Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by mikey, Feb 26, 2009.
The Associated Press: Obama seeks higher taxes on rich to pay for plan
what do you want from a guy whose first budget is 50% deficit spending
Good. They'll pay more in tax, but then be able to invest in health care providers who will have more business, and the rich will be okay. No need to worry about them.
Worse is the cap and trade plan :
Obama wants to raise money via pollution caps: reports
which is said to raise up to $112 Billion by 2012 and be spread out to whoever Barry wants - but the $112 B will be coming from businesses. The same businesses that need profits to keep our investments up and the same businesses that need money to hire people.
Ah well, we knew it was coming.
The question is, Will Obama's approach generate a vibrant alternative eneregy business sector that will support the economy in the same way the internet supported the economy. Obviously, Obama is betting it will. Old industries may struggle, but new ones will crop up. We saw a similar phenomenon under Clinton, when the best investments were in the new business sectors.
With the current economic situation do you really want to tax "old industries" even more with the hope that new ones will arise ? Especially when cap & trade by itself doesn't stimulate anything it just takes a piece out of the profit margin.
I am a little confused.
If the rich pay more in taxes, where will they get the money to invest in health care providers?
Are you serious?
No, just confused.
I think he's saying the extra taxes the rich would pay would then be used by the government for additional health care monies that will, in theory, create more jobs in that sector. I don't buy it but I think that's what he's saying.
When the "rich" have no more money to tax, who will they turn to next? :confused2:
Class warfare anyone? Nah...
Yeah no kidding. Some chap put it best on the Howie Carr show last night... when the beneficiaries outnumber the contributors, there will be nowhere left to pull from. Worse yet, in that scenario, the beneficiaries will continue to vote in those who promise them the most. Just look at the last few elections, it was all about what each candidate could do for them.
I for one save my compassion for the poor, not the rich, because I believe that taxes should come out of disposable income, not the money people need for basic things such as rent, food, clothing, education, and health care. That I suppose is where we fundamentally disagree. Conservatives see the right to buy gold toilet fixtures as important as the right to afford food on one's table. (My mother-in-law visited, I think it's the Reynold's estate, and saw genuine gold or gold-plated toilet fixtures in the house.)
But, I also think that the rich benefit most from a strong economy, and if the economy recovers, then their investment returns will easily cover their tax bill. I remember reading that in the first Bush recession (okay, it started under Clinton), billionaires managed to gain 2% in the market, while the rest of us lost around 7%. So don't worry about the wealthy; they know how to take care of themselves.
I also have compassion for the poor, I contribute in multiple ways through my church and community. I don't worry about the wealthy. They should pay their share, I agree. But the argument is over how fair their share is. Some say it's 60%, some say it should be the same among all income levels. I don't really have a problem, in theory, with the income tax bracket system we have. I think if someone can afford more they should pay some more - to an extent. And if they can prove they're investing the money in business, charity, or some other social interest, maybe they should get a tax credit (which they do now).
I see this whenever people here say that they are opposed to class warfare or something similar; someone will pipe up and say "oh well don't worry about the rich, they don't need sticking for" or "well I am more concerned about the poor." That may be how anti-class warfare people come off, but it's not accurate (at least not in my case, and the case of many others I know). We're concerned about society. A society that is run like that does not seem to be sustainable. I'm not rich by any means. Would I love more money? Of course. Do I think it should be taken from someone else and given to me because that's "fair"? Not at all. I would have MUCH less incentive to work hard and try to succeed. So a society with less incentive to to try and better themselves will eventually lag behind and stumble.
The billionaires aren't really being taxed. Do you think the $250k salaried employee has gold plated toilets and has that much in liquid investments?
No, but I also think the Democrats will not tax those earning $250k a year as much as they will tax those earning more. Congress will see to that if Obama doesn't.
ALL this uproar about BO letting the Bush tax cuts expire. Thats all thats happening taxes will go back to the Clinton years. So there are no EXTRA taxes hitting the rich.
That's not true as he is also limiting deductions on those making over $250. You may not call it "no extra taxes" but if you end up paying more in taxes because of it, it is still a tax increase.
What i have said is what i've heard and read over and over again from multiple sources,and not Lt wing rags (i don't know what they are). That taxes are going back to pre Bush years. Those over 250 K would go back to what they were paying pre. Bush this is being portraid by the RT. as some big tax hike when in reality it isn't from what i understand.
Let me ask you a question BF your not rich and neither is my brother in law. In fact he barely has to nickles to rub together but hes a staunch conservative. My sister who is a financial analyst and who pays all the bills is a dem. With all that being said why do you and my br in law so ardently support people who you have nothing, nada in common with.
Separate names with a comma.