CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your own opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Bookmark this debate on your favorite social network by clicking the appropriate icon below:
Want to add a CreateDebate link or button to your website or blog? Click Here
Whose tax plan is better?
Economic growth vs redistributionism
"For all their similarities, the two plans have important distinctions. The most important is that McCain's tax proposals emphasize job creation and raising wages....Obama's tax proposals exemplify his view that redistributing income among citizens is more important than increasing their earnings and creating jobs."
Corporations control the things we buy. When corporations get taxed, they pass it on to the consumers by raising the prices of their items. it's actually simple economics...
Now, you can go Carl Marx on their ass and control the prices of products, but i like progression in materialism... and communist doctrines don't help technological advancement.
Gas prices have plummeted. now, if you tax the gas companies more, the gas prices will go up. I think anyone who has a use for gas isn't going to find that helpful for them.
unfortunately I believe that the drop in oil prices is an indication of how deep and long the recession will be. But there is no fix for this situation that does not involve some pain.
what I am watching for is a return to "normal" in the investment markets. I don't intend to reinvest copletely in the equity market until I can make sense of the action. I was encouraged when the market seemed to be reacting to actual news like retail sales and employment figures. Too much of what is happening is still driven by fear and aversion and confusion. Most are on the sidelines. Normally I LOVE a period like right now as traders make money on volatility, not necessarily long run bull markets. But frankly I just don't have the stones it takes to bet the courage of my convictions. I nibble some but not enough to make serious money.
This brings us back to oil and the recession. A recession is a lack of growth. As I am sure you can guess, I believe that Obama is anti growth. I believe that is weighing on the market. We are also getting bad financial data. The price of oil has halved while the market has just crashed. Normally that huge correction in oil would be cause for a huge upwards move but it had no effect on the stock market. Now Joe sixpack (or the plumber) typically looks at the Dow Jones Industrial and uses that rise or fall as an indicator of how the economy did that day or week. I wonder how many of them know that it is only 30 stocks or who can name 5 of them or realize that despite its name, it has few industrial companies in it. What more sophisticated investors look at now to see when it is safe to go back in the investor waters is the spread between corporate bonds and government bonds or TBills. Investing in government securities is one step from bills under the mattress. Those spreads are not even close to telling us to jump in.
Around the world central banks have dumped somewhere between 4 and 7 trillion dollars of liquidity into the global economy depending on which article you read. Sounds like huge amounts doesn't it? What if I told you we still have a 50 trillion dollar time bomb out there? We have yet to see defaults on credit cards, auto loans or institutional defaults on credit default swaps. Oil has halved and pump prices have dropped by . . . 1/3 so far?? But no one feels more secure. Not Main Street Not Wall Street and not the investors who straddle the two. December retail sales will suck mightily because of lack of consumer confidence. Because of screwy energy policy (corn based ethanol) food prices are ridiculously high. So the middle and lower classes are being crushed by a double whammy. Stagnation of wages and inflation of prices for the most basic of goods, gas and food. Throw in easy credit tempting them to make stupid decisions ad they are in bad shape. But little of this is Bush's fault. His biggest problem is that he spent all of his political capital on the war and lacked the juice to get anything else through. This is similar to Clinton, post Lewinsky. He DID try to stop the GSE abuse and Republican did hold hearings on the abuse. Democratic leadership stymied it all. You can go on You tube and see the glowing words Dems used to describe the actions which led us where we are now. You can go there and newspaper archives and see ACORN organizers rush banks scaring and intimidating customers to extort banks to make sub prime loans. Those are the same types of efforts that Obama wants to force on us. They have their grounding in the same radical ideas. People like me with our money on the sideline just plain aren't going to jump back in over our heads with this radical socialist agenda facing us. If you don't believe me go try and explain why bond/TB ill spreads are still out of whack, why the market wont come back and why consumer confidence is still in the tanks. We are going to go from Republican control of government leading to spending like drunken democrats to a socialist Democrat running the deficit through the roof. Obama on his website has admitted that his tax plans will NOT raise as much money as current tax laws. Yet his budget shows increased spending. We are in for trouble no matter what, as I described with the yet to blow bombs waiting. But we have a choice between a guy who is admittedly not an economy wonk and one who is risking the whole system on a socialist agenda. I think it will be a long time until confidence returns to the point that the economy functions normally. The incredible drop in oil prices accomplishing nothing in our confidence is a warning sign. Trading is light daily so the activity is people like me nibbling cautiously, not folks sure the market has bottomed and plowing back in full strength. .
