min0 lee

This thread is dedicated to Busy, because I care.

Main Street - WSJ.com

On Saturday night at the Saddleback Church in Southern California, Rick Warren showed Jim, Gwen, Tom, Bob and Co. what a presidential moderator can accomplish when he makes the debate about the candidates and not himself.
Over the course of a two-hour, televised forum, the best-selling evangelical author and pastor took a novel approach to our presidential debates. He asked Barack Obama and John McCain the same simple questions -- and then gave them time to answer.
AP Barack Obama and John McCain with Pastor Rick Warren, Aug. 16.
For example, here is how Mr. Warren asked the candidates to talk about their flip-flops: "Give me a good example of something, 10 years ago, you said that's the way I feel about [it] and now, 10 years later, I changed my position."
Likewise on abortion: "I know this is a very complex issue. Forty million abortions, at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?" And again on the Supreme Court: "Which existing Supreme Court Justice would you not have nominated?"
These are not your standard-issue Beltway questions, and their directness made them hard to evade. Nowhere was this more evident than in Mr. Warren's attempt to get the candidates -- both of whom are trying to persuade the American people they are tax cutters -- to draw some fundamental distinctions between their approaches. In simple but arresting language, he cut to the chase.
Here's how he put it: "OK. Taxes. Define rich. I mean give me a number. Is it $50,000, $100,000, $200,000? Everybody keeps talking about who we're going to tax. How can you define that?"
Plainly this is a man who understands that it is easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle than to get a direct answer from a politician running for election. And indeed, while Mr. McCain was at first shy about giving a specific number, in the end he did allow that someone who had an income of, say, $5 million could pretty definitely be said to be rich.
Yesterday's Politico hooted that with this response Mr. McCain handed his opponent the perfect fodder for a TV commercial. That, of course, overlooks those who might actually find attractive Mr. McCain's fuller explanation. "I don't want to take any money from the rich," he said, "I want everybody to get rich."
Mr. Obama, by contrast, started out much more directly, suggesting that if you make $150,000 or less you may be poor or middle class. A family with an income above $250,000, he went on to say, is "doing well." And if you find yourself in that category, he's going to target you for a tax hike -- all in the name of creating "a sense of balance, and fairness in our tax code."
In fact, the idea of fairness is at the heart of his whole economic argument. And he goes back to it in almost every public appearance.
He talks about it as a general theme: "It is time for folks like me who make more than $250,000 to pay our fair share."
He invokes it as a solution for Social Security: "[W]e will save Social Security for future generations by asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share."
He points to how it guides his energy policy: "The first part of my plan is to tax the windfall profits of oil companies and use some of that money to help you pay the rising price of gas."
And he stuck to it on capital gains, even after ABC's Charlie Gibson noted that the record shows increased taxes on capital gains -- which would affect 100 million Americans -- would likely lead to a decrease in government revenues: "Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness."
Translated into ordinary English, what that means is that it doesn't really matter whether a tax increase actually brings in more revenue. It's not about robbing from the rich to give to the poor. Robbing from the rich will do, especially if it's done in the name of fairness.
Now there are good reasons Mr. Obama is not likely to pursue the revenue side of the fairness question. As this newspaper noted in a recent editorial, the latest data from the Internal Revenue Service does not show to Mr. Obama's advantage. As we come to the end of the Bush administration, the top 1% of American taxpayers already pay 40% of all income taxes -- the highest level in 40 years. The top 10% of income earners pay 71% of the taxes.
Mr. Warren, a man of the cloth, has done us a great service by asking the candidates to answer a pretty secular question: What kind of income makes an American "rich"? Maybe in the more secular setting of an upcoming debate, one of our nonpastor moderators could ask the candidates the moral question: What specific rate of individual taxation would it take for the rich to be paying their fair share?
Write to MainStreet@wsj.com1

