Paying more taxes is patriotic!

[shocrates]

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, very much in favor of the redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father.

He responded by asking her how she was doing in school.

Taken back, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Aubrey doing?"

She replied, "Aubrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."

Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1 .0 off your 4.0 GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, “That wouldn't be fair!” I have worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Aubrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the Republican Party"

[rrshock]

It's high time we had a government that looked out for the middle and lower classes as opposed to special interests and, frankly, the ultra rich.

No. It's high time the federal goverment stop looking out for any identifiable group and begin treating us all as equals.

No more special interests.
No more lobbying.
No more welfare.
No more involvement in education.
No more federal/international banking systems.
No more fighting undeclared wars we can't afford.
No more policing of the world.

The no more invovlement in education won't work. We'd end up with a very uneducated society if there wasn't a tax funded school system. Because private schools cost alot. Plus there simply aren't enough private schools out there to support a change. Same for institutions of higher education.

I agree with the special interests, lobbying, wars and military policing though. That costs quite a bit of money every year that, frankly, the US doesn't have.

The lobbying is way out of control

And the welfare system needs to be totally reformed. I don't think it can be done away with, but it does need to be changed. The social security and medicare are technically welfare. You wanna get rid of that? Some people cannot work due to disabilites and such. You want them to be out on the streets?

[rrshock]

^thank you for explaining it more clearly. It makes me wonder sometimes why there aren't any people on this board presenting Obama in a positive light as well so we can have two sides to this argument instead of it being a one way street.

Also because most of the posters on this site are Republicans too. That makes a difference.

[rrshock]

(Um ... you all do know that the GOP has been in power for 8 years, right?)

Do you have a point?

If there is, it's not valid.

Define "in power".

I believe Congress (who actually controls the purse strings) is run by Democrats.

Only the past year and a half. The republicans have had control in Washington for quite a while, no matter who the president was.

[SubGod22]

Wasn't it the Dems that kept a bill that would have changed the way things were going with Fannie and Freddie and held them responsible from passing? I'd have to go back and look more into that as it's something I heard on one of the news stations recently.

[ABC]

The Federal Government clearly has enough money or revenue or whatever you want to call it. If someone wants to challenge that by talking about the expense of the Iraq war etc., bring it on.

Anyone calling for higher taxes simply wants to redistribute wealth, so please just be honest about that desire.

[RoyalShock]

The no more invovlement in education won't work. We'd end up with a very uneducated society if there wasn't a tax funded school system. Because private schools cost alot. Plus there simply aren't enough private schools out there to support a change. Same for institutions of higher education.

Note that I did not say government should get out of education. I said the federal government should get out of education. The last time I checked, there were no express powers given the feds over education. It should be left up to the states and localities.

People have completely forgotten that the feds have few expressed powers. Most things were supposed to be left up to the states.

[Denny Crane]

Does your attitude towards the constitution mean that I should be worried about being a slave, Royal?

The no more invovlement in education won't work. We'd end up with a very uneducated society if there wasn't a tax funded school system. Because private schools cost alot. Plus there simply aren't enough private schools out there to support a change. Same for institutions of higher education.

Note that I did not say government should get out of education. I said the federal government should get out of education. The last time I checked, there were no express powers given the feds over education. It should be left up to the states and localities.

People have completely forgotten that the feds have few expressed powers. Most things were supposed to be left up to the states.

[Wuzee]

The Federal Government clearly has enough money or revenue or whatever you want to call it. If someone wants to challenge that by talking about the expense of the Iraq war etc., bring it on.

Anyone calling for higher taxes simply wants to redistribute wealth, so please just be honest about that desire.

Warren Buffett would disagree with you ...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece

Then add this little gem to the pile: 2 out of 3 corporations in the U.S. paid no Federal income tax from 1998 to 2005.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/business/13tax.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

That's just not right. There's no way it's right.

I'm hopeful that whoever wins this election will reform the tax code and eliminate the usefulness of, for instance, the Cayman Island branch of Koch Industries.

It's funny, looking at McCain's and Obama's plan -- I could get behind a combination of the two. That is: I'd be all for lowering the corporate tax rate if the corporations would actually pay it.

Obama's would:

* End Tax Haven Abuse: Building on his bipartisan work in the Senate, Obama will give the Treasury Department the tools it needs to stop the abuse of tax shelters and offshore tax havens and help close the $350 billion tax gap between taxes owed and taxes paid.
* Close Special Interest Corporate Loopholes: Obama and Biden will level the playing field for all businesses by eliminating special-interest loopholes and deductions, such as those for the oil and gas industry (!!! ABC's gonna earn his paycheck this year !!!).