Comparing Obama's tax plan to communism is wholly unfair. What Obama wants to do is give tax breaks to those people who 1) need them and 2) will spend the money, thus helping the economy. McCain claimed that the U.S. has one of the highest income taxes for corporations. This might be true in theory, but in reality most corporations do not pay even close to the amount that the law says they should, and instead get around these laws by finding loopholes.
Obama's plan is for a tax increase on only the wealthiest in America. Right now the wealthiest 1% of Americans have as much money as the poorest 50%. This is neither a fair, nor stable way for a country to operate. One of the key reasons that the great depression happened is an imbalance of wealth. With this in mind it's no wonder we have a financial crisis. Trickle down economics does not work. Building the economy from the bottom up is what Obama proposes and it makes a whole lot more sense.
Noooooooo, socialism is collective ownership, usually by the government. What Obama is doing is raising taxes on the rich and cutting taxes on the rest.
Your right that pure socialism doesn't work, but you didn't say why. Allow me. Pure socialism requires everyone to work for the common good, as opposed to the individual good. What socialism lacks is competition; there is very little reason for people to work harder if they don't directly reap the benefits of their labor. Therefore the system fails.
What you neglected to mention is that pure capitalism also does not work. In pure capitalism a disparity of wealth occurs. This means the majority of wealth is in the hands of a very small minority of the population. In order for companies to continue to sell the lower classes products they must lend them money, money that people cannot pay back. Then guess what happens! (Well if you haven't figured it out yet go into the financial section of a newspaper).
In America and most other 1st world nations we have neither pure capitalism or pure socialism; we have a mix. (For example, no matter how much money you make you always have the right to a public attorney, free of charge.) The trick though is finding the best mix between the two that fosters both a healthy, competitive environment where people work hard to improve their life, and an environment where poverty does not inhibit people from rising (because of either the cost of education, health etc...).
Pure Capitalism will always result in poverty and we need to find ways to reduce poverty, not just because we feel bad for poor people, but because poverty leads to crime, inequality, and hurts the economy in the long run.
Don't waste my time with your simplistic arguments about socialism. With Obama's plan doctor's will still make way more than waiters and corporations will still make billions.
You are saying that the U.S. has a "mix" between socialism and capitalism and that they both would fail so we have to keep the "mix". Way may not have "pure" anything but this "mix" argument proves to me that you don't know what your talking about.
What are you talking about? Of course we have a mix!
Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, the Public school system, public attorneys, the post office, the fire and police departments, public parks etc... All of these are based on the idea of communal ownership, hence socialism.
But hey, if you just want to make statements dismissing my argument without any evidence and prove you have no idea what your talking about, that's fine by me.
i never compared OBAMA to communism. I said that if he wants to control the prices of the market, that would be communism. otherwise, prices will just go up when he taxes the coprorations.
and i guess you just can't put pieces together at all.
1. Obama wants to tax corporations
2. all that'll do is raise the prices of goods that MIDDLE AND LOWER CLASS PEOPLE WILL SUFFER FROM
3. the only way to stop the raising of prices is to control the price
4. if Obama is fine with the prices raising and millions of Americans paying more... alright.
5. if he isn't, he would have to control price... which is DING DING DING, communist.
basically, through his tax plan, he either lets the middle (mainly middle) and sort of lower class suffer, or he controls the market prices (which is communist).
With Obama's plan Middle and Lower class people will have more money to spend. Price is dictated by demand and if people can't afford a product then the prices won't stay high.
You assume that taxing corporations means that they will pass the savings along, and the mojority of the time this is not the case. Most of the time this extra money just lines the pockets of those at the top of the company because a company wouldn't lower prices if the goods and services they offer are selling fine at their current price. Obama is just making corporations pay what they owe, right now most corporations pay very little income tax, if any (see the article in my earlier argument).
Also, speculating on what Obama would do in certain scenarios is stupid, you have no idea how he might react.
i gave him options, i didn't say what he would do. please stop making ASSumptions.
and no, it's actually most obvious that corporations pass TAXES onto consumers. savings are savings, they do what they want, but when the government taxes them, it's like taxing the customer. they will pass it on.
The only one making "ASSumptions" is you. Your claim was that he had only two options when in fact their are a myriad of possibilities.
Also, taxing companies would encourage them to run more efficiently (that's what happened in Europe). And raising prices would only be a last resort. But if they were to raise prices guess what? The middle and lower class has more money to pay for the price increase because Obama lowered their taxes. The only people who would suffer would be those who did not receive a tax cut, but they already have enough money to afford this increase.
so what you're basically saying is that it would all cancel eachother out. well, the middle class still suffers because they reap the least of the benefits... but otherwise, all wasted effort... alright.
