The redistribution of your wealth plan.

[waynehartwig]

This is a great way to explain the situation to everyone so THEY will understand what is going to happen.



Redistribution of wealth (Author unknown)

Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read 'Vote Obama, I need the money.' I laughed. Once in the restaurant my server had on a 'Obama 08' tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference --- just imagine the coincidence.



When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight. I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.



At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.

 

[Bucking Bronco]

Brilliant

 

[notajeep]

You got that right.

 

[Tacoma]

Someone hangs out at Pirate.

 

[Seth]

That thing pops up every 4 years.

 

[ChestonScout]

That thing pops up every 4 years.

And still rings true

 

[waynehartwig]

I got it from another board....

 

[Induced_Flow]

Long live the constitution!

 

[Utahcryogenics]

While I agree to a certain point the way I understand it is way more complex than your story of the homeless guy and waiter.

According to what I understand neither the waiter or homeless guy would be impacted by Obama's new plan. Chances are the homeless guy nor the waiter make $250k or more a year which means they wouldnt be impacted by the larger tax bracket. The waiter in this case would benefit since he wouldnt have to pay a larger tax and the bum doesnt have any of it to worry about since he doesnt work or pay taxes at all.

Now is this not true?

 

[cannoncrawler]

According to what I understand neither the waiter or homeless guy would be impacted by Obama's new plan. Chances are the homeless guy nor the waiter make $250k or more a year which means they wouldnt be impacted by the larger tax bracket. The waiter in this case would benefit since he wouldnt have to pay a larger tax and the bum doesnt have any of it to worry about since he doesnt work or pay taxes at all.

Now is this not true?

As I see it, the waiter gets a bigger refund funded by the 250k+ guys' tax increase. more govt programs funded by same rich guy provide for homeless guy.

2 people encouraged not to work harder, and 1 punished for doing so. All the while the flow of money from taxes and programs is corrupted and skimmed by corrupt govt leaders on both sides.

 

[waynehartwig]

While I agree to a certain point the way I understand it is way more complex than your story of the homeless guy and waiter.

According to what I understand neither the waiter or homeless guy would be impacted by Obama's new plan. Chances are the homeless guy nor the waiter make $250k or more a year which means they wouldnt be impacted by the larger tax bracket. The waiter in this case would benefit since he wouldnt have to pay a larger tax and the bum doesnt have any of it to worry about since he doesnt work or pay taxes at all.

Now is this not true?

As I see it, the waiter gets a bigger refund funded by the 250k+ guys' tax increase. more govt programs funded by same rich guy provide for homeless guy.

2 people encouraged not to work harder, and 1 punished for doing so. All the while the flow of money from taxes and programs is corrupted and skimmed by corrupt govt leaders on both sides.

The problem is how is Obama going to -
Pay for the first $85 billion bailout?
Pay for the second $700 billion bailout?
Fund his $1.4 TRILLION spending plan?
AND continue paying on the national debt? AND programs already in place?

So yes, in the beginning, I do believe that the under $250k a year crowd will not be effected. BUT!!! In ~6 months the effects will start showing up in increased costs at stores, etc. Then business' will close branchs and lay people off. The govt won't get the taxes it used to and then will come after the under $250k crowd. This will also increase the unemployment rate, increase inflation, and push even more business' out of the country or into bankruptcy.

It's a proven fact that higher taxes kills jobs. And Obama has already stated that he will increase taxes and spending. He's not even trying to hide his agenda.

 

[benjy]

2 people encouraged not to work harder, and 1 punished for doing so.

I agree that this is a common side effect of increased taxes to improve welfare programs. The economics of Germany is a prime example. Their "normal" unemployment rates are around double (top of my head, don't know the figure exactly) that of the US. As we've seen in previous threads, their economy isn't suffering with tax rates and a hefty welfare program... I'm a fan of bigger government, except when it comes to welfare/healthcare

 

[Tacoma]

Why would you be a fan of bigger government?!?!?

 

[Seth]

The problem is how is Obama going to -
Pay for the first $85 billion bailout?
Pay for the second $700 billion bailout?
Fund his $1.4 TRILLION spending plan?
AND continue paying on the national debt? AND programs already in place?

So yes, in the beginning, I do believe that the under $250k a year crowd will not be effected. BUT!!! In ~6 months the effects will start showing up in increased costs at stores, etc. Then business' will close branchs and lay people off. The govt won't get the taxes it used to and then will come after the under $250k crowd. This will also increase the unemployment rate, increase inflation, and push even more business' out of the country or into bankruptcy.

It's a proven fact that higher taxes kills jobs. And Obama has already stated that he will increase taxes and spending. He's not even trying to hide his agenda.

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.

This goes right back to the point I am arguing. Ignore the person in office, the world economy is a much larger animal. You are witness to it right now. All the industrial countries meeting to get a global plan and you think that the marginal tax rate in the US is going to make a dent? Not a chance. Every world power has gone through this when the wealth get too highly centralized the system starts to fall apart. The US is not special, check history it happen over and over.