bio-chem

Mr. Obama, by contrast, started out much more directly, suggesting that if you make $150,000 or less you may be poor or middle class. A family with an income above $250,000, he went on to say, is "doing well." And if you find yourself in that category, he's going to target you for a tax hike -- all in the name of creating "a sense of balance, and fairness in our tax code."
In fact, the idea of fairness is at the heart of his whole economic argument. And he goes back to it in almost every public appearance.
He talks about it as a general theme: "It is time for folks like me who make more than $250,000 to pay our fair share."
He invokes it as a solution for Social Security: "[W]e will save Social Security for future generations by asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share."
He points to how it guides his energy policy: "The first part of my plan is to tax the windfall profits of oil companies and use some of that money to help you pay the rising price of gas."
And he stuck to it on capital gains, even after ABC's Charlie Gibson noted that the record shows increased taxes on capital gains -- which would affect 100 million Americans -- would likely lead to a decrease in government revenues: "Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness."
Translated into ordinary English, what that means is that it doesn't really matter whether a tax increase actually brings in more revenue. It's not about robbing from the rich to give to the poor. Robbing from the rich will do, especially if it's done in the name of fairness.
Now there are good reasons Mr. Obama is not likely to pursue the revenue side of the fairness question. As this newspaper noted in a recent editorial, the latest data from the Internal Revenue Service does not show to Mr. Obama's advantage. As we come to the end of the Bush administration, the top 1% of American taxpayers already pay 40% of all income taxes -- the highest level in 40 years. The top 10% of income earners pay 71% of the taxes.
Mr. Warren, a man of the cloth, has done us a great service by asking the candidates to answer a pretty secular question: What kind of income makes an American "rich"? Maybe in the more secular setting of an upcoming debate, one of our nonpastor moderators could ask the candidates the moral question: What specific rate of individual taxation would it take for the rich to be paying their fair share?

WOW. i love it.

min0 lee

You do?

bio-chem

the tone of the article is what I love. there are some real questions that people need to ask themselves. is it fair for the top 1 percent of wage earners to pay 70% of the taxes. obama's plan calls for raising a tax that will lower government revenue. when asked about that his answer was "to be fair". I would love a direct answer on how one can logically look at this and say this is what we need?

danzik17

I think you're missing the part where the top 10% wage earners pay 70% of taxes because those top 10% have seen their wages increase enormously compared to that of the rest of us.

Ron Paul 2012

Journal: Boom goes the dynamite

KelJu

bio-chem

have their wages gone up by 70%? and if there wages have gone up Im more than ok with that. they are creating something. these guys doing their jobs ensures we have jobs. Isner made all that money and the rest of the Disney employees kept cashing their paychecks.

danzik17

If they're earning it, sure. What about all of those CEOs of failing companies who still receive massive compensation? Golden Parachutes?

I don't have the statistics research available atm (read: I don't feel like googling it), but typical executive pay for a midsize/large corporation is something like 200 times what a "normal" employee would make. Typical pay back in the 1960s was around 25 times what a normal employee would make. It's important to reference the 60s here since the 70s and 80s were really the beginning the the modern growing salary gap due to inflation in that period.

Ron Paul 2012

Journal: Boom goes the dynamite

bio-chem

so the government should interfere in that as well? It's not fair that this CEO makes millions of dollars. he should pay for my health care with his taxes. BS

danzik17

Way to put words in my mouth. Done with this debate now since this is how these stupid pissfests start.

Ron Paul 2012

Journal: Boom goes the dynamite

PreMier

i am on track to start making 250+ in the next year.. and for me to have to pay more taxes just because i work harder and smarter than the average american is bullshit IMO. every person out there can make a lot of money, its a decision.. the problem is people are lazy

P-side Inc.

"the post-workout high is more profound than any drug-induced rush imaginable." -Dante B.

Dale Mabry

No, they should only interfere when these companies collapse to bailout all of the people making bad decisions. If you are a bus driver that makes a bad decision and gets into an accident, you are fired with no compensation, and that is the way it should be. Don't you find it odd that these CEOs driving these companies into the ground are getting multi-million dollar bonuses, the companies are folding, and the gov't is bailing these companies out? How is that capitalism, how is that not welfare?