Not wasted effort. The government ends up with money with more money in Obama's plan to pay for things like education and healthcare. So it's not a wash.
so more government spending? so how much of that money is going to the middle and lower class? if you're saying that all of the money taxed isn't going to the other people, then prices will go up higher than the lower and middle class are redeemed. so, they end up getting screwed even more.
The money is going to help the society as a whole. That is what government money is spent on (in theory). By taxing the wealthiest to pay for things that will help the lower class, like universal health care you even out the system. In no way does the middle class get screwed as you have tried to reason so many times. More money for the rich means the whole economy does worse! That hurts everybody: rich, poor, and lower class. More money for those who will spend it means that the entire economy does better.
If you don't believe me look at the current financial crisis. Corporations wanted to continue making money, but the middle and lower classes didn't have enough so guess what they did? They gave loans and had people buy things on credit. Well, when wages are stagnant but your spending more money then...well I don't have to tell you. Just watch the news and see what's happening around the world.
that was the fault of the watchdogs who didn't oversee the loans. the whole point of safe guards is to make sure bad loans aren't given. but since they were poor sympathizers, they didn't worry about the big picture. it was their secret way of wealth redistribution that ended up fucking all of us over.
Obama not only wants to redistribute wealth, but he wants to increase government spending. all this does is weaken capitalist progression and makes everything more expensive. in the long run, all it will be seen in history is the reason why inflation has skyrocketed.
Yes it's the fault of the watchdogs, but the reason it was necessary to give loans to those who couldn't afford them is because of the gigantic disproportion of wealth that exists in this nation. What needs to happen is a redistribution of wealth, not to a communistic extant, but merely to the point where the market can function.
Imagine if you will a poker game. One player gets a large majority of the chips. In order for the other players to keep playing they have to borrow from the first guy. This kind of system cannot hold up because eventually those players who must borrow will eventually be unable to payback what they borrowed. This is what we see in the U.S: More billionaires then any other nation and also one of the highest rates of children born into poverty of any 1st world nation. Continuing the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy will only add to this mess. The sooner McCain and other Republicans realize this the sooner we can create a system that works and benefits America as a whole, and not just the corporations and the wealthy.
the difference between a poker game and the market is that you have to bet in a poker game in order to stay in it. in a market, you make some in order to pay some. it's just a circle. yes, there are those who decide to work on being rich, and they do it, but everyone else still has money. there are those who are fortunate, but in a capitalist progression system, that is the cost. there are those who make the wrong decisions in life and suffer harshly for it. but most people in the world are fine, but of course, we need watch dogs to make sure corporations are safe from corruptness. or else it leads to communist ideas such as wealth redistribution which in whole leads to no progression at all.
we are a capitalist system because we plan for progression and we know the psyche of man. yes, the watchdogs fucked up, but choosing an extreme such as wealth redistribution only hurts us more. what we need is a way to help the very corporations who's pain hurts all of us. as long as we keep the market strong, our entire system is strong.
Pure socialism (I'm still pretty sure your using the term communism wrong but w/e) doesn't work, obviously. But neither does pure capitalism. In fact in many cases it's worse. The object is to find a balance between the two. Helping corporations only leads to the top executives getting more money, and doesn't help the American people as a whole.
What your describing is a gilded society that has a strong market but still suffers from poverty. This is the same thing that happened during the 1920's right before the great depression. You have to help those citizens who are at the bottom, and if this means taxing corporations 3-5% more, then so be it.
what's funny is that you said taxing corporations 3-5% will actually end poverty.
only two things that will end poverty:
1. Communism, which will also eradicate material and technological progression
2. a disease that wipes out half of mankind (most in the poverty areas of course).
a strong market benefits all of the people. this is because it creates expansion, more jobs, lower prices and better benefits for the consumer (such as better quality products and material/technological progression).
i do not want pure capitalism, but i do want a powerful market, because we are the market. pure capitalism is the anarchy of economics, which i don't support (because Wall Street will cease to exist if that happens).
Obama doesn't plan on just doing a minor tax increase, he plans to "redistribute wealth". that is what will weaken the market, cause inflation, and decrease employment. as employment decreases, more people will need government aid. as the government gives it, it will basically be a vicious circle.
Okay, so when its all said and done barack wants to help some Americans and Senator John McCain wants to help all Americans. Obama would have you believe that helping everyone is unrealistic, or that McCain would only help the rich. Those things are not true.
No Barack wants to help 95% of Americans. McCain does not want to help all Americans, because he keeps the bush tax cuts in place, which only help the rich. That is a fact, the bush tax cuts are for the rich, not the poor. And do you really believe that McCain is going to continue to fight the Iraq war, cut taxes on 100% of the population, and get the country out of debt? Yeah, not happening.
