than again, they are basically hearing, "I will screw over your boss in order to help you out"

Who doesn't want that??

[Smoot Point Really]

Actually, no.

If you didn't pay your employee, and you kept that money, then YOU would have to pay taxes. And since you're probably in a higher bracket, you would probably pay more taxes than your employee does.

So creating that job actually results in less taxes for the government.

Wait, you just said Buffett was at 17% and she was at 32%... WHATEVER!

The problem here is that you are arguing that the Government should be taking more from the most productive members of society and less from the less productive members of society... In reality, 40% of the work-force doesn't pay taxes (or pays an insignificant amount of tax). Talking about taxing the top 5% MORE and giving it to people (in the form of tax credits) who don't pay taxes is income redistribution.

The "producers" should be allowed to use more of their money to produce... The non-producers will benefit more if the producers are allowed to produce.

[PleaseBlitz]

Well, if you're a sole proprietorship, then you paying individual income tax anyways, and you are vulnerable to the kind of liability you mentioned. If you have an LLC, you can generally choose the lower taxation rate (individual or corporate).

Again, it's going to depend on how the company is set up and their operating income. It IS going to have an impact, or else why even mention it?

I do think if you're talking about the corporate tax rate, we really are talking about ExxonMobil or Microsoft. Small businesses do not generally pay corporate tax.

The reason i mentioned those 2 is that everyone hates them and thats why they get brought up in every thread. No one ever brings up Kelloggs or Johnson & Johnson or General Mills (or Anheiser Busch) any of these other companies that Americans rely on to take care of their families.

[JMS]

YES! However, you pay your employee and that employee pays taxes... If you don't pay your employee, the employee won't pay taxes... Hence, it is because you pay an employee that your employee contributes to the Federal Government in the first place. Therefore, creating jobs creates more revenue for the Government.

You make it sound as if people are guaranteed jobs by the Government... Of course, under Socialism they are.

You make it sound that the folks getting these corporate tax breaks, ( big business ); are the folks creating jobs in this country. Which they aren't. Small business creates the vast majority of all new jobs in our economy; and small businesses aren't going to benifit frmo John McCain's corporate tax breaks for the largest corporations in the country.

Small business doesn't pay corporate taxes in this country.

[DjTj]

Wait, you just said Buffett was at 17% and she was at 32%... WHATEVER!

Well, that's only if Buffet decides to pay it to himself as a salary. If it is just kept with the corporation's profits, then it will be corporate tax, and the United States has the highest corporate tax in the world.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I fail to follow your line of thinking. Where did i say shelter anyone?

You mentioned earlier that if mom and pop had to pay their fair share of corporate taxes then their business might fail, it seemed that you were indicating that they shouldn't pay their share because they might fail, as such they should be given tax breaks in order that they should remain open. To which I said that didn't sound capitalistic and businesses that can't stay open should fail under that system. However it was subsequently shown that "mom and pop" aren't quite the topic and the label "mom and pop" is actually a misnomer used by the GOP to make people think that their local general store will be hurt, when the reality is that it is the larger much more stable corporations that will be affected and rightfully so.

ALL businesses pass on their tax burden to consumers. Its just another part of their bottom line.

So instead of taking less profit in order to pay their fair they make the consumers pay more...yeah no evil there.

[edit]

Close the loop holes and make businesses pay their share without passing those costs to the consumer, after all I cannot pass my tax burden to someone else, why should they be able to?

[Destino]

Redistribution from poor and middle class to the wealthy... perfectly normal. Any of it moving downward however? OMG SOCIALISM EVERYBODY PANIC. Some prices may go up but the world will go on. We can't sit and watch the middle class shrink the low income population grow and the rich pile up money and then demand a bailout when their greed causes a crash.

BTW - Speaking of taxes why is no one talking about the increased tax burden on business McCain's healthcare plan would create?

[Larry]

Because he made money that went to a lot of other people earning income and creating wealth and paying taxes and spending in that "consumer economy" that JMS was talking about... She gets the same protections as he does, but he paid 250 times more than she did. Also, you aren't talking about the people who don't pay taxes at all...

Actually, since Buffett hired her... Buffett should be credited for every penny she spends that contributes to our economy.

