Thread: For Obama, Taxes Are About Fairness

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.

You do?

Originally Posted by min0 lee

You do?

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?

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Originally Posted by 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

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

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

Originally Posted by 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

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?

Originally Posted by 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

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

People excel at different skills.

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by IainDaniel

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

People excel at different skills.

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?

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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 .

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

So you're voting for obama who, despite direct evidence to the contrary still believes raising capitol gains tax is the best thing for "fairness"?

and looking at a list of the top 10 cars stolen, i think you would be interested in who is benefiting the most from police services since their only job is to look for stolen cars.

Originally Posted by bio-chem

So you're voting for obama who, despite direct evidence to the contrary still believes raising capitol gains tax is the best thing for "fairness"?

and looking at a list of the top 10 cars stolen, i think you would be interested in who is benefiting the most from police services since their only job is to look for stolen cars.

I don't think that is necessarily the fairest option, but it also won't effect me. Look where 8 years has gotten us. Has anything that Bush has done economically worked. Can you say we are better off than we were 8 years ago. Now, I don't know if Obama's ideas will work, but they seem to run directly counter to what Bush has done, while McCain seems to be offering exactly the same crap that hasn't worked. I don't like the concept of raising taxes. I think spending needs to be cut, but don't see that happening on either side.

As for the Capital gains theory, I don't think you can show a 1-1 relationship based on a single variable. Otherwise, how do you explain the Revenue increasing under Clinton even before he lowered the rate and falling under Bush when he lowered it further? I think you will find that in either scenario, a raise or cut, you will see a short-term growth in revenue. In the instance you cut the Capital gains tax, people will wait and sell at the new rate, which will be lower. In the instance of raising it, people will sell once Obama or whomever discusses it, but that will be at the current rate, which will be higher than the previous scenario. In either case, you are talking about a short-term effect.

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

I don't think that is necessarily the fairest option,

Now, I don't know if Obama's ideas will work, but they seem to run directly counter to what Bush has done,.

I don't like the concept of raising taxes. I think spending needs to be cut, but don't see that happening on either side.

.

and this is you're reasoning for voting obama? way to do your homework. You don't agree with him that his plan is fair, you don't know if his ideas will work. and you are against the concept of raising taxes. You want to see spending cut, and know that won't happen under obama.

sounds like your vote is a knee jerk reaction to your hatred of Bush. Fair enough. I hope you study both nominees before you actually vote though.

Look, I know this thing can go on forever so I'm going to step back. I really just think everyone should really look at both guys before they vote and not go on impressions. The truth is I was initially excited about obama. I wanted the guy to come out all guns flashing with a plan that said this is what we are going to do to make this country great. Ive not seen that from him. I don't think the president has really any effect on the economy at all. the economy is a factor of so many variables (and is really the job of congress). Bush had nothing to do with Enron or the housing market crashing. and i don't think that government spending on the war hurt the economy. our economy is easily strong enough to support a war or two.

anyways, economically my credit score is over 700, I make twice as much this year as I did last year, and I have little debt compared to my income. I'm not overly concerned about the economy hurting me financially. My vote will very much be depended on who these guys like for supreme court justices. That in my mind is where the real battle ground is. that is where lasting legacies will lay. and i very much like our current supreme court chief justice.

One of many reasons

1)McCain's gas tax break would do nothing more than drive up demand and prevent revenue from going in to the Gov.

2)Capital Gains tax doesn't af'fect me, so raising it doesn't bother me.

3)Iraq, nuff said.

3)Healthcare, it's a very real problem, and it is only going to get worse. We need to nip it in the bud now.

I could go on, but I have to lift.