Oh Jake! Your so right! Those poor poor rich people! Why just the other day a rich friend of mine had to sell his second house in Cabo! The humanity!
Let's be real here for a second. The rich (not all of them) have been fucking over the rest of the country, and getting more rich doing it! By helping the middle and lower classes Obama is helping the rest of the country. Those people will spend more, stimulating the economy. What McCain does will not help out everyone. What it will do is make the gap between rich and poor even greater, and will shrink the middle class. Over the last eight years, the average workers salary has flat-lined. Why? Because tax cuts for the rich don't help workers!
McCain's tax plan is better because of the simple fact that redistribution of wealth, I feel, will further hurt our country. The Democrat/Liberal idea of taxation is going from the bottom up. Meaning tax the rich more and more and give the money to the lower class and eventually the money will circulate back up to the wealthy and big businesses. The Republicans/Conservatives believe, give tax breaks to the big companies and as a result they'll expand thus creating more jobs and strengthening our economy. The problem with Obama's tax plan is that its too risky for todays world economy. The U.S. has to now compete with countries like China, India,etc. where products can be made A LOT cheaper. So far two of my family members who were supervisors of their departments, lost their jobs because of the company moving the departments to India, where the company can save 6 CENTS per book printed (Comes out to be about 59 million dollars per year in savings, just for the two departments). If Obama taxes the big companies, whats to stop them from going overseas? Obama promises tax breaks for companies who don't ship jobs overseas, but whose going to pick up the tab for those tax cuts? The Middle Class.
-With big tax increases on companies, just means HIGHER PRICES.
-Do you like paying $4.00 for a gallon of gas? Well, I can't wait to see what it'll be with Obama's tax plan.
-Obama's plan is also going to make it harder for people in the middle class to move up because as soon as anyone works their way up to making a salary of $250,000, they will be rewarded with a huge tax. So for all middle class better keep your salary below the mark.
I've been doing some rescearch on all of these arguments and latly im tired of people just saying stuff Mcain has been in congress and a rep he knows wha the is doing as of obama his is very good as well so there for why argue their both well put and good for all people. this time of year people start to get all hurt for on preson i should know i go to school in arizona, coolidge high there fore my vote dose not count
If you don't want to debate then find another site. The only way people can come to conclusions is by discussing ideas to determine if they are valid or not. Also proofreading is helpful.
"You are handing out candy on Halloween. Obama rings the bell on your door. He says, "Since you have enough money to be handing out candy, I'm here to take your 401(k). Trick-or-treat." There are any number of ways to explain this, ladies and gentlemen."
John McCain's plan can connect with people like Joe the plumber. He will not raise taxes, while Obama will raise taxes by $3 trillion.
Don't buy into the "Obama will only raise taxes on families making over $250,000" crap. Obama is going to overtax the corperations. However, the corperations don't pay their taxes, YOU DO!
In Obama's "secret" way he's going to raise everyone's taxes by doing what I just said. He absolutely is not pro-lower class, and he isn't pro-upper class either! Obama will overtax this country into another great depression and we must avois this from happening.
That guy on the you tube video, he has so many credentials and he is so good, I mean you can trust him, MAYBE HE SHOULD BE COMMANDER IN CHIEF!!!!!
NO!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm sorry to tell you this but, your one of the supporters who don't know much. The nicest way I can put it.
Obama will be raising taxes, the highest ever but on the people making over 250,00 dollars a year. Read the Obama Plan. If you don't trust his site, than go ahead and search it and look on other creditable sites. Also, just to say that man if that is his house doesn't look like he is making over 250,000 dollars a year so I can tell you he is actually going to get a tax break.
Of course lets lower taxes for everyone and just cut spending on everything? No sorry we can't do that. We would have to cut to much and many things we cant afford to cut.
It's like in France, the poor was taxed so much while the Clergy didn't pay taxes and neither did the wealthy. The very rich wealthy people should pay more taxes than us, why?
They make more and can afford it.
Next time read and get some nice evidence not some guy on you tube. Who my sister says is very ugly...=]
Obama is going cause another great depression? Oops too late Bush already did that by helping to deregulate the market. A plan that McCain supported. He even described himself as "primarily a deregulater."
What McCain and Bush have tried to do is called "trickle down" economics. The theory is, help the rich get more money and then they will spend it and the whole economy will improve. If you want to know the result of this plan, get a newspaper and look in the financial section. What Obama plans to do is exactly the opposite. He is going to build the economy from the bottom up. By giving more money to lower and middle class citizens who will spend the money, the economy will improve.