(full plan outline here:) http://www.barackobama.com/issues/fiscal/

McCain's would:

Cut The Corporate Tax Rate From 35 To 25 Percent: A lower corporate tax rate is essential to keeping good jobs in the United States. America was once a low-tax business environment, but as our trade partners lowered their rates, America failed to keep pace. We now have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world, making America a less attractive place for companies to do business. American workers deserve the chance to make fine products here and sell them around the globe.

(full plan outline here:) http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/Job...rica/taxes.htm

[ABC]

You clearly didn't read the article you linked.

Buffet wants to redistribute wealth too. I guess you might say he is honest about it, though he isn't very clear.

His theme is the same as those on the left, that the rich should pay more. Did he even reference how much the Federal government receives and spends?

[Wuzee]

You clearly didn't read the article you linked.

Buffet wants to redistribute wealth too. I guess you might say he is honest about it, though he isn't very clear.

His theme is the same as those on the left, that the rich should pay more. Did he even reference how much the Federal government receives and spends?

I'm not sure where the "aha!" is that you seem to think you've discovered.

I've already said earlier in this thread that I support a repeal of the tax cuts (and I'll stipulate to the phrase "higher taxes") for those earning more than $250,000 a year. It's not the only reason I'm voting for Obama, but it's one of them.

[ABC]

That's fine, but do you support these higher taxes b/c the Federal Govt needs the revenue or b/c you want to redistribute wealth?

[rayc]

Lower corporate tax rates result in lower prices, higher corporate rates result in higher prices to cover the increased tax imposed (usually plus a little extra). Corporations do not pay taxes, consumers pay taxes.

Corporations only collect taxes for government, it's just a painless (for Congress) way to increase individual taxes without directly taxing the individual - until of course the business can no longer compete with global competition. Then the business closes.


If you liked Carter, you'll LOVE Obama.

[Maggie]

(Um ... you all do know that the GOP has been in power for 8 years, right?)

Do you have a point?

If there is, it's not valid.

Define "in power".

I believe Congress (who actually controls the purse strings) is run by Democrats.

Like the republican congress that deregulated the financial markets and got the ball rolling for the mess we're in now.

The fiscal policies in the mid to late 1990’s are, in large part, to blame for the troubles on Wall Street. As others have pointed out, the executive branch at that time (I trust you can figure out what party was in power) together with certain members of Congress decided, in their infinite wisdom, that everyone should have a home. That “home ownership” = the “American Dream”.

That resulted in banks being encouraged issue mortgages even if the people receiving them were unable to place 20% down, had few assets and had poor credit. In fact, in some cases the people didn’t even have to show proof of income.

Thereafter, banks were happy to pass on these loans to an entity like Fannie Mae, which was happy to purchase them. Those loans were converted to securities and bundled together with good loans and then sold to Wall Street investors. Wall Street was more than happy to purchases these securities from Fannie Mae because of its quasi-governmental status, i.e. it was assumed, correctly, that the Fed would ultimately back Fannie.

The current crisis stems directly from the fact that people who should not have been buying a home, or who had bought more home than they could afford – now can’t pay their bills. And these loans are mixed up with the good mortgages thereby reducing the value of everything.

There were attempts by, gasp, the Bush Administration and even by, gasp, McCain to address this problem years ago; however, those efforts were blocked by, gasp, certain members of the Democratic Party in Congress.

The intention of this policy was inherently good; however, the end result was obviously poor. But having good intentions – that is all that matters, right?

A Republican Congress that “deregulated the financial markets” is not to blame in this case.

Here endeth the lesson.

[Wuzee]

That's fine, but do you support these higher taxes b/c the Federal Govt needs the revenue or b/c you want to redistribute wealth?

This is a semantic argument, but to me "redistribute" to me says "taking what you have and giving it to someone else." I do not support that.

I want all Americans to shoulder future tax burdens in a way that is fair and appropriate. I don't care if we're raising $700 billion or $70. I support a graduated tax, because it's clear to me that if I have $10 and you have $100, a 10 percent tax has very different consequences in our real life economics. A flat tax does not result in an equal burden.

I am a capitalist. I do not begrudge people reaping financial rewards for taking risk. One of my biggest problems with Wichitans in general is that they tend to frown on big ideas because somebody might make a dollar on the project. However, I do have problems with people reaping financial rewards in a fixed game, where performance and compensation have no relationship, where risk is unnaturally supressed, and where special interests and lobbyists set the agenda before the public good.

I would include in that fixed game exploding corporate salaries, all manner of corporate welfare and mindless deregulation, which is clearly the root cause of the crisis right now.

I also believe that closing the income gap between the rich and poor would be a positive move for our economy. I don't buy that a reasonable tax increase (tax break rollback) will have any chilling effect on the spending habits of those making more than $250,000 a year.

It's time for the pendulum to swing back the other way.