Obama's "redistribution of wealth"

[Archie]

and if that one doesn't do it for you try this,

You are funny.

[pjsnyc]

Define: "unbiased media." Is that even possible?

You're right actually - theoretically I suppose its impossible to be unbiased. However it is possible to consciously be as fair as possible - something FOX and NBC have failed to do. CNN touts itself as center, but its pretty clear that they lean left (heavily at times). In any case, I guess my point is that it'd be nice to post a devil's advocate view alongside any biased news source to balance things out at least a little bit...OR go to non-partisan news sources such as NPR, PBS, BBC, and such.

What I'm upset about right now is the American public's failure to acknowledge the fact that the big companies with millionaire CEOs are the ones that are getting the tax breaks while at the same time outsource their jobs overseas. Anyone ever call up tech support (Dell or Sprint in my case sometimes) only to get a guy from India reading out of a manual?

[sandtrap]

Have you heard the new term for the people who get hit the hardest from the Obama proposal?

Henry

High Earners Not Rich Yet

In other words people who to work every day and EARN their money.
What everyone fails to see is how a percentage works.

let's say we all pay 17% income tax.
Simple numbers
a guy makes $10m pays $1700 but in reality pays $0

b guy makes $100m pays $17,000 But in reality pays $29,000

c guy makes $1mm pays $170,000 but in reality pays $390,000

isn't $170,000 more that the other guys? does he get his own lane on the highway?
The funny thing (not really) is the guy who paid 0 got a "tax rebate" of $600 and the guy who paid $390,000 didn't get a check at all. How do you rebate to someone who didn't pay the tax in the first place

got to go back to work now and redistribute my wealth, I'm going to be sick

[iacas]

Just curious, is there a particular reason why you are undecided? What issues are most important to you?

Too many to list here. I'm with the Democrats on some things and with the Republicans on others. Hence, undecided.

[immts007]

Yeah, if it was 95% at $250k, what is it at $150k? 75%? Less?

Oh come on. You all know that Biden fumbled on his words again. Don't be disingenuous. Plain and simple: The Obama tax plan has the top two income brackets reverting to what they where under Clinton. That's it.

[Smallville]

Oh come on. You all know that Biden fumbled on his words again. Don't be disingenuous. Plain and simple: The Obama tax plan has the top two income brackets reverting to what they where under Clinton. That's it.

Maybe we can give you Biden. But Obama still changed from $250,000 to $200,000. I see it going a lot lower than that. Like $50,000. Maybe less.

[misty_mountainhop]

As a Brit, it's interesting reading comment on your upcoming election. I'm surprised the majority so far seem to be anti-Obama; if I'd had to put up with Bush for the last 8 years, the Republicans are the last people on earth I'd vote for. What do I know but I'll be watching with interest!

[iacas]

Oh come on. You all know that Biden fumbled on his words again. Don't be disingenuous.

Two responses:

Smallville gives me one:

Maybe we can give you Biden. But Obama still changed from $250,000 to $200,000.

Two: I don't care enough about Obama's plan to cut taxes to really care where the barrier is set. I was just saying: he's made a big deal out of 95% = $250k. Where's that percentage fall at $200k? $150k?

As a Brit, it's interesting reading comment on your upcoming election. I'm surprised the majority so far seem to be anti-Obama; if I'd had to put up with Bush for the last 8 years, the Republicans are the last people on earth I'd vote for. What do I know but I'll be watching with interest!

No, you're just in the wrong thread. There are several other pro-Obama ones.

And personally, I'm not anti-Obama. Anti-Bill Burton and Pro-Fox Hottie, maybe.

[rudygu]

If trickle down economics hasnt worked recently, How can you say that it is the only method to produce a healthy economy?

Two reasons:

1) If you raise taxes on corporations and individuals who earn more than $150k (including many, many small businesses) they will simply pass the additional cost on to the consumer and look for ways to cut costs that could include downsizing their workforce and/or moving jobs to other countries. Neither of those results will help the economy. 2) Increasing the tax rate on higher earners is tantamount to punishing them for success and rewarding others for mediocrity. I see this all the time with my wife. She works at a state job as an accountant. Being a state job, there are limited opportunities for pay increases and bonuses and they are given out equally to all employees regardless of their job duties and how well they perform them. In addition to this no one is ever really punished for not performing their job duties. More often than not, the duties they are not performing (or can not perform due to ineptitude) are passed along to those who can and will do them. This can only go on for so long before the competent, hard-working employees grow tired of it and leave to find a more rewarding workplace or decide that since there is no benefit to performing a job well they will just do their jobs in a half-ass manner like everyone else and continue to receive the same incentives.