I also don't understand how cutting peoples taxes is going to cost them money. I know that your saying "corporations that are taxed will raise prices on everything" but this isn't true. Instead they will look to create a more efficient company (this is what happened in Europe) and possibly stop paying CEOs tens or hundreds of millions of dollars a year. A 3% tax increase on the wealthiest Americans will only benefit the Middle and Lower classes.
I know you hate to let facts get in your way and trip you up but the deregulation bill everyone is blaming is Gramm's bill which CLINTON voted into law, not Bush. The current problems were caused directly by Democrats BLOCKING regulation. You have it all wrong . . . as usual. Darn those pesky facts for getting in the way again!
And where did you make up this silly idea that Europeans companies are more efficient? We make them more efficient by taxing our companies. Look at the productivity numbers. Our workers are more productive than ever. But the COMPANY cannot be as effective because of artificial burdens imposed by taxation. The last time this happened Reagan corrected the unfair advantage that foreign companies had and it resulted in a decade of growth that ended with the 2000 tech bubble busting.
This whole idea that our economic planning has failed is a joke. The economy will go up and down no matter what system is in effect. It is just the nature of things. The systemic problems with our economy are not trickle down related. They are caused by politics interfering. If it wasn't for congressional muddling, the falling oil prices would already be solving the economic jitters. If it wasn't for congressional interference with energy policy, we wouldn't be driving up food prices with a silly plan for ethanol. If food and energy costs were back to normal, inflation would not be crushing the middle and lower classes. So our probs are not economic theory but, as usual, regulatory interference. Congress crushes us no matter what system is in place economically.
Your are right that I was incorrect about who first put in place the deregulation. You would be correct in blaming Clinton for this current mess. The source of the problem is irrelevant though. Currently we have 2 candidates one in favor of regulation (Obama), and one that considers himself "primarily a deregulator" (McCain). Therefore, since we can both agree that deregulation is the main issue, we should choose a candidate that has been in favor of government regulations.
Secondly, the difference between American and European companies is this: U.S. companies give a tremendous amount of money to CEO's and other executives.
This creates a huge disparity of wealth and accounts for the fact that we have more billionaires in our country, while maintaining the highest rate of children born into poverty of any 1st world nation.
Also, I disagree that the free market is the solution to all our problems as you seem to suggest. Intelligent government intervention can help stave off problems like the one we're facing right now. I agree completely that projects such as subsidizing ethanol is a bad idea but blaming it for the current crisis is bullshit. That had to do with regulation plain and simple. Even McCain has now flip-flopped and said he wants some regulation.
In addition, you say we make European companies more efficient by taxing ourselves, this is pure and simply untrue.
I hate to argue against myself but it was a Republican proposal which Clinton and Rubin agreed with, so really bipartisan. I blame Clinton for a lot, starting with 9/11 but I think he did the right thing in that case. Glass Steagall needed to be reformed. It was horrribly dated. And a few of the issues in that Gramm bill opened the Pandora's box slightly but I still say that the main problem was caused by the mandate by Congressional Democrats to make sub prime loans and then the mandate to Fannie and Freddie to buy up those sub prime loans. So it was too much BAD, but well meaning regulation that caused our problems, not too little regulation. What gave you the idea I would agree with you just because you say so? Congressional interference causes much more trouble than it clears up. Even well intentioned regulation is often knee jerk, rushed through and mainly to show they did something, even if it doesn't fix anything. Less regulation is always preferable but that doesn't mean NO regulation. We cannot trust business or labor unfettered and government should try to keep an equilibrium between the two while each of them will naturally try to get things swinging too far to their side of the scales. That is why the economy will always be up and down. It is fluid and cannot stay good always.
Figures from 2005 show that US CEOs are better paid than European counterparts but not by as much as you seem to think. US CEO to factory worker pay is 39 to 1, in England it is 32 to 1, in Italy 26 to 1, Germany 20 to 1 and on down the line.
I do not disagree that the disparity of wealth is huge in America but I would argue that the disparity in standard of living might not be. The lower income groups in America live much better than lower income groups in Europe. They walk into any emergency room and get care which they do not pay for. Social services provide a safety net above the level of Europe. It is common in Europe for multiple generations to live in one home with less than one bed, never mind a bedroom for each person.
