Disingenuous. First of all, tax rates rise or fall with virtually every change in adminstration. You want to really talk about "redistribution of wealth", you've got to talk about welfare programs, which have been around much longer than 1976. Finally, nothing gets done, particularly where spending is concerned, without Congress' support. I don't know if Ford (using '76 as a startpoint since you put that year out there), Carter, Reagan or Bush I made any serious attempt at welfare reform, but each was working with a Democrat-controlled Congress. The first real welfare reform came in '94, and of course, Bill Clinton likes to take credit for it. But Clinton took office in '92, with not even a splinter of reform as a plank in his platform. It took the Republican Congress of '94, with reform as part of the Contract With America, to make it happen.
Nothing disingenuous at all, lets take Reagan and Bush I, since you want to talk reform and stopping the redistribution of wealth. Bush I: No new taxes, but he did raise taxes to try to reduce the national budget deficit, which was a gift from the Reagan administration. I agree he was under a democratic controlled congress, but he could have damn sure veto those measures. Reagan, raised taxes a total of 13 times with the largest increase in 1982. I should say he approved the tax increases. But he could have vetoed the measures as well. If I dont respond, that means I left for the day and I will respond later on tonight. Good debate, I would have to say.
The NBA was just used as an example of an actual dollar figure. I later mentioned athletes (non-specific to sport) along with other professions. Here's my issue. I don't care if they play 16 games, 82 games, 162 games, playoffs, etc. I don't care if they act in one movie, two, five, or ten this year. I don't care if they perform 10, 20, 50, or 100 concert dates. The fact is they make too much money therefore should give much of it back. We can't defend one over another by saying that one works harder than another. We can't defend one by saying they work more hours than another. We can't defend one over another because they have more talent. We can't defend one by saying they employ people or donate great sums of money to charity. We can't apply any rationale to this other than the fact that they make too much money. That's the policy Obama endorses. That's the redistribution of wealth philosophy. Now you see the problem I have with it. In sports we often look at the owners as the CEOs and the players as the blue-collar workers. What many fail to realize is that almost all of them are millionaires. So I ask...is the owner the rich guy, are the players the rich guys, or are they all the rich guys? Who makes that determination? Obama?
This maybe a little off subject, but who set the salaries? As time has gone by the salaries have gone up. In the 1970s those athletes made far less. So whos fault is that? Society, because we wanted our pass times bigger and better. More expansion, well that cost money. You may not agree with it,but you are complicit, if you pay 200 bucks to go to an LSU game, you are at fault as well. Do you think Miles makes too much?
do we have to go thru this again? he pays 0% on the first $30k or so, 15% on the next $30k or so, 25% on the next $100k or so, 32% on the next $90k or so and 39% on everything over $250k so Joe, if he makes over $250k/yr (not his company and not gross) will pay the higher tax rate on ONE DOLLAR. he's out six cents.
Personally?...I believe in supply and demand. I believe in a free market economy. I'm not in favor of a redistribution of wealth program. The point I'm trying to make is that certain politicians mislead the general public on this subject by attempting to make people believe that the ONLY people who earn top dollar are lazy, mean, non-contributing, big business-type people. It's simply not true. I'm for identifying and punishing those who break the law or intentionally harm the welfare of others. I'm not for drawing a line in the sand and arbitrarily saying once you make a certain amount of money we're going to stick it to you. Since that's what many seem to be advocating, let's not discriminate. ALL who exceed this amount should pay. NO exceptions. Do I like or agree with this policy?...NO but if that's what we're going to do, then do it fair. Afterall, "fairness" was the reason given for this idea to begin with.
That is absolutely untrue. Obama's tax plan is clearly stated and it does not say this. Hell, he does not even say this when asked about it. You are claiming a a negligible tax hike on above $250k, but Obama isn't arguing that. He is claiming the lion's share of his imaginary $700 billion increase in revenue will come from this very segment. His argument is about 5% of the population, while ignoring the % of total tax revenue that 5% pays already. He just wants it to be higher. And your tax bracket is not staggered across the board. It only differentiates for different types of income, so your claim is pure bs. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11670.html Or try this one: http://www.marketwatch.com/news/sto...88D5F9-1F6B-4CF2-B2BF-1D7E9A51C077}&dist=hppr
But you keep putting tax increases in the category of "redistributing wealth." If the taxes are used to subsidize able-bodied people who are using the safety net of welfare as a hammock, then that is the case. But taxation at some level is necessary, being as it is the only means the government has to raise money to provide necessary services, like defense or infrastucture. Reagan's tax increases generated a badly-needed overhaul of our military, effectively driving the USSR out of business in an effort to keep up. "Redistribution of wealth" is determined by a: how taxes are spent, and b. who bares the largest burden of taxation. Traditionally, it is when Democrats are in power that you see this in effect; i.e., higher tax rates on the rich, funding more "services" for the poor. (The Bush tax increase, as we all know, was a contrived effort by the Dems to sabotage his "read my lips" pledge, which he should have had the cojones to veto anyway) Agreed, good debate, I'll check back tonight.
Anybody making investment decisions just on the tax implication is nuts. You make investment decisions based on the merit of the investment. If Joe has two choices, work for someone else and make 100K, or buy this business and clear 250K a year, and Obama may win and add another 15K to his tax bill reducing his take to 235K per year, what would you do? I'd take that 235K so fast it would make you head spin. Would I be a little ticked at Obama for costing me 15K? Probably. When I realize how fast my net worth is going up, and how much better off I am than everybody else, my aggravation would fade.