Now you're the one who's ignoring things. (Shocking, huh?)

The money Buffet paid to his employees doesn't get taxed at all. (Well, Buffet doesn't pay taxes on it. The employees have to.) The money he spent buying equipment for his companies doesn't get taxed. The money he spent on office equipment doesn't get taxed. The money he spent buying whatever raw materials it takes to make whatever widgets he makes doesn't get taxed.

In short none of the money that went to building or operating his businesses got taxed.

Only the money he paid himself got taxed.

And it got taxed at considerably lower rates thasn the money he paid her.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I do too, I think it will start to reviel who Obama really is. As to the the notion that his tax plan is socialist BS. Some guy tried to pull that on me a while ago. No, it's not the strict definition of socialism, but it is, and does have the mantles of it. Redistribution of wealth is a form of socialism.

Newsflash, we haven't been capitalistic in a LONG time, and our government pays billions each year in corporate socialism even more post 9/11, the problem that the GOP has is not socialism but socialism that doesn't help their profits.

What scares me the most is how many people support this notion. But than again, they are basically hearing, "I will screw over your boss in order to help you out"

Who doesn't want that??

LOL! Yes, and again "corporations should pay their fair share" sounds a lot like "screw your boss in order to help you".

[AsburySkinsFan]

And it got taxed at considerably lower rates thasn the money he paid her.

Well it should be, because he's rich and has lots of money.

[PleaseBlitz]

I'm not saying corporations are evil. I'm saying it's extremely misleading when McCain says our corporations have among the highest tax rates in the world and theirfore need a huge freaking tax cut. As I said and the GAO supports; the vast majority of corporations in this country pay zero corporate taxes. None of the small businesses do if they know anything about taxes and those folks are the one's creating all the jobs. The folks who do pay corporate taxes, certainly don't pay anywhere near the precentage mentioned, because the loop holes are so plentiful in corporate tax law.

I'm saying certain tax policies over the last few decades have been extremely unfair and some even evil.

I dont disagree with that, my point is that raising taxes (or even closing loopholes) on corporations WILL impact people, even though they wont be directly paying those taxes.

I also think it's misleading for you to claim folks want to "tax the hell out of corporations", when what we are really talking about is not giving them a humongus honking tax cut; at the expense of the middle class.

Like i said before, that was hyperbole. I thought it was pretty obviously so.

The middle class who have seen their tax burden increase over the last few decades, their standard of living decrease, and their percenge of weath more than cut in half.

The standard of living of the middle class in the US has risen by many standards, but i agree the rich/poor gap needs to be decreased. Setting sights on corporations is not the way to accomplish that since "big business" accounts for nearly half the jobs in this country. As we've seen, setbacks for businesses dont hurt the guys at the top, they hurt the guys at the bottom.

[JMS]

I'm not talking about what is fair, I'm talking about Socialism and the redistribution of wealth...

Well then you are on the wrong side of this discussion. the redistribution of wealth in this country is going from the middle class to the wealthy, not from the wealthy. In 1980 the top 1% of the earners in this country owned 8% of the wealth. today the top 1% own 20% of the nations wealth.

When you let folks making tens or hundreds of millions of dollars pay half the percentage of taxes as the folks living pay check to pay check; you are definitely redistributiong wealth. Taking from the folks who can least afford to part with it; and giving to the folks who can most afford too.

Is it fair for Buffett to 250 times what his Secretary pays for the same level of service? They each get one vote in the election, but it seems to me that he actually pays quite a lot more for his one vote than she does. How about the people under Barack Obama's plan who will get a tax credit who don't pay any taxes? THAT is income redistribution...

Why does your moral tax barrior fall between the middle glass and the super wealthy? Why not arbitraily draw the line between homeless poeple and the middle class? Is it fair a homeless guy pays no taxes and still get's to vote; yet the middle class person pays much much more taxes yet only get's the same one vote?

Smoot, all taxes are unfair. The only thing that makes them fair is the shared burden and trying to find some equal burden based upon the rewards one see's from the system. It's indefensible that the super weatly are taxes at half the tax burden as the middle class. You could make an argument that they shouldn't be taxed at a higher rate; even that would be controversial. But to claim the wealthiest should pay less is just unreasonable.