The free market is no panacea, it is merely the best answer we have. So called "intelligent" and compassionate government intervention caused this crisis IMO. Barney Frank, Chuck Shumer, Chris Dodd through their respective committees, the Congressional Black Caucus all conspired to increase home ownership for less and less financially well off families. Sounds like a good idea, right? Who could complain about expanding home ownership? I used to build low income housing in inner cities myself so obviously it is something I believe in. But they mandated, meaning forced legally the lenders to make sub prime loans . . . which we now call BAD loans. So government intervention is a two edged sword. There is no doubt that in the early days of the 20th century, government intervention was needed. They put in child labor laws and minimum wage laws and a 5 day work week. All were needed because of abuse by an unfettered industrialist class. So I would propose that government intervention can be good but also can be bad. Too often they have unforeseen consequences. And in those cases, instead of fixing it and admitting they goofed, they get all defensive like in 2005 when Bush and the Republicans tried to regulate (yes, they tried to ADD regulations) to curb Fannie and Freddie to avoid exactly the mess we are in now. Obama tries to take credit for trying to stop the crisis because he supposedly made a phone call to the Treasury secretary. Compare that to the Republicans under Chris Shay who actually held hearings. And what happened at those hearings? You can find video of the Democrats saying Fannie and Freddie were fine, No problems, they were doing what they were supposed to do and how indignant they were that the hearings were even held. Meanwhile, Fannie and Freddie and the foundations they sprouted were all pumping money into democratic campaign coffers and funneling money to Acorn who then pumped some of THAT money into Democratic campaign coffers. The hero of those Democrats was Franklin Raines who took HUGE amounts as CEO of Fannie Mae and was fired or cooking the books to boost his pay. And all of that was the result of bad regulation. It is all very similar to how Dems complain about lobbyists on the Republican side. There is nobody wearing white hats in any of this.
I never said ethanol had anything to do with the credit crunch crisis. I said that it artificially raised food costs. What makes the current times so hard for middle and low class is that inflation of basic necessities is out of hand. Energy for cars and heating oils and food are out of sight. That is what I was saying about the ethanol contribution to how hard he times are for so many. We use tons of corn for a trickle of fuel. Corn prices rise and that affects meat prices because corn is a major part of feed for animals. Corn prices go up because the government subsidies keep the price artificially high, so farmers plant corn instead of wheat . . . so bread prices rise. Did you know that there is a shortage of agave in Mexico because they are plowing it under to plant corn, all because of the US government subsidies on ethanol . . . so when you see tequila prices going up, blame the government ethanol program. That is an example of where the free market would have been fine if the govt hadn't mixed in. Regulation is necessary but it always carries with it the bogeyman of unintended consequences. And no matter how many times you say it, the current crisis is NOT the fault of too little regulation, it is the result of too much BAD regulation.
How can taxing American companies NOT make European companies more efficient by comparison? That is just silly on the face of it. They do not become more efficient in an absolute sense of increased productivity but in comparison to their American or Japanese competition who pays more taxes they are clearly more efficient.
good way to put it. Doesn't mean I am right just because I am more familiar with the subject matter. feel free to dig into it and question me on anything I said.
A myth? No, it's a label. What it's used to describe is a tax policy where you cut taxes on the rich so 1) the wealthy spend money to stimulate the economy and 2) the corporations who receive tax cuts pass the savings on to consumers.
(you may have to dig around Senator McCain's website a bit to find his specific tax proposals)
My support for Senator Obama is NOT based on who has the better tax plan. For me, when it comes to the presidential election, there is ONE OVER-RIDING CONCERN - who is least likely to start a nuclear war.
Barack Obama is thoughtful and careful, and would consider all the consequences of "pushing the button". John McCain strikes me as impetuous and dangerous, and I don't want his finger anywhere near the button.
McCain cannot guarantee that his plan will actually create jobs, merely provide incentive for those who would already consider employing others. However, with Obama if you are middle/lower class and thus currently or have recently been employed, you will not pay more in taxes.
For a family of four with a $50,000 income it's far more painful to lose 15% of thier income around $7500 because it costs more than $42,500 to provide the essentials. Whilst a family of four with an income of $300,000 losing 15% of their income STILL has 255,000 to survive off--MORE than enough.
We are a country which believes each person is created equally therefore each person has an equal RIGHT to survival. Tax breaks to rich corporations cause the middle class and poor to suffer unnecessarily. It essentially steals from the hardworking families so that the rich can get richer. This is the reason for redistribution of wealth. Any other viewpoint is just greedy.
You are wrong AND I am greedy, not BECAUSE I am greedy. Who are you to tell me how much is enough and who are you to put your sticky little fingers in MY pocket and steal money I have worked for and earned. This whole premise is un American.
You say we are a country which believes each person is created equal. But the guy who put that into our collective psyches didn't mean it. Thomas Jefferson clearly meant that all white, propertied males are created equal. He owned slaves which does not promote equality. He wrote draconian slave laws for Virginia that punished runaway slaves including their lives so he did not believe that we all had an equal right to survive. Tax breaks as social engineering are meant to encourage a desired action, usually job creation, Research and Development, environmental goals, etc. Are they abused or written poorly? Of course! But taking my money to give to someone else is not American. What is my incentive to excel if the fruits of my efforts are taken from me?