If sense were common, everyone would have it.

4/2007-Current 75th Ranked most popular image 1 spot behind Prince's bulge...

IainDaniel

I wouldn't say it is laziness that makes people not earn 250K+

People excel at different skills.

Obstacles don't have to stop you. If you run into a wall, don't turn around and give up. Figure out how to climb it, go through it, or work around it.

Michael Jordan

bio-chem

You're right, it is not fair. But then again no one here is stating that it is. So why don't you get back to the topic at hand and explain why rich people should pay "their fair share" like obama states? Why does Premier owe a much greater percentage of his earnings than I do to be "fair"? While you're at it can you explain why obama wants to raise the capitol gains tax to be "fair" when it has been shown raising the capitol gains tax will lower government revenue.

Witmaster

Well said. I hate Corporate Welfare as well as ALL forms of welfare.

However,

I believe the government has no place in dictating the Pay/bonus structure of CEO's. That is a decision left to the shareholders. They and they alone should decide the salary and bonus payout for corporate leaders.

The only reason the government should get involved in CEO business practices is in the event of criminal activity. To date, making a bad decision and running a company into the ground is not illegal. Even if it is done intentionally, It's immoral as hell, but (unfortunately) not illegal.

NEVER write a check with your mouth that you can't cash with your ASS!!

I can run faster mad than you can scared

"All right brain... I don't like you and you don't like me. So let's just do this and I'll get back to killing you with beer" ~ Homer Simpson

bio-chem

PreMier

ok, the thing that holds people back is lack of knowledge (which can be overcome) and procrastination. anyone can go to school and get a high paying job as a doctor or lawyer, its their choice. or develop a certain skill to make more money (starting a business, sales, etc).

i just feel that people should take responsibility for themselves.. and where they are, because if they dont like it then they can change it.

like i said, why should i have to pay more in taxes than someone else just because im driven and found a way to make a lot of money?

P-side Inc.

"the post-workout high is more profound than any drug-induced rush imaginable." -Dante B.

Dale Mabry

I would like to start off by saying that I don't want taxes raised on the rich, and agree that they pay a disproportionate amount into the pot. But, they benefit more from the gov't. There are tons of areas where rich people benefit more. The $100k cap on Fica doesn't benefit someone living paycheck to paycheck, The police (nice possessions are more likely to be stolen than shitty ones, and you have to admit that their duty is to essentially prevent the poor from taking what isn't theirs), and the fed is less likely to bail me out when I lose my job than when Bear Sterns goes under.


Again, I don't think taxes need to be raised, I think the fat needs to be cut starting in Iraq.

If sense were common, everyone would have it.

4/2007-Current 75th Ranked most popular image 1 spot behind Prince's bulge...

bio-chem

So you think we should cut our loses immediately and leave Iraq regardless of where it leaves us for the long run? and you think obama is the guy to make that happen?

and i really don't believe that the rich benifit more from government services than the poor.

glennmo

What gets me is I work 70 to 100 hours a week , have missed most of my daughters firsts as she has grown up while I was at the hospital. I still owe 100K in school loans ,pay malpractice and into the PA CAT fund. I pay my own health insurance and into my own retirement .Medicare doesn't pay enough to cover overhead and with welfare I do alot for nothing .Get called out at all hours of the night after working all day and I make just barely over 250K and someone actually wants to tax me more because I make too much? Obama's absolutely lost .

Dale Mabry

Not immediately, but very quickly.

How do the rich not benefit more from gov't services. Sure, the handout programs directly benefit the poor, and obviously need to be overhauled to prevent abuse. How can you not see that the rich beneift more from gov't services. Who is more likely to get their car stolen, someone with a new Beamer, or someone with a shitbox Renault?

This election, I am primarily voting on Economic policy. Every one of McCain's economic policies mirrors Bush's, and look what 8 years of that got us.

If sense were common, everyone would have it.

4/2007-Current 75th Ranked most popular image 1 spot behind Prince's bulge...

bio-chem