Loop holes have nothing to do with this. That is a fallacy. Capitol gains rate used to match other forms of incomes. The republicans have experimented in wealth redistribution upwards by lowering capitol gains to the point where it is half of the max income tax rate. Why on earth should hard working people pay a higher rate than trust fund babies. That's just unfair.
Look. The difference here is that the balance is being restored. If you think we have been in balance, your mistaken. This isn't a change of argument it has been and remains the central point. The meat of this argument is that unchecked and unregulated capitalism collapses. Money and power collects in fewer and fewer hands until there is no opportunity for newer and more innovative players to enter the game and merit stops being rewarded. The point of capitalism is to create a system where merit and hard work produce reward that leads to more merit and hard work, thus perpetuating a system that is beneficial for the most by rewarding that which we want more of.
To a large degree high taxes can reduce this merit and become burdensome thus reducing the potential for reward and hurting all. I'm not disputing that. I am saying that there are a necessary evil to support those things which the market places no value in supporting, such as keeping the playing field level for new players.
The progressive tax system and the estate tax prevents or at least slows a winner take all system that would ultimately break down. Just as anti-trust laws stop monopolies that allow too much control of the market itself.
That it is out of balance isn't just my argument. It is the argument of this year's noble prizing wining economist Paul Krugman. In light of a system that has collected too much wealth in too few hands and gone unchecked too long, the tax policy can be used to correct this imbalance. Period. That's my argument. Not this other hand wringing about Marxism and socialism.
I will let Ideologues like you and Hoover worry about what is Marxism and socialism and instead just focus on what works. In the short term the stimulus of reducing taxes for the largest portion of working Americans is just what the doctor ordered. But I don't expect you to believe me. Read the economists like Krugman who agree with Obama's plan and see why.
The other point I have is merely cutting taxes, indiscriminately targeted for those who pay the most (richest) has failed to produce positive results. This has been tried since Reagan and has failed. Is that clear enough?
Further prattling on about Marxism and socialism will be ignored as it does not pertain to what is germane.
Even if we buy your argument, Barack is no more Marxist than anyone else in congress since they all support the tax system as it is now, so your point is moot.
As far as the "we don't know the size of his tax cut." I am surprised at your ignorance. The exact size of his tax cut has been known for many months. Here is a link to the calculator that will give you an exact accounting of how much you'd get back under his plan http://taxcut.barackobama.com/?source=sem-pm-fts-tc-search-us&gclid=COGh0aODz5YCFQOcFQodcAzy2A
But when you give a tax cut to big corporations and the most wealthy (2-5%) that's not income redistribution right? Take some time and study economic history. It's a real eye opener. The great depression wasn't just a random occurrence. The roaring 20's that preceded them allowed wealth to accumulate in fewer and fewer hands until the gap was too wide to be bridge by hard work and opportunity. When that happens the system collapses. In America today the people are losing their ability to pay for health care, to pay for the opportunity of higher education and to even pay for decent housing.
These are dangerous things. Keep redistributing wealth upwards and see what happens. Me? I'll take a prudent progressive tax system, with estate taxes and anti-monopoly laws. They benefit us all.
I am going to have to agree with Warren Buffet on this. When your waitress at Denny's pays more on a percentage basis than Warren Buffet does because one is labeled "Capitol Gains" and the other is mere "Income" the fairness has gone out of the system. You can label these anything you want there is an inherent unfairness here that needs to be addressed. 90-95% of Americans will be getting a tax-cut under the Obama plan instead of the 2-5% that have been in years past.
Study economic history. When too much wealth accumulates into too few hands the system breaks down. This is exactly what happened just before the great depression, before the estate tax, in the gilded age of the Vanderbilts. And it is happening again. The widening gap between rich and poor now and then and the two stock markets crashes are not random happenings.
You can pretend progressive income is Marxism if you like but then McCain is Stalin because he was against the Bush tax cuts until he was forced to vote for them to get the support of his party for president. Spin that anyway you want but Iâ(TM)ll call it fairness and prudence.
There are several different payroll taxes. FICA, SSI, etc. It would depend on whether the taxes were removed pre or post calculation of SSI and FICA whether they'd have any effect on Social Security and Medicare.
Obama has already added a stipulation that you cannot simply get a rebate if you do not have a paycheck. This will be for payroll taxes only. So don't worry, despite republican talking points to the contrary, this isn't welfare for the non-working. It's a tax cut targeted to working middle class, for a change.
Why is it that tax cuts targeted on big businesses and the wealthy never get labeled as redistribution of wealth? And yet that has been precisely what we have been doing for years.
Did you not read above where a serving police officer describes in no uncertain terms that these police were in the wrong, being both unprofessional and deserving of being fired and sued?
I was raised by a texas father and taught to deal with uniformed law officers in a yes sir no sir or yes ma'am no ma'am basis.
Regardless of the perps verbal behavior some decorum and professionalism is expected from the officers. Was the guy in the wrong, undoubtedly. Did the police overreact to the point of abuse? It seems obvious that it was so.