We can and should tighten up or eliminate corporate welfare but if you institute near universal welfare to replace it, it is the end of America. But we all want new energy sources explored. Some of us want Global Warming corrected. We want new drugs discovered. Those are the things that corporate tax breaks bring you. Why spend billions that might or might not ever produce a dime? I am a stockholder. Over 60% of American Households are stockholders. If you are not one of them, seriously, you should contact me so I can show you how you can afford to be part of that investor class, whatever you make. Do I want my investment spent on efforts that might never produce a return on my investment? The government can influence the country by incentivizing your actions. The way they do this is tax breaks. For example, they want you to buy a house so they give you a tax break on your mortgage interest payments. I bet you are in favor of that. The issue is not who deserves it or has a right to survive. The issue is what does the most good for the country in achieving its goals. The nation and society has rights too. Tax breaks for corporations are not to enrich the rich. It is to develop medicines to cure YOU. It is to develop wind energy to reduce YOUR dependence on foreign oil. It is to get a job for YOU to work at. Taking money from me and giving it to you is just European socialism. You will turn us into France. Where mobs of young people burned huge parts of the country because of no jobs.
Damn right I am greedy. I don't let crooks come into my house and steal my belongings. They might be poor. They might have hungry children. But they do not deserve my money. I am happy to pay my taxes. I believe in this country and know I must pay my fair share. I am philanthropic and invest in places that support the nation's economic infrastructure. I do not have money stashed offshore, own property offshore and I drive an American car. I do not short stocks because although I think it is a valid investment style, I do not bet against the US. I invest in the dollar (which is the ONLY place i am making money right now). And now you tell me that a mommy state is going to take my money and give me back an allowance which they determine is adequate for me and give the rest to someone who might be a drug dealer, might drive a foreign car, might do nothing to improve the nation, their community, or society at all.
Everyone should have the right to survive. I agree. Everyone should have the OPPORTUNITY to succeed. But this whole class warfare of the Obama campaign is a direct return to the battles of the Sixties.
I have no problem paying more taxes, I really don't. If it goes to paying down the debt, I am OK with it. If it goes to a massive infrastructure project, I am OK with it. If it goes to a well thought out and comprehensive plan to deal with entitlements, I am OK with it. But is it really hard to understand why I don't want mommy Obama to take my money and give me an allowance and keep some and give you some? Do you not understand why I am opposed to that? If you really don't understand how I feel, you should read Ayn Rand. Either Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged. It is totally over the top, not to be taken literally, but it illustrates why I object to your version of this country and why it is counterproductive and Anti American IMO.
It's not stealing. If you make more money, you keep more. But certain levels are excessive. The habits of the ultra-wealthy are illustrative. Trickle-down does NOT work. The incentive to excel is still there. You will only be taxed for half of your income when you are making absolutely ludicrous amounts. People only complain about this so they can ensure that their offspring will always be ultra-wealthy. I think an entrenched elite, or an aristocracy, is less in line with the American ideal than Socialism.
It's not right for the wealthy to take a larger burden? Isn't it "Unamerican" that 100 million have no insurance, and a further 45 million would be out of luck if they became injured or unemployed?
Norway: Highest taxes; happiest, healthiest people in the world.
Norway: Large amount of brutal slayings from Satanists.
yes, it's stealing. just admit that you want the government to steal from the wealthy. it would be a lot easier to support your beliefs if you just admit that taking half of someone's income is stealing.
why should there be a limit on how much you can make but not on how much the government can take? In the 2006 IRS data, the latest available, the richest 1% (those making above 388,806.00) pay 40% of the income taxes. The bottom 50% pay THREE percent. The 2003 Bush tax cuts caused the largest INCREASE in taxes paid by the richest 1% in the last 40 years. Those people do not likely need social security or Medicare/Medicaid which is what payroll taxes largely fund (inadequately I might add as both are on the brink of insolvency) along with withholding for income taxes so that payroll taxes are merely paying for services needed by the poor, not the rich who pay the most for it. Personally I would means test Social Security but it is hard for the Dem Party to call for this considering the bogus and deceitful way that FDR sold the program as an "insurance program"(calling social security taxes a "premium" etc).
