Joe the Plumber

[mraynrand]

The problem is that Robin Hood leads the polls by 4%.....

Is that because the public doesn't know about Friar Tuck?

[mraynrand]

Seems like a regular guy. Nice dog too.

[arcilite]

Not trying to stir the pot. But Im getting the feeling you all are against Obama's tax policy because he taxes the 'very rich' more compared to those less fortunate. And you also have a problem with how he wants to expand welfare programs.


Just a few thing I have been thinking about:

1. I have grown up with the line of though, the more money I make, the more I will pay in taxes.

What is wrong with that?

2. What is wrong with welfare systems? Everyone compalins about the 'teenagers and people just poppin out babies to get more checks' But that is at the very end of the spectrum. There are some really good programs out there, and some of my relatives are on them, I would love them to see more funding.

[LL2]

Not trying to stir the pot. But Im getting the feeling you all are against Obama's tax policy because he taxes the 'very rich' more compared to those less fortunate. And you also have a problem with how he wants to expand welfare programs.


Just a few thing I have been thinking about:

1. I have grown up with the line of though, the more money I make, the more I will pay in taxes.

What is wrong with that?

2. What is wrong with welfare systems? Everyone compalins about the 'teenagers and people just poppin out babies to get more checks' But that is at the very end of the spectrum. There are some really good programs out there, and some of my relatives are on them, I would love them to see more funding.

Point #1 - Yes, the more you make you will pay more in taxes, but fairness should be based on the percentage rate.

Point #2 - Nothing wrong with the right welfare programs, but wouldn't you want to see your relatives get off of them.

[arcilite]

Not trying to stir the pot. But Im getting the feeling you all are against Obama's tax policy because he taxes the 'very rich' more compared to those less fortunate. And you also have a problem with how he wants to expand welfare programs.


Just a few thing I have been thinking about:

1. I have grown up with the line of though, the more money I make, the more I will pay in taxes.

What is wrong with that?

2. What is wrong with welfare systems? Everyone compalins about the 'teenagers and people just poppin out babies to get more checks' But that is at the very end of the spectrum. There are some really good programs out there, and some of my relatives are on them, I would love them to see more funding.

Point #1 - Yes, the more you make you will pay more in taxes, but fairness should be based on the percentage rate.

Point #2 - Nothing wrong with the right welfare programs, but wouldn't you want to see your relatives get off of them.

Back to #1. A percentage rate just would not work. That is a regressive tax. It hurts the less wealthy more.

#2. Yes I want to see them off them. But getting rid of the programs or decreasing their value is not the way to do it.

[retailguy]

Arcilite,

How much is too much? seriously. at some point "taxing the wealthy" doesn't work any longer. Why should I bust my ass to make money to give it all to the Gov't? I might as well retire, and live off my earnings to control my tax burden.

When Carter was in office the highest marginal rate was approaching 70%, I believe. When Reagan got into office he sliced the tax rates to a maximum of 28%, or 33% with the deduction recapture, and tax revenues went UP. Why? Because the rich went back to working.

The rich are a funny breed Arcilite. They're all about making money. For most of them, it's a trophy, and accomplishment. Some also take great pride in providing jobs, and teaching others to achieve what they have achieved. Still others take great pride in giving it away. Let the few who don't keep it, it isn't really any different from some of the poor, some of which WANT to be that way and don't want help.... We should let those people be as well.

This class warfare stuff is so stupid. If you continue to think of the world as a "zero sum game" as Obama does, then well, that's what you get. If you get your ass out of the way and let those who know how to do something, do it, then EVERYONE benefits.

Currently, the top 50% of income earners pay the vast majority of Federal Income Taxes. It already is progressive. No need to make it worse. No need at all. They already ARE paying more, and enough is enough.

[arcilite]

Arcilite,

How much is too much? seriously. at some point "taxing the wealthy" doesn't work any longer. Why should I bust my ass to make money to give it all to the Gov't? I might as well retire, and live off my earnings to control my tax burden.

When Carter was in office the highest marginal rate was approaching 70%, I believe. When Reagan got into office he sliced the tax rates to a maximum of 28%, or 33% with the deduction recapture, and tax revenues went UP. Why? Because the rich went back to working.

The rich are a funny breed Arcilite. They're all about making money. For most of them, it's a trophy, and accomplishment. Some also take great pride in providing jobs, and teaching others to achieve what they have achieved. Still others take great pride in giving it away. Let the few who don't keep it, it isn't really any different from some of the poor, some of which WANT to be that way and don't want help.... We should let those people be as well.

This class warfare stuff is so stupid. If you continue to think of the world as a "zero sum game" as Obama does, then well, that's what you get. If you get your ass out of the way and let those who know how to do something, do it, then EVERYONE benefits.

