The redistribution of your wealth plan.

ID Bronco

Registered User
Location
Idaho Falls, ID
This example is right on! 86% of the total tax revenue taken in by the irs is from 10% of the wealthiest people in America. I am no where near any of them, but last month between federal and state income taxes it was 55%. What the hell? It definately discourages further earnings. Yes, I will work for 45%, but it is demoralizing. I can't even start to respond to all the posts I don't agree with on this thread, but smaller govt is much better and less intervention is better. Free market is the best. If govt. hadn't leaned on lenders and secured them on risky loans we would not have had these problem. In the free market, no one would have loaned 125%+ to people for homes because they would have had to risk it all themselves. But then, that isn't fair, because that waiter or homeless guy "deserves" a home. BS - No one deserves to be a homeowner. You work for it.

Liberalism sucks.
 

waynehartwig

www.jeeperman.com
Location
Mead, WA
How will either candidate pay? Answer, bonds paid by china and increased printing of paper money (inflation). It does not matter who is in office it that respect. Neither candidate has a magic plan. Inflation happens with the increases of paper money in the system more then a increase in the cost of goods. And they are going in now and will continue to do it.

Well, for starters, the one that isn't going to increase spending by $1.4 TRILLION bucks is at a better advantage.

So to entertain the other idea? How would cutting taxes solve the problem? Where would the government get the money if everyone wants something? Roads, Cops, Defense, Government sponsored college programs, oh and that little thing called the national debt???

Cutting taxes creates jobs and prosperiety amongst the people. Proof positive and a fairly recent example, Reagan. Reagan cut programs, cut taxes (70% to 28%) , cut government, etc and even though there were several military conflicts, lowered military spending by 40%. Even though he cut taxes, the tax cut lowered unemployment and put 16 million? people to work, causing the tax base to increase. So much that revenue was only cut by ~1%.

Reagan was very popular, average rating was well into the 60 percentile I believe. He was hard when needed to be. The air traffic strike was a big deal. Something like 12k unionized controllers went on strike. Reagan gave them 24 hours to get back to work, they didn't so he had them all fired. Reagan also faced basically the same problem we are now with the banks failing - savings and loan crisis.
 

ID Bronco

Registered User
Location
Idaho Falls, ID
Reagan stuck to his guns too. Economically he took a public popularity beating for a time while it took effect and the lull after the programs were cut before the increase began. It worked and he ended up the hero. From what I have read, he had MAJOR pressure to cave, but thankfully he didn't. It also took interest rates from 20% to much, much lower rates.
 

Seth

These go to 11
Well, for starters, the one that isn't going to increase spending by $1.4 TRILLION bucks is at a better advantage.



Cutting taxes creates jobs and prosperiety amongst the people. Proof positive and a fairly recent example, Reagan. Reagan cut programs, cut taxes (70% to 28%) , cut government, etc and even though there were several military conflicts, lowered military spending by 40%. Even though he cut taxes, the tax cut lowered unemployment and put 16 million? people to work, causing the tax base to increase. So much that revenue was only cut by ~1%.

Reagan was very popular, average rating was well into the 60 percentile I believe. He was hard when needed to be. The air traffic strike was a big deal. Something like 12k unionized controllers went on strike. Reagan gave them 24 hours to get back to work, they didn't so he had them all fired. Reagan also faced basically the same problem we are now with the banks failing - savings and loan crisis.

I loved Reagan. But understand that cutting expenditures and taxes was only half of what he did. He also tripled the national debt.

I don't want additional spending like you Wayne. But I keep going back to the same issue. The financial system has major issues and how funds are diverted is a real problem that nobody seems to care.
 

Tacoma

Et incurventur ante non
Location
far enough away
I care about it. :mad:

I think we might have turned the corner into an entitlement-mentality dead end though. Too many people think they have a right to too much I think.
 

StrobeNGH

no user title
Location
WB
Okay, the waiter doesn't make more than $250k (or $150k, or $200k, or $300k . . .).


A man walked into RC Willey in SLC. He picked out a $5,000 couch, loaded the couch into his truck, walked out of the store, and handed his $5,000 to a homeless man.

The clerk from RC Willey ran outside and threatened to call the police if the guy didn't pay for the couch. The man said that RC Willey is owned by Warren Buffet, and that not only is Buffet an Obama supporter, but he is on record saying that he doesn't pay enough taxes.
The man explained that the homeless man needed the $5,000 more than Buffet did, so he redistributed his wealth to the homeless man.
"Besides," the man said, "Buffet doesn't pay enough in taxes, so I'm evening things out.

The cops showed up, the man refused to give the $5,000 to the clerk, and the man was arrested and convicted of retail theft, a Class A misdemeanor (punishable by up to 1 year in jail, and/or a $2,500 fine).


If it's a crime to redistribute wealth from Warren Buffet in this way, why is it okay for Obama to do it through taxes?
 

waynehartwig

www.jeeperman.com
Location
Mead, WA
I loved Reagan. But understand that cutting expenditures and taxes was only half of what he did. He also tripled the national debt.

Depending on what you read and who you talk to, the increase in the national debt was because of the bailouts (savings and loan failures) and not his policies.

IMO it was the bailouts. Because it is documented that his tax cuts increased the tax base and only lost the govt 1% of revenue. That's from cutting the 70% tax brackets to (probably by, I don't remember now) 28%, too. We all know that the top 5% earners in this country pay most of the taxes. Reagan dropped their tax bracket and what did they do? They created more jobs. Doing so also drasticly lowered inflation.
 

waynehartwig

www.jeeperman.com
Location
Mead, WA
Reagan stuck to his guns too. Economically he took a public popularity beating for a time while it took effect and the lull after the programs were cut before the increase began. It worked and he ended up the hero. From what I have read, he had MAJOR pressure to cave, but thankfully he didn't. It also took interest rates from 20% to much, much lower rates.