Secondly, While increased tax rates are difficult for a business to swallow, (I am self employed I know what a pain they are) With all due respect Wayne that is not what will close doors of businesses. What is going to and IS closing doors right now is the retraction of consumer spending. We have lost three locations in the past two months to this. Taxes suck but on margin are workable. An extra $2,500 in taxes you pay on net income is much less then the 20% retraction in spending (gross dollars). (BTW if anyone needs an ATM I have a few hanging out!)

I have been a life long Republican voter, but give me a break. How many people in this country earn over $250,000 in NET INCOME and would see a tax change. I ran my fathers business for several years. We did 2-3 million a year. With the ability to write dam near everything off as business expense he would not get even close to that number. The truth is you have to be making an a$$ load of money to be in that tax bracket. And if you are in that tax bracket get a better account / tax attorney.

And even more, if I was making that kind of coin, skirting as much tax liability as I could the bump in percentage of tax vs the amount of income is nominal. Forget the sound bites, do your own research and use logic.

 

[Utahcryogenics]

I make decent money and in the next 4 years my wife and I might be in the $250k + range. I WAS worried about this until I realised that I wouldnt have to pay the higher tax bracket on everything I made, just the amount over that $250k.

I dont think anyone has the perfect plan. I think there will always be bottom feeders or poor people, middle of the row guys, and rich guys. I just think we need to quit feeding the bottom feeders as much as we already do. As far as i am concerned a homeless guy gets nothing from me.

I dont see anyone cutting welfare, or medicaid and I think that needs to be done. I also think that we should tax churches but I stand alone there too.

As far as politicians skimming from the top comments, etc. Our government is always going to have corruption. For example: If I was a wealthy republican right wing christian I would "donate" a lot of my money to the "church" who doesnt have to report it. This way I dont have to pay the taxes on the money I "donated" and it makes me look like a good guy. Then when I need the money that I "donated" all I need to do is ask for it back from the greedy turd who holds the key. The IRS cant track that money so its washed by the church.

Greedy politicans and scams will always exist and there isnt a thing we can do about it. If you started taxing churches and made them report income then that one thing I mentioned would make it hard(er) to keep in hiding. I would love to audit the churches and see how corrupt they are on the financial end of things. We already know how corrupt they are with their holy terrorism so the financial side wouldnt be that big of a surprise.

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???

 

[Gravy]

Why would you be a fan of bigger government?!?!?

Ya, Why are you a fan of bigger government? Seriously, not being rude at all, I'd like to understand your opinion.

 

[benjy]

Why would you be a fan of bigger government?!?!?

:guilty:

When it comes to big/small gov't,my stance really depends on the issue. Without big gov't, economics, military/law enforcement suffers (IMO). I like how big gov't responds to inflation and recession... However, as previously stated, I despise big gov't healthcare.

 

[Tacoma]

So what you really mean is "as big as necessary, with as few enlargments as possible"????

 

[rollover]

Your story is a prime example of his thinking.

 

[benjy]

So what you really mean is "as big as necessary, with as few enlargments as possible"????

Exactly! I’m pretty new to actually being interested in politics and economics, so if I sound like an idiot, I probably just don’t know what I’m talking about…

Maybe I should clarify so I don’t come off as a socialist:

I think the US has been digging a hole for quite a few years now (and needs to STOP digging), and I would like to see that hole to be filled. Let me define that “hole.”

National Debt. I think the US needs to be more independent from foreign interest. How is this possible? Cut spending, increase taxes=”big government.” There is no responsibility when it comes to the national deficit. If a presidential candidate came into office and focused on the issue, taxes would rise, government spending would decrease, and he would be voted out of office. The next candidate to come in would be seen as a savior because he could reduce taxes and “save the day,” but once again the nat’l deficit would blow up like a balloon. I could be way off on this, might be that the president doesn’t have much of a voice in the matter, but this is what I understand. Yes, I favored the bailout plan. Why? Because I think that big government will be able to correct what has been the demise of our economic system. I have stated quite often that this will need to be HEAVILY regulated, once again, more big government.

Corporate scandals: Between Worldcom, Enron, Xerox and others, there is waaaay too much freedom to be had in the accounting and auditing world. The SEC needs to come down with a strong hand and put a stop to these massive scandals. I think the 2002 KPMG scandal should have brought them down, just like Arthur Anderson came down with the Enron issue. How do we fix that? Big government.

Healthcare: I think the $800B the US spends annually on healthcare is sufficient, some efficiency could be beneficiary. (I’m not exactly sure if that means I’m for or against big government)

Education: I think the US should DUMP money into education, and I’m willing to pay the taxes to do so. An improved education system would provide a higher standard of living, thus cutting expenses in other areas of gov't spending…=big government.