...as a STILL undecided voter...

Why is it you are undecided? I am curious as to how there can still be so many undecided voters at this point in this election. To me, these two candidates could not be more different. It's true that they both set up pretty much along their party lines and most Americans don't neccessarily fit squarely into one party, but at this point I would have thought we knew enough about these guys to know which one was closer to our personal ideals. I consider myself a Libertarian and don't support either party 100% to be sure, and neither candidate is who I voted for in the primary. But given the choice between two candidates on opposite ends of the political spectrum, it didn't take me long to determine which one's ideas were closer to my own.

*EDIT* you responded to a similar question while I was typing this - please disregard.

[misty_mountainhop]

And personally, I'm not anti-Obama. Anti-Bill Burton and Pro-Fox Hottie, maybe.

Ha! Yes, I saw her; perfectly understandable!

[Grogger31]

Why is it you are undecided? I am curious as to how there can still be so many undecided voters at this point in this election. To me, these two candidates could not be more different. It's true that they both set up pretty much along their party lines and most Americans don't neccessarily fit squarely into one party, but at this point I would have thought we knew enough about these guys to know which one was closer to our personal ideals. I consider myself a Libertarian and don't support either party 100% to be sure, and neither candidate is who I voted for in the primary. But given the choice between two candidates on opposite ends of the political spectrum, it didn't take me long to determine which one's ideas were closer to my own.

One take on undecided voters

[immts007]

Maybe we can give you Biden. But Obama still changed from $250,000 to $200,000. I see it going a lot lower than that. Like $50,000. Maybe less.

How so, Smallville? Do you have inside information? How do you see these things?

I don't think much of anything has changed. I believe (based on available information) that at $200k and below, you would see a cut, from $200k to $250k things remain the same. And and above $250k & $370k the brackets go from 33% and 35% to 36% and 39% respectively.

[Smallville]

How so, Smallville? Do you have inside information? How do you see these things?

You won't see a cut. But he says he won't raise taxes either. BUT he's going to let the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010, so expect to see your tax rates go back to the levels when Clinton was President. Getting rid of a tax cut is a tax increase, if not by name.

You don't see that anything has changed? Obama himself has changed form saying $250,000 to $200,000. Is that not change? If it isn't, please tell me how the two amounts are the same.

[T.J.K.]

Ytax rates go back to the levels when Clinton was President.

Were we not doing pretty well then?

Here is the last thing I read about the tax break down under Obama Per the Tax Policy Center, here is how Obama's tax plan breaks down for individuals: $0-$18,891 = $567 tax cut $18,982-$37,595 = $892 tax cut $37,596-$66,354 = $1,118 tax cut $66,355-$111,645 = $1,264 tax cut $111,646-$160,972 = $2,135 tax cut $160,973-$226,918 = $2,796 tax cut $226,919-$603,402 = $121 tax increase $603,403-$2.87 million = $93,709 tax increase $2.87 million-plus = $542,882 tax increase

[Grogger31]

You don't see that anything has changed? Obama himself has changed form saying $250,000 to $200,000. Is that not change? If it isn't, please tell me how the two amounts are the same.

Ugh ...

It is $200K for singles, $250K for married filing jointly. That has never changed. It has been in his plan on his website (unchanged) for months. Obviously, Obama uses the $250K number since it is higher ... he is, after all, a politician.

[immts007]

You won't see a cut. But he says he won't raise taxes either. BUT he's going to let the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010, so expect to see your tax rates go back to the levels when Clinton was President. Getting rid of a tax cut is a tax increase, if not by name.

Semantics, Smallville. His tax proprosals have remained consistent:

Looking forward, Obama's actual tax plan would indeed allow Bush tax cuts to expire, but only for the top two income tax brackets. Those would revert to pre-Bush levels, and the brackets would be adjusted if necessary to ensure that they include only individuals making more than $200,000 per year, or couples making more than $250,000. (

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...tax_hooey.html

[T.J.K.]

I heard a pretty crazy statistic the other day.

1% of the top earners in America make more than the bottom 90% in America.

That's crazy IMO

[pjsnyc]

Forgot to add that under Obama's plan, those big corporations that will see tax increases can hire American workers for a tax credit. I'm still baffled at how patriotic Americans can side with conglomerates that hire overseas workers.