I'm for a fair-tax system anyway... People shouldn't pay tax on income, they should pay tax when they spend money, not when they earn it.

Chocolate and free coffee should be distributed at traffic lights too, saddly that's not the world we live in. The world we live in folks pay income tax, and that income tax is designed to transfer wealth to the wealthy and away from the middle class and has been sucessfully doing such for decades.

[PleaseBlitz]

You mentioned earlier that if mom and pop had to pay their fair share of corporate taxes then their business might fail, it seemed that you were indicating that they shouldn't pay their share because they might fail, as such they should be given tax breaks in order that they should remain open. To which I said that didn't sound capitalistic and businesses that can't stay open should fail under that system. However it was subsequently shown that "mom and pop" aren't quite the topic and the label "mom and pop" is actually a misnomer used by the GOP to make people think that their local general store will be hurt, when the reality is that it is the larger much more stable corporations that will be affected and rightfully so.

Ah. I never said they SHOULDNT fail. I just said they probably WOULD.

And i wouldnt relate "mom and pop" or "main street" to one party or the other.

So instead of taking less profit in order to pay their fair they make the consumers pay more...yeah no evil there.

Nobody MAKES consumers pay more. Everyone has the choice of buying a good or not.

Close the loop holes and make businesses pay their share without passing those costs to the consumer, after all I cannot pass my tax burden to someone else, why should they be able to?

You CANT make them not pass costs onto the consumer in a capitalist system. Anyways, the money they are taxed is just going to the government, which is doing exactly the same thing, passing on their expenses to the people.

[AsburySkinsFan]

The standard of living of the middle class in the US has risen by many standards, but i agree the rich/poor gap needs to be decreased. Setting sights on corporations is not the way to accomplish that since "big business" accounts for nearly half the jobs in this country. As we've seen, setbacks for businesses dont hurt the guys at the top, they hurt the guys at the bottom.

So where would you suggest we start? The Conservative model has only served to widen the gap further, if we tax corporations less then they may well create more jobs but with the direct benefit of increasing top end profits for those at the top, this does nothing the bridge the gap between the rich and poor, it just makes the rich richer. It is said that "a rising tide raises all ships" and in an inclosed environment that is true however in this day of globalization the big ships are able to choose which bay they want to be in and they can shift to the places where they are most profitable leaving the average person behind. And, again I go back to the fact that if corporations could go without paying a work force then they would as such they find the cheapest work forces, and find the best ways to pay the least amounts of taxes, and yet STILL people defend them and defend the policies that only serve to make the rich richer.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Nobody MAKES consumers pay more. Everyone has the choice of buying a good or not.

LOL! Classic, let me change one thing "Everyone has the choice of buying food or not." There that's better because we all have the right to starve.

You CANT make them not pass costs onto the consumer in a capitalist system.

Keep in mind that you're the one defending the capitalist system that no longer exists.

Anyways, the money they are taxed is just going to the government, which is doing exactly the same thing, passing on their expenses to the people.

Right, and instead of them taking less profit they take more from the consumer in order to pay what is by rights not the consumer's to pay. It sounds like what you are suggesting is that there should be no corporate taxes because the consumer pays it all anyways, so to help the consumer we should eliminate corporate taxes.

[PleaseBlitz]

So where would you suggest we start? The Conservative model has only served to widen the gap further, if we tax corporations less then they may well create more jobs but with the direct benefit of increasing top end profits for those at the top, this does nothing the bridge the gap between the rich and poor, it just makes the rich richer. It is said that "a rising tide raises all ships" and in an inclosed environment that is true however in this day of globalization the big ships are able to choose which bay they want to be in and they can shift to the places where they are most profitable leaving the average person behind. And, again I go back to the fact that if corporations could go without paying a work force then they would as such they find the cheapest work forces, and find the best ways to pay the least amounts of taxes, and yet STILL people defend them and defend the policies that only serve to make the rich richer.

Creating jobs doesnt help the middle class? Interesting theory. How is the middle class middle class then, and not in poverty?

Profits for corporations dont go directly to the evil corporate bigwigs. They go to shareholders, who decide what the evil corporate bigwigs make. Most of the shares of stock in this country, interestingly enough, are owned by the middle class.

[Larry]

Your hyperbole detector must be malfunctioning. I always seem to forget that people dont have that ability in these serious threads.

Don't know about you, but the only way I can enter these threads is by switching mine off.

Heck, I had to switch mine off just to read the title of the thread.

ALL businesses pass on their tax burden to consumers. Its just another part of their bottom line.

Ah, the old "so and so doesn't really pay taxes" spin.

Y'know what? I've finally figured it out. Everybody in the world passes on their taxes to me. Yep. I'm the only person in the world who actually pays taxes. And frankly, I'm getting really fed up with all you folks sponging off of me.

Does this mean that people who rent actually do pay county property taxes? Cause it seems to me that every time the subject comes up, everybody announces that poor people don't pay those taxes, because they rent.

It's amazing the "statistics" you can come up with, if you start with "well, let's pretend that this money actually goes into this other category over here".

[PleaseBlitz]

LOL! Classic, let me change one thing "Everyone has the choice of buying food or not." There that's better because we all have the right to starve.

You have no idea what you are talkinng about and have an incredibly poor handle on how capitalism actually works.

Keep in mind that you're the one defending the capitalist system that no longer exists.

As much as you cant wait for it to happen, we arent scraping capitalism in this country.

Right, and instead of them taking less profit they take more from the consumer in order to pay what is by rights not the consumer's to pay. It sounds like what you are suggesting is that there should be no corporate taxes because the consumer pays it all anyways, so to help the consumer we should eliminate corporate taxes.

:doh: Thats an awful lot of words you put into my mouth.

[alexey]

I do too, I think it will start to reviel who Obama really is. As to the the notion that his tax plan is socialist BS. Some guy tried to pull that on me a while ago. No, it's not the strict definition of socialism, but it is, and does have the mantles of it. Redistribution of wealth is a form of socialism.

Yes, and in the process we can finally dismatle the silly "income redistribution = socialism = bad" oversimplification.

What scares me the most is how many people support this notion. But than again, they are basically hearing, "I will screw over your boss in order to help you out"

Who doesn't want that??

I have reservations about people supporting the right thing for wrong reasons as well... that is why I think it is important to discuss this.

[PleaseBlitz]

Ah, the old "so and so doesn't really pay taxes" spin.

Y'know what? I've finally figured it out. Everybody in the world passes on their taxes to me. Yep. I'm the only person in the world who actually pays taxes. And frankly, I'm getting really fed up with all you folks sponging off of me.

Does this mean that people who rent actually do pay county property taxes? Cause it seems to me that every time the subject comes up, everybody announces that poor people don't pay those taxes, because they rent.

It's amazing the "statistics" you can come up with, if you start with "well, let's pretend that this money actually goes into this other category over here".

If i could pass my taxes onto you i would. What i said was that companies pass their tax burden onto consumers. You are one of those. So am I. So is everyone. And earlier in the thread, the "so and so doesnt really pay taxes" spin was coming from the Obama supporters like DjTj and Midnight judges.

If you read my posts and came away with "everyone" passes their taxes onto others, when i was clearly not talking about "everyone" then i dont know what to tell you, your reading skills suck.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Creating jobs doesnt help the middle class? Interesting theory. How is the middle class middle class then, and not in poverty?

Wow are you reading what I write or just responding? I said it does not "bridge the gap" you yourself said that the gap between rich and poor needed to be bridged but the rising tide raises all ships at the same level i.e. the gap is still the same only its in a different place.

Profits for corporations dont go directly to the evil corporate bigwigs. They go to shareholders, who decide what the evil corporate bigwigs make. Most of the shares of stock in this country, interestingly enough, are owned by the middle class.

And do you really believe that anyone outside of the CEO and Board of Directors owns enough shares in the company to affect the way the company operates?

[Thiebear]

So if were going to put out what SHOULD be.

Shouldn't the tax be everyone over the poverty line (so as not to put a person back below it) should pay a fair share?

20% of 40% = 8k fair.

20% of 2,000,000 = 400,000k fair.

or

Everyone pays on the stuff they buy:

Rich people buy more stuff so they pay more: Fair.