Slashdot Mirror
Loop holes have nothing to do with this. That is a fallacy. Capitol gains rate used to match other forms of incomes. The republicans have experimented in wealth redistribution upwards by lowering capitol gains to the point where it is half of the max income tax rate. Why on earth should hard working people pay a higher rate than trust fund babies. That's just unfair.
Look. The difference here is that the balance is being restored. If you think we have been in balance, your mistaken. This isn't a change of argument it has been and remains the central point. The meat of this argument is that unchecked and unregulated capitalism collapses. Money and power collects in fewer and fewer hands until there is no opportunity for newer and more innovative players to enter the game and merit stops being rewarded. The point of capitalism is to create a system where merit and hard work produce reward that leads to more merit and hard work, thus perpetuating a system that is beneficial for the most by rewarding that which we want more of. To a large degree high taxes can reduce this merit and become burdensome thus reducing the potential for reward and hurting all. I'm not disputing that. I am saying that there are a necessary evil to support those things which the market places no value in supporting, such as keeping the playing field level for new players. The progressive tax system and the estate tax prevents or at least slows a winner take all system that would ultimately break down. Just as anti-trust laws stop monopolies that allow too much control of the market itself. That it is out of balance isn't just my argument. It is the argument of this year's noble prizing wining economist Paul Krugman. In light of a system that has collected too much wealth in too few hands and gone unchecked too long, the tax policy can be used to correct this imbalance. Period. That's my argument. Not this other hand wringing about Marxism and socialism. I will let Ideologues like you and Hoover worry about what is Marxism and socialism and instead just focus on what works. In the short term the stimulus of reducing taxes for the largest portion of working Americans is just what the doctor ordered. But I don't expect you to believe me. Read the economists like Krugman who agree with Obama's plan and see why. The other point I have is merely cutting taxes, indiscriminately targeted for those who pay the most (richest) has failed to produce positive results. This has been tried since Reagan and has failed. Is that clear enough? Further prattling on about Marxism and socialism will be ignored as it does not pertain to what is germane.
Even if we buy your argument, Barack is no more Marxist than anyone else in congress since they all support the tax system as it is now, so your point is moot. As far as the "we don't know the size of his tax cut." I am surprised at your ignorance. The exact size of his tax cut has been known for many months. Here is a link to the calculator that will give you an exact accounting of how much you'd get back under his plan http://taxcut.barackobama.com/?source=sem-pm-fts-tc-search-us&gclid=COGh0aODz5YCFQOcFQodcAzy2A
Oops, I think your cynicism is showing. Maybe you should zip?
But when you give a tax cut to big corporations and the most wealthy (2-5%) that's not income redistribution right? Take some time and study economic history. It's a real eye opener. The great depression wasn't just a random occurrence. The roaring 20's that preceded them allowed wealth to accumulate in fewer and fewer hands until the gap was too wide to be bridge by hard work and opportunity. When that happens the system collapses. In America today the people are losing their ability to pay for health care, to pay for the opportunity of higher education and to even pay for decent housing. These are dangerous things. Keep redistributing wealth upwards and see what happens. Me? I'll take a prudent progressive tax system, with estate taxes and anti-monopoly laws. They benefit us all.
I am going to have to agree with Warren Buffet on this. When your waitress at Denny's pays more on a percentage basis than Warren Buffet does because one is labeled "Capitol Gains" and the other is mere "Income" the fairness has gone out of the system. You can label these anything you want there is an inherent unfairness here that needs to be addressed. 90-95% of Americans will be getting a tax-cut under the Obama plan instead of the 2-5% that have been in years past. Study economic history. When too much wealth accumulates into too few hands the system breaks down. This is exactly what happened just before the great depression, before the estate tax, in the gilded age of the Vanderbilts. And it is happening again. The widening gap between rich and poor now and then and the two stock markets crashes are not random happenings. You can pretend progressive income is Marxism if you like but then McCain is Stalin because he was against the Bush tax cuts until he was forced to vote for them to get the support of his party for president. Spin that anyway you want but Iâ(TM)ll call it fairness and prudence.
There are several different payroll taxes. FICA, SSI, etc. It would depend on whether the taxes were removed pre or post calculation of SSI and FICA whether they'd have any effect on Social Security and Medicare.
Obama has already added a stipulation that you cannot simply get a rebate if you do not have a paycheck. This will be for payroll taxes only. So don't worry, despite republican talking points to the contrary, this isn't welfare for the non-working. It's a tax cut targeted to working middle class, for a change. Why is it that tax cuts targeted on big businesses and the wealthy never get labeled as redistribution of wealth? And yet that has been precisely what we have been doing for years.
Did you not read above where a serving police officer describes in no uncertain terms that these police were in the wrong, being both unprofessional and deserving of being fired and sued? I was raised by a texas father and taught to deal with uniformed law officers in a yes sir no sir or yes ma'am no ma'am basis. Regardless of the perps verbal behavior some decorum and professionalism is expected from the officers. Was the guy in the wrong, undoubtedly. Did the police overreact to the point of abuse? It seems obvious that it was so.
Nice try but the debunking was also debunked http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/06/12/fr eeman/index_np.html/ as was pointed out on the very thread you linked to if you bothered to read just a few posts later.