Obama's economic plan - Soak The Rich

I'm a little surprised at how much touchiness this has sparked on all sides.

I'd just like to point out that in a market system, people generally get paid according to their bargaining power, which is not necessarily the same as the value of their labor. One example: if you were drowning in the ocean, how much would you be willing to pay for a life preserver? If I offered you one at 100 times market value, and I was the only one around, it would be well worth it, right?

I'm not a communist and I disagree with Marx's "from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs." But I think there should be a balance. Yes, in a civilized society, the poor and weak should be helped. But there should also be incentives for producing those things that have high market value by letting people keep most of the value they create.

That's why I believe in a so-called progressive tax scheme. Just enough to keep the budget close enough to balanced so that the country won't go to hell. Keep most of your income by all means, even if you are in the top 1%.
 
Puppycow said:
I'm a little surprised at how much touchiness this has sparked on all sides.

I'd just like to point out that in a market system, people generally get paid according to their bargaining power, which is not necessarily the same as the value of their labor. One example: if you were drowning in the ocean, how much would you be willing to pay for a life preserver? If I offered you one at 100 times market value, and I was the only one around, it would be well worth it, right?

I'm not a communist and I disagree with Marx's "from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs." But I think there should be a balance. Yes, in a civilized society, the poor and weak should be helped. But there should also be incentives for producing those things that have high market value by letting people keep most of the value they create.

That's why I believe in a so-called progressive tax scheme. Just enough to keep the budget close enough to balanced so that the country won't go to hell. Keep most of your income by all means, even if you are in the top 1%.
Click to expand...

Couple issues you might want to touch up.

"If I offered you one at 100 times the previous market value, and I was the only one around, it would be well worth it, right?"

Supply and demand curves shift like crazy in crises. You never really escape the market.

I believe that progressive taxes schemes can break 50% on the top 1%.
 
quixotecoyote said:
But moving on..

I feel your dividing line is arbitrarily chosen to exclude me from debate. What is the special quality of federal income tax that allows participation in debate while other taxes do not?

So if you would, please explain why you disagree that poorer people can't afford as high a percentage of a tax as richer people.
Click to expand...

Simple. "Poorer people" are already paying 0% in Federal income taxes plus, if they have kids are getting free money via EITC. The point you are making is moot. The poor are already exempted from Federal Income Taxes PLUS they get paid for it. You argument falls on its face. Get back to me when that changes but until then you have no dog in this fight.
 
Texas said:
Simple. "Poorer people" are already paying 0% in Federal income taxes plus, if they have kids are getting free money via EITC. The point you are making is moot. The poor are already exempted from Federal Income Taxes PLUS they get paid for it. You argument falls on its face. Get back to me when that changes but until then you have no dog in this fight.
Click to expand...

That doesn't address the question at all.

The question is: why do you disagree that poorer people can't afford as high a percentage of a tax as richer people?

Your response notes that poor people are currently paying no federal income tax. That is not an argument against poorer people not being able to afford the same percentages of the tax as richer people.

In fact your response supports my position as the reasoning behind that progressive tax is that poorer people cannot afford to pay the same portions of their income as richer people which is why they are exempt in the first place.

So far you are not arguing against the status quo, but merely admitting it exists.

As far as I can tell your entire strategy hinges on arguing that I, personally, am immoral for raising the issue, not anything to do with the issue itself. This is one of the few times the ad hominem fallacy may be properly distinguishable, as you aren't saying I'm wrong and then insulting me, but using my alleged immorality as a reason to dismiss my argument.

eta: That's enough for tonight. Good night Texas, I will follow up with you tomorrow if you've posted.
 
Last edited:
SezMe said:
I'm now the President of a very successful non-profit corporation.
Click to expand...

Texas said:
I was just left speechless with your "CEO of a non-profit" organisation given your posting time on a website.
Click to expand...
Uh, Texas, when you quote me could I ask that you actually, ya know, quote me? You might have been left speechless but you certainly were not left typeless enough to make a blunder.

And my posting time somehow indicates my standing in the organization? Really? How so? We might have 24/7 operations and I'm now on duty. Or I might just keep different hours than our regular staff. Or maybe I can't sleep tonight because of all the horse manure posts by horse manure posters is keeping me awake. Or maybe this is just my regular sleep cycle. Or maybe you're just a jerk.

Curious minds want to know. :)
 
Why is everyone so bent about income tax??? This is not about income tax. It's about Social Security tax. There is a difference.