I do not mind paying into social security which i never expect to get back and for Medicaid which I never expect to use. I do not mind paying for social programs. I am happy to pay the costs of living in America which makes possible the life I live. But to take money from me to just give it to someone else is wrong. The wealthy have ALWAYS paid a disproportionately large part of the burden of paying for this country. But who the hell do you think you are, dictating to me what is ludicrous income? It used to be that all Americans aspired to being rich. Now apparently most aspire to being on welfare. You are being disingenuous to the point of lying when you ask if it isn't right for the rich take a larger burden. They already do and always have. That part is fine. They do and should pay to support the country. But pure socialist redistribution of wealth (obama telling "Joe the plumber" he wants to spread the wealth) is NOT OK and not American and no, that is not an acceptable reason to take more of my income away.
So you find it preferable to have a permanently entrenched welfare state? The richest man in this country came from an upper middle class family but nothing to predict being, at 52 the richest man in the country. Number two was born into a run of the mill middle America, middle class family and his main inheritance was the stock market as his father was a stock broker (in 1930, hardly heady days for wall street!). Number three was born in the Bronx to an unwed, 19 year old mother. There is your entrenched aristocracy. Next comes the Walton family who obviously inherited great wealth. Next, Michael Bloomberg was the son of an accountant. Pretty tame middle class stuff there. The Koch brothers inherited a nice size company from their parents, and turned it into the biggest private company in the world. Hardly unearned wealth when they totally out did the work of the previous generation. Michael Dell started a business out of his dorm room and dropped out of college. We know the story of Paul Allen, no inherited wealth there. The Google guys? Brin was a Russian emigre, son of a college professor, and Larry Page also was the son of a college professor in Michigan. There is your entrenched aristocracy. Looks like a meritocracy to me.
Out of luck? You are being doubly disingenuous. If they get hurt go to the hospital, get cared for and never pay for it. The rich taxpayers pay for it. If they lose their job they go on welfare, collect disability, sue the deep pockets whether it be the insurance company or the employer. Out of luck?This is already the dream state of the poor. The standard of living for our lowest paid is higher than most any other nation on earth. Poverty is not a virus that can be cured. It exists in any economic system. We are moving towards universal health care. It is inevitable. I wish the two sides would just get together and trade privatization of social security for universal health care already and get the battle over with. That is what Gingrich and Clinton would have done, indeed tried to do if you believe the author of "The Pact".
lies, damn lies and statistics. The article presented the statistics it was based on. The issue is what you accept and what you don't accept. Your opinion is not based on statistics. Statistics do no prove what level of income is ludicrous or if ANY level is ludicrous. That is your opinion and you can't "prove" it one way or the other. Fair is not something that can be proven by statistics. Our difference in opinions have nothing to do with statistics. I am against redistribution of wealth. You are for it. No stats will prove one right or the other wrong. Besides, if you cared about the argument instead of your silly games, you would not be distorting my words and going for cheap debate points instead of arguing what you believe. I do not have to listen your imperious demands and commands. I give the reasons for my opinion. You want statistics? I don't care. You do not get to dictate rules to me. Unlike you, I am not trying to win a game. I am here to discuss what I believe. You don't believe or agree? Who cares? My responsibility is to state my opinion and give the reasons I hold those opinion. I answer the questions of those who truly question me or who want to know more. I do not have to entertain self impressed smarmy pissants who merely want to antagonize and play little games.
Quote: "What is my incentive to excel if the fruits of my efforts are taken from me?"
When many people participate in production all should receive a share of the production. But how should the fruits of their combined efforts be distributed?
In our current system, the owners of the company - who did NOT participate - get the largest share. After them, senior management, who did not participate, get a share. Then middle management - who may (or may not) have participated receive a share. Eventually the job foreman gets a piece. Finally, whatever is left is distributed to the laborers who did most of the work. As far as distributing the wealth is concerned, I fail to see the difference between this system and slavery.
A better solution would be to break large corporations into many smaller corporations. Remove from banks the power to create money and give it back to the government. Take land from the land owners and require them to rent the land from the community. Now all the profits from rent will go straight back to the community. Smaller companies more evenly divide the fruits of combined labor between workers and managers. And government can create/recall money as needed to benefit society.
Well, Obama is cutting taxes for 95% of the country, and raising them for the 5 % of the super rich. I think it is good of him to support middle and working class families.
I have no problem paying more taxes, I really don't. If it goes to paying down the debt, I am OK with it. If it goes to a massive infrastructure project, I am OK with it. If it goes to a well thought out and comprehensive plan to deal with entitlements, I am OK with it. But is it really hard to understand why I don't want mommy Obama to take my money and give me an allowance and keep some and give you some? Do you not understand why I am opposed to that?
Everyone should have the right to survive. I agree. Everyone should have the OPPORTUNITY to succeed. But this whole class warfare of the Obama campaign is a direct return to the battles of the Sixties.