IMO you have to be hated before you can be loved. For beign hated he sure had a high approval rating for most of his terms. I think we really need someone like this again. Obama definately isn't this guy. I'm not sure McCain is, either. Because lately he has caved in on some things to try to secure his position as the president. But I do think that McCain/Palin could do it once elected. Time will tell, though...
 

JoeT

Well-Known Member
Location
Herriman
obamanation.jpg
 

Brett

Meat-Hippy
Fact Check: Palin's Alaska spreads its wealth

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hgSOF08EZJrEAB34f2kJkANBWguAD9454PNG0


By RITA BEAMISH – 20 hours ago

Republicans John McCain and Sarah Palin summon antidemocratic images of a communist state to attack Democrat Barack Obama's tax plan and his comment about spreading the wealth around. But in her home state, Palin embraces Alaska's own version of doing just that.

Palin and McCain seized on a comment Obama made to Ohio plumber Joe Wurzelbacher, who asked about his tax plans.

Obama wants to raise taxes on families earning $250,000 to pay for cutting taxes for the 95 percent of workers and their families making less than $200,000. "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody," he told Wurzelbacher.

McCain said that sounds "a lot like socialism" to many Americans. Palin has derided the Illinois senator as "Barack the Wealth Spreader."

But in Alaska, Palin is the envy of governors nationwide for the annual checks the state doles out to nearly every resident, representing their share of the revenues from the state's oil riches. She boosted those checks this year by raising taxes on oil.

McCain campaign spokesman Taylor Griffin said Thursday that spreading wealth through Obama's tax plan and doing it through Alaska's oil-profit distribution are not comparable because Alaska requires the state's resource wealth to be shared with residents, but it's not taxing personal income.

"It's how the revenue is shared between the oil companies and the state."

A look at Palin's and McCain's comments and the record in Alaska:

THE SPIN:

"Barack Obama calls it spreading the wealth. Joe Biden calls higher taxes patriotic," Palin told a crowd in Roswell, N.M., and elsewhere. "But Joe the Plumber and Ed the Dairyman, I believe they think it sounds more like socialism.

"Friends, now is no time to experiment with socialism."

In Ohio, she asked, "Are there any Joe the Plumbers in the house?" To cheers, she said, "It doesn't sound like you're supporting Barack the Wealth Spreader."

McCain told a radio audience that Obama's plan "would convert the IRS into a giant welfare agency, redistributing massive amounts of wealth at the direction of politicians in Washington."

"Raising taxes on some in order to give checks to others is not a tax cut; it's just another government giveaway."

THE FACTS:

In Alaska, residents pay no income tax or state sales tax. They receive a yearly dividend check from a $30 billion state investment account built largely from royalties on its oil. When home fuel and gas costs soared last year, Palin raised taxes on big oil and used some of the money to boost residents' checks by $1,200. Thus every eligible man, woman and child got a record $3,269 this fall.

She also suspended the 8-cent tax on gas.

"We can afford to share resource wealth with Alaskans and to temporarily suspend the state fuel tax," she said at the time.

Much as Obama explains his tax hike on the rich as a way to help people who are struggling, Palin's statement talked about the energy costs burdening Alaskans:

"While the unique fiscal circumstances the state finds itself in at the end of this fiscal year warrant a special one-time payment to share some of the state's wealth, the payment comes at a time when Alaskans are facing rising energy prices. High prices for oil are a double-edged sword for Alaskans. While public coffers fill, prices for heating fuel and gasoline have skyrocketed over the last six months and are now running into the $5- to $9-a-gallon range for heating fuel and gasoline across several areas of the state."

In an interview with The New Yorker last summer Palin explained that she would make demands of a new gas pipeline "to maximize benefits for Alaskans":

"And Alaska we're set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs."
 

Corban_White

Well-Known Member
Location
Payson, AZ
Sounds reasonable to me. On the one hand, money is taken from those who make more and given to those who make less (bad). On the other hand, a company wishes to profit off of land which belongs to someone else (the people) and are paying a royalty to do so (good). The two are nothing like each other and the latter sounds like a sound business practice.
 

EROK81?

Sell out
Location
SLC
Sounds reasonable to me. On the one hand, money is taken from those who make more and given to those who make less (bad). On the other hand, a company wishes to profit off of land which belongs to someone else (the people) and are paying a royalty to do so (good). The two are nothing like each other and the latter sounds like a sound business practice.


The people that live in Alaska own all of the land in Alaska, even if they don't live on that particular piece of land? I don't think so.
 

waynehartwig

www.jeeperman.com
Location
Mead, WA
Probably all true, I know parts of it are and would have to research the rest.

But here's the thing... Obama is getting richer by raising taxes and Palin cut her salary by 10%, plus cut other spending and taxes in the process.

So either the government can take all of the royalties and spend it on their own agenda, or give it back to the people. Which would you rather see? As of right now, I have a $100 that says Obama would not redistribute all of it.
 

waynehartwig

www.jeeperman.com
Location
Mead, WA
The people that live in Alaska own all of the land in Alaska, even if they don't live on that particular piece of land? I don't think so.

The quote is:

"And Alaska we're set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs."

No where does it state that if I lived there, I owned your land. That statement says that the people of Alaska own the resources that are being sold. The state doesn't, the people do.
 
Top