From the OP link;
Obama would apply the Social Security payroll tax to all annual incomes above $250,000, which he says would affect the wealthiest 3 percent of Americans.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for answering my question The Painter. I did not know that Americans had this. I am beginning to wonder what the differences are between the America system and the UK one. In a thread a while ago it was apparent that Americans pay more for worse health care and this soundsl like it might be similar
 
Texas said:
Rich is not defined by salary. It is defined by wealth. When you have enough wealth to make 250k/ year in unearned income then you can call yourself "rich". Once you have that level of wealth you can live in an area that is not as expensive as NYC where a salary of 250K is almost required to live even a nominal middle class life. To do that it would take at least 3 million in investment income invested conservatively to get the 250K/ year in income.
Click to expand...

So what percentage of USians meet your definition of "rich"?

If your definition of rich only refers to the top 1% of society or less, then it's not a very useful definition, especially if you're going to try to run the line that everyone who isn't "rich" is at best living a "nominal middle class life".
 
Do not be fooled by this. It is always the same. They tell you that they are taxing the rich and they are taxing the middle-class.

FYI: I pay a larger percentage of my income in taxes then do the Clintons. I certainly did not earn millions.


:gnome:
 
quixotecoyote said:
Of course as a kindness to gdnp, I will gladly provide a list of 3 bedroom dwellings and better within the Upper West Side of Manhattan for less than $800000. Not houses of course, but trying to buy a house in the rich parts of Manhattan is fairly ridiculous. It isn't an area where people (other than the top .02% maybe) own residential houses.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes. Thanks. I can move my wife and kids to a 1300 square foot 3 bedroom condo in Harlem for only 700K Why didn't I think of that?
 
Soak the rich. Sounds like a plan to me! :D

Back when I was in Bible college, a teacher who used to be a missionary to Africa gave me my working definition of rich.

If you have more than one shirt and you eat more than one bowl of rice a day, you are rich.

Though I have shed the religion, I can't shake the common sense. Sniffing about 6.4% of $250,000 or $1 million sounds a lot to me like whistling past the graves. Soak the rich. Soak us all!

We'd be happy to return the favor.

ETA: Please, please, please, please let this phrase become the way Republican talking heads describe Obama's plan! The publicity would take care of his Appalachia problem, and Obama could simply demur by saying that he wants the more fortunate among us to pay their fair share. Much is required of those to whom much is given. If that's not in the Bible, it oughta be.
 
Last edited:
Puppycow said:
I'm a little surprised at how much touchiness this has sparked on all sides.

I'd just like to point out that in a market system, people generally get paid according to their bargaining power, which is not necessarily the same as the value of their labor. One example: if you were drowning in the ocean, how much would you be willing to pay for a life preserver? If I offered you one at 100 times market value, and I was the only one around, it would be well worth it, right?

I'm not a communist and I disagree with Marx's "from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs." But I think there should be a balance. Yes, in a civilized society, the poor and weak should be helped. But there should also be incentives for producing those things that have high market value by letting people keep most of the value they create.

That's why I believe in a so-called progressive tax scheme. Just enough to keep the budget close enough to balanced so that the country won't go to hell. Keep most of your income by all means, even if you are in the top 1%.
Click to expand...


Well put.

The only minor quibble I have is that if income ends up being extremely non-uniformly distributed, those at the top might not get to keep "most" of the money.


We ought to base our tax system not on some sort of "soak the rich" scheme, but just on how to best get the money that we need to pay for government services. I want government services. I want subsidized education. I want an army. I want a social "safety net". I think these are all good things. So, we have to pay for them. Everyone who has income should pay some. Progressive taxes are the only sort that make sense, so those with more pay a higher rate.

My objection to the Obama plan, which is better than the current system, is that it creates an impression that the reason for these taxes is to go after those who are rich. That's not a good reason. We should figure out what we need in the way of government programs, and we should figure out who can afford to pay, and take it from those people in proportion to what they can.
 
IchabodPlain said:
Careful, your envy is showing.

He didn't claim money was tight. He was describing his budgeting of expenses to compensate for his location and personal debt.

Ah yes, it's all in how you frame the issue. Skeptigirl would be proud.
Click to expand...


BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA! ;)
 
I don't make a lot of money, I'm at about 50k, I live just outside of NYC in N.J.. Truth is if not for my family I really couldn't afford to live here. Please explain why I should demand people who make more money then me to carry my water. I really don't like the idea of punishing people because of their success. If you look here http://www.truthin2008.org/ my share for SS, Medicare etc., is over 180K that's my share not some "rich" person we're all equal why is it right for me to demand someone more successful to pay for me.
 
Because if they did not have so much more disposable income then property prices would not be so high and you could afford to live there
 
I don't suppose it would be possible to fix social security rather than engage in neo-marxism to fund its brokenness?

Fixing social security really would be change you can believe in. I would vote for Obama on that issue alone because its so vital I would put up with the inevitable gun control, increased food prices, increased fuel prices, and universal coverage-lite system.
 
How can you fix social security without decreasing inequality? Genuine question
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom