More "Redistribution of Wealth" Stuff...

[RecycleMichael]

I tell you, all this talk of sheep reminds me of a yarn.

Mary had a little sheep,
And with this sheep
She went to sleep.
The sheep turned out
To be a ram
And Mary had a little lamb!

Before you fleece me, let me tell you a riddle...

What do you call a sheep with no legs?
A cloud.

Thank ewe very much.

[cannon_fodder]

Wow, that was Baaaaaad.

[nathanm]

quote:Originally posted by Red Arrow


My guess is that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet's money will go a lot further to help medical research than any government program ever would.

Nevermind that most medical breakthroughs in the last 50 years (aside from Viagra and other lifestyle drugs) have come from basic research funded by the government that drug companies don't do because it's unprofitable.

And CF, I'm surprised you're falling for the right wing smear machine.

[cannon_fodder]

Nathan, I prefaced my comments with a statement that I am not sure exactly what his stance is and that is scares me.  He sure hasn't backed away from the statements that he wanted a radical redistribution of wealth.  And while I am certain he is not talking about the doomsday scenario I outlined, he is taking a step in that direction WITHOUT strongly saying what limits he would like to see imposed.  

I'm not buying at the wholesale level, but they have sold the concept to me.

[nathanm]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Nathan, I prefaced my comments with a statement that I am not sure exactly what his stance is and that is scares me.

Everyone who doesn't have an axe to grind can see that Obama is actually pretty centrist. There's nobody in this country who is going to embark upon wholesale wealth redistribution.

The worst (or best, depending on your point of view) we'll probably see is a return to 1980s or 1990s tax policies in general. Basically higher marginal tax rates for high income earners, and about the same or a little lower on people who don't earn much.

How exactly is it that you see Obama taking from the rich and giving to the poor? (I'm not attacking, I'm wondering) He's not a communist, for crying out loud, and even if he were, you can't do that much damage on an issue without consensus in four years. (barring some sort of catalyzing event like 9/11, Pearl Harbor, or the burning of the Reichstag)

Anyway, what Obama wants isn't what he'll get if it's too radical, even if the Democrats control Congress. Congressional Democrats do not hold the party line nearly as well as the Republicans do, besides which, there are a bunch of conservative Democrats (like Lincoln and Pryor in Arkansas) who wouldn't be caught dead voting for some radically liberal agenda.

Either way, the most socialist things we'll see in this country in the near term have happened and already are happening as a result of the economic crisis and the Bush pandering in previous years.

In a nutshell, my point is this: It doesn't matter if Obama is actually a dyed in the wool communist, unless Congress is full of commie sleeper agents, which it isn't and won't be regardless of the outcome of this election.

Being afraid of that is like being afraid of a passenger airliner being hijacked and crashed into a building again in this country. It isn't happening because there are too many people who wouldn't let it.

I'm actually quite surprised people haven't gotten more upset about the treasury investing in banks. If that isn't socialism, what is?

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Nathan, I prefaced my comments with a statement that I am not sure exactly what his stance is and that is scares me.  He sure hasn't backed away from the statements that he wanted a radical redistribution of wealth.  And while I am certain he is not talking about the doomsday scenario I outlined, he is taking a step in that direction WITHOUT strongly saying what limits he would like to see imposed.  

I'm not buying at the wholesale level, but they have sold the concept to me.

Here's his stance.  It's worth the 5-plus minutes of your time to watch....

Obama Explains His Tax Cut Plans To Plumbing Business Owner
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFC9jv9jfoA

My view:  Obama gives Joe-the-Plumber his full attention and respect, and explains his position on taxes.  Obama showed far more respect for Joe than the McCain campaign showed for him....

The Republicans' view: Blah-blah-blah-blah-Blah-blah-blah-blah-Blah-blah-blah-blah-Blah-blah-blah-blah-Blah-blah-blah-blah-Blah-blah-blah-blah-Blah-blah-blah-blah-Blah-blah-blah-blah-Blah-blah-blah-blah-Blah-blah-blah-blah-Blah-blah-blah-blah-Blah-blah-blah-blah-Blah-blah-blah-blah-Blah-blah-blah-blah-Blah-blah-blah-blah-Blah-blah-blah-blah-SPREAD-THE-WEALTH-AROUND!!!!!!!....blah-blah-blah....  OMG!!! He's a socialist!... gotcha!!!... he's a pinko-commie socialist!... he's a redistributor of wealth!!!... gotcha!!! gotcha!!! gotcha!!!

[}:)]

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy
Well put. When politicians voted to reduce the tax rate on the highest tax brackets during the last decade, that too was a redistribution of wealth but most didn't recognize it as such. In fact no one called it socialism. When the state of Oklahoma (and Alaska) sent tax rebates to their citizens because of oil largesse, that was a corporate redistribution of wealth. Anyone complain? (I did. I thought it was irresponsible when the state needed so much infrastructure attention. Its lonely out here.)

Looking through my old 1040 booklets from 1998 to present it appears that the highest rates were reduced from 39.6% to 35%.  The lowest rate was reduced from 15% to 10%. Rates between there came down but not as much. In all cases, the amount of taxable income at a given rate increased.

I would call a reduction in tax rates less redistribution.  It depends on whether you think the money you earn is yours or the governments'.  If it's yours, you give to the government in the form of taxes.  If it's the governments', they allow you to have some back.
If I make $100 and you take $39.60 one year and then I make $100 next year and you only take $35.00, you haven't given me anything. You just took less.

The year after the Oklahoma "Tax Rebate" (pay less taxes), I had to pay income tax on the rebate even though I did not itemize either year to take advantage of deducting Okla taxes on my Federal tax return.  Oklahoma tried a tax free weekend similar to Texas for back to school supplies.  Should the people who shopped that weekend declare their sales tax savings as income on their income tax?  I say no.