Currently, the top 50% of income earners pay the vast majority of Federal Income Taxes. It already is progressive. No need to make it worse. No need at all. They already ARE paying more, and enough is enough.

Well in a perfect world that is awesome. But someone has to pay taxes. And right now the lower-middle class people are hurting so it is time to shift some of that burden to the upper class.

[sheepshead]

Arcilite,

How much is too much? seriously. at some point "taxing the wealthy" doesn't work any longer. Why should I bust my ass to make money to give it all to the Gov't? I might as well retire, and live off my earnings to control my tax burden.

When Carter was in office the highest marginal rate was approaching 70%, I believe. When Reagan got into office he sliced the tax rates to a maximum of 28%, or 33% with the deduction recapture, and tax revenues went UP. Why? Because the rich went back to working.

The rich are a funny breed Arcilite. They're all about making money. For most of them, it's a trophy, and accomplishment. Some also take great pride in providing jobs, and teaching others to achieve what they have achieved. Still others take great pride in giving it away. Let the few who don't keep it, it isn't really any different from some of the poor, some of which WANT to be that way and don't want help.... We should let those people be as well.

This class warfare stuff is so stupid. If you continue to think of the world as a "zero sum game" as Obama does, then well, that's what you get. If you get your ass out of the way and let those who know how to do something, do it, then EVERYONE benefits.

Currently, the top 50% of income earners pay the vast majority of Federal Income Taxes. It already is progressive. No need to make it worse. No need at all. They already ARE paying more, and enough is enough.

Well in a perfect world that is awesome. But someone has to pay taxes. And right now the lower-middle class people are hurting so it is time to shift some of that burden to the upper class.

How much federal income tax does a middle class family, say making 75k, interest deductions, 2-3 kids, medical deductions, etc? How much is their fed income tax bill? Id say less than $1000. We all need to pay something wouldnt you agree. Below that income range they pay nothing. It's typical democrat election year bunk, designed to get them in power. I dont think it's going to work this time.

[arcilite]

Arcilite,

How much is too much? seriously. at some point "taxing the wealthy" doesn't work any longer. Why should I bust my ass to make money to give it all to the Gov't? I might as well retire, and live off my earnings to control my tax burden.

When Carter was in office the highest marginal rate was approaching 70%, I believe. When Reagan got into office he sliced the tax rates to a maximum of 28%, or 33% with the deduction recapture, and tax revenues went UP. Why? Because the rich went back to working.

The rich are a funny breed Arcilite. They're all about making money. For most of them, it's a trophy, and accomplishment. Some also take great pride in providing jobs, and teaching others to achieve what they have achieved. Still others take great pride in giving it away. Let the few who don't keep it, it isn't really any different from some of the poor, some of which WANT to be that way and don't want help.... We should let those people be as well.

This class warfare stuff is so stupid. If you continue to think of the world as a "zero sum game" as Obama does, then well, that's what you get. If you get your ass out of the way and let those who know how to do something, do it, then EVERYONE benefits.

Currently, the top 50% of income earners pay the vast majority of Federal Income Taxes. It already is progressive. No need to make it worse. No need at all. They already ARE paying more, and enough is enough.

Well in a perfect world that is awesome. But someone has to pay taxes. And right now the lower-middle class people are hurting so it is time to shift some of that burden to the upper class.

How much federal income tax does a middle class family, say making 75k, interest deductions, 2-3 kids, medical deductions, etc? How much is their fed income tax bill? Id say less than $1000. We all need to pay something wouldnt you agree. Below that income range they pay nothing. It's typical democrat election year bunk, designed to get them in power. I dont think it's going to work this time.

Exactly.

Which is why people that make more than them pay more money.

I don't see what the deal is.

[GoPackGo]

To me the scariest of the tax issue is raising taxes on big business. Obama repeatly brings up Exxon oil company. If you raise the taxes they pay, they will pass that tax hike onto everyone in the country who uses oil. Gas prices will go up for you and I. Gas prices will go up for every company who uses gas. Every company who uses gas will pass that cost onto the consumer of their product, you. In the end the little low and middle class people end up paying more money for gas and the products they buy.
Raising the taxes on businesses can also cause businesses to panic and lay people off. Either way, the low and middle class is going to get screwed by raising taxes, either out of their money or their jobs.

[texaspackerbacker]

Arcilite, you provided a civil and rational argument in favor of progressive taxation. The only factual disagreement I have is where you stated that taxing the rich "equally", percentage-wise, is "regressive" because it "doesn't hurt them as much". That's definitely NOT the definition of regressive tax. Regressive would, of course, be having lower levels of income pay a HIGHER percentage.

Just as obviously, we already have a PROGRESSIVE tax system--and unless you're over a hundred years old, THAT is what you grew up with.

What Obama is proposing goes way beyond mere progressive taxation--which even the most staunch conservatives grudgingly accept these days. He wants to go back to the pre-Reagan days of CONFISCATORY taxes and redistribution of wealth, which even putting the fairness argument aside, would have a very deleterious effect on the economy, and which would end up harming everybody. You need only to consider the Jimmy Carter years--which culminated two decades of Obama-esque policies.

[arcilite]

Arcilite, you provided a civil and rational argument in favor of progressive taxation. The only factual disagreement I have is where you stated that taxing the rich "equally", percentage-wise, is "regressive" because it "doesn't hurt them as much". That's definitely NOT the definition of regressive tax. Regressive would, of course, be having lower levels of income pay a HIGHER percentage.

I didn't say that. Having a percentage tax (I understood it as meaning a flat tax rate) hurts the less wealthy MUCH MORE than it does anyone else. The flat tax will raise income inequality and create a wider gap between the richer and the poor. Something that (if your on the rich side, is not bad at all) does not help advance society.

[sheepshead]

Arcilite,

How much is too much? seriously. at some point "taxing the wealthy" doesn't work any longer. Why should I bust my ass to make money to give it all to the Gov't? I might as well retire, and live off my earnings to control my tax burden.

When Carter was in office the highest marginal rate was approaching 70%, I believe. When Reagan got into office he sliced the tax rates to a maximum of 28%, or 33% with the deduction recapture, and tax revenues went UP. Why? Because the rich went back to working.

The rich are a funny breed Arcilite. They're all about making money. For most of them, it's a trophy, and accomplishment. Some also take great pride in providing jobs, and teaching others to achieve what they have achieved. Still others take great pride in giving it away. Let the few who don't keep it, it isn't really any different from some of the poor, some of which WANT to be that way and don't want help.... We should let those people be as well.

This class warfare stuff is so stupid. If you continue to think of the world as a "zero sum game" as Obama does, then well, that's what you get. If you get your ass out of the way and let those who know how to do something, do it, then EVERYONE benefits.

Currently, the top 50% of income earners pay the vast majority of Federal Income Taxes. It already is progressive. No need to make it worse. No need at all. They already ARE paying more, and enough is enough.

Well in a perfect world that is awesome. But someone has to pay taxes. And right now the lower-middle class people are hurting so it is time to shift some of that burden to the upper class.

How much federal income tax does a middle class family, say making 75k, interest deductions, 2-3 kids, medical deductions, etc? How much is their fed income tax bill? Id say less than $1000. We all need to pay something wouldnt you agree. Below that income range they pay nothing. It's typical democrat election year bunk, designed to get them in power. I dont think it's going to work this time.

Exactly.

Which is why people that make more than them pay more money.

I don't see what the deal is.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119786208643933077.html

They do, always have , always will.

[texaspackerbacker]

Arcilite, you provided a civil and rational argument in favor of progressive taxation. The only factual disagreement I have is where you stated that taxing the rich "equally", percentage-wise, is "regressive" because it "doesn't hurt them as much". That's definitely NOT the definition of regressive tax. Regressive would, of course, be having lower levels of income pay a HIGHER percentage.

I didn't say that. Having a percentage tax (I understood it as meaning a flat tax rate) hurts the less wealthy MUCH MORE than it does anyone else. The flat tax will raise income inequality and create a wider gap between the richer and the poor. Something that (if your on the rich side, is not bad at all) does not help advance society.

This line is extracted from your post earlier on this page: "That is a regressive tax. It hurts the less wealthy more."

You may well be right in saying that flat tax hurts the lower levels more than the upper levels (although most of the specific flat tax programs out there have provisions to protect low income people), but my point is simply, you are wrong in calling that "regressive"--a word which has a different meaning altogether than "who it hurts most".

[arcilite]

Arcilite, you provided a civil and rational argument in favor of progressive taxation. The only factual disagreement I have is where you stated that taxing the rich "equally", percentage-wise, is "regressive" because it "doesn't hurt them as much". That's definitely NOT the definition of regressive tax. Regressive would, of course, be having lower levels of income pay a HIGHER percentage.

I didn't say that. Having a percentage tax (I understood it as meaning a flat tax rate) hurts the less wealthy MUCH MORE than it does anyone else. The flat tax will raise income inequality and create a wider gap between the richer and the poor. Something that (if your on the rich side, is not bad at all) does not help advance society.

This line is extracted from your post earlier on this page: "That is a regressive tax. It hurts the less wealthy more."

You may well be right in saying that flat tax hurts the lower levels more than the upper levels (although most of the specific flat tax programs out there have provisions to protect low income people), but my point is simply, you are wrong in calling that "regressive"--a word which has a different meaning altogether than "who it hurts most".

If the people who have lower income levels pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes compared to the wealthy, how is that not regressive?