http://www.observer.com/2008/politics/perverted-idea-fairness

 

wealth redistribution in its current form.

 

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/oct/21/campos-wealth-on-move---to-the-rich/

http://www.observer.com/2008/politics/perverted-idea-fairness

 

wealth redistribution in its current form.

 

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/oct/21/campos-wealth-on-move---to-the-rich/

 

The last few lines of the first article, in the (unlikely but possible) event that some members choose not to read the entire article:

 

But to cast socialist aspersions on a tax refund to working families whose incomes are too low to pay income taxes is to paint a big pink stripe onto Mr. McCain’s supposed idol, Ronald Reagan. Early in his presidency, Reagan signed legislation greatly increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit, a credit for low-income workers that reduces the impact of payroll taxes in order to boost take-home pay above poverty levels. When the credit is more than the amount of federal income taxes owed by an individual, that person receives a tax “refund.”

 

Reagan praised the earned income tax credit as the best “anti-poverty” and “pro-family” legislation ever enacted by Congress. It is troubling to learn that according to Mr. McCain, the Gipper was a socialist, too.

http://www.observer.com/2008/politics/perverted-idea-fairness

 

wealth redistribution in its current form.

 

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/oct/21/campos-wealth-on-move---to-the-rich/

 

One of the interesting comments that was posted in the second link. I wouldn't know how to verify the statistics quoted, but this is food for thought:

 

Red states LOVE redistribution of wealth;

Of the 32 states that receive more money back from the federal government than they send to the federal government in taxes, 21 of them are polling ahead for McCain. Here are the amount of federal dollars these McCain states get for every one dollar they pay in taxes.

 

Mississippi: $2.02

Alaska: $1.84

Louisiana: $1.78

West Virginia: $1.76

North Dakota: $1.68

Alabama: $1.66

South Dakota: $1.53

Kentucky: $1.51

Montana: $1.47

Arkansas: $1.41

Oklahoma: $1.36

South Carolina: $1.35

Tennessee: $1.27

Idaho: $1.21

Arizona: $1.19

Kansas: $1.12

Wyoming: $1.11

Nebraska: $1.10

Utah: $1.07

Indiana: $1.05

Georgia: $1.01

 

Note: McCain is only ahead in 22 states. The only McCain state that sends more money to the federal government than they get back is Texas.

Just to clarify, ace and mcpapa:

 

Are you trying to say that:

A) Free market economists have misinterpreted Adam Smith, or

B) People who call Obama a socialist are way off?

Just to clarify, ace and mcpapa:

 

Are you trying to say that:

A) Free market economists have misinterpreted Adam Smith, or

B) People who call Obama a socialist are way off?

 

Those who call Obama a socialist have misinterpreted Adam Smith. Assuming they've interpreted him at all.

Those who call Obama a socialist have misinterpreted Adam Smith. Assuming they've interpreted him at all.

 

Thanks for the back up Habib.

 

I think people have mislabeles Obama's plan, primarily to scare but they have also no real clue what the free market vision of the some of the founding economists looked like.

 

I have stated many times, the invisible hand of the free market has no soul or moral compass, it must be guided by moral principles so that it does not become oppressive. Those more principles are regulations (child labor, etc) and a progressive tax code.

Thanks for the back up Habib.

 

I think people have mislabeles Obama's plan, primarily to scare but they have also no real clue what the free market vision of the some of the founding economists looked like.

 

I have stated many times, the invisible hand of the free market has no soul or moral compass, it must be guided by moral principles so that it does not become oppressive. Those more principles are regulations (child labor, etc) and a progressive tax code.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

Let me say a few things

 

1. A progressive tax code is an interesting topic, for a few reasons. First of all, we already have a progressive tax code, I don't think we need more taxes on those who are already heavily taxed. This is because studies have shown that, for a variety of reasons, tax cuts for the wealthy result in a greater percentage of tax revenue from the wealthy.

 

For example, take the so-called "Bush tax cuts for the wealthy". See Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates: Summary of Table 2 (page 6 of the PDF file & report) from the Congressional Budget Office.

 

From the column "Individual Income Taxes", you see that the top 20% of income earners paid 84.8% of all Individual Income Taxes in 2003 (before the cuts), and paid 85.3% of all Individual Income Taxes in 2004 (after the cuts). May be a minimal jump (although I'd imagine that .5% of all Individual Income Taxes is a huge number), but still shows that our tax system is so progressive that it is encouraging the very wealthy to hide their money, and even the smallest of tax cuts (which, I may add, are correlated with economic growth) can increase the percentage that they pay.

 

2. I agree that people mislabel Obama's policies as socialist as a scare tactic. However, IMO it is accurate to say that Obama's economic policies would result in negative consequences for the economy is accurate.

 

3. You are right that there need to be regulations and restrictions- the question is how many. Many conservatives say we don't need more regulations. I think it is dangerous to say we need no regulations.

 

4. I feel the statement that the Invisible Hand has no moral compass or soul is a bit misleading. I understand what you are saying, but the free market, as opposed to higher taxation, relies on the freely made decisions of individuals rather than coercion. It is driven by natural thoughts and desires of humans rather than forcing people to do and give what the government wants. So, in a sense, you can say that high taxation restricts our freedom, and therefore has no moral compass as well.

Twist all the words you want, it is wrong to take from one to give to another. Taxes for government is to allow government to provide protection and provide some sembalance of order, not redistribute wealth.

I do not mind a safety-net to a degree as mentioned in another thread, but to outright take my money and give it to someone else is wrong. People are to make their own living. Americans make enough to provide the basics of life. If they have to do wihout cable, cell phones or even a micro-wave, no big deal as they have food, clothing and shelter.

Twist all the words you want, it is wrong to take from one to give to another. Taxes for government is to allow government to provide protection and provide some sembalance of order, not redistribute wealth.

I do not mind a safety-net to a degree as mentioned in another thread, but to outright take my money and give it to someone else is wrong. People are to make their own living. Americans make enough to provide the basics of life. If they have to do wihout cable, cell phones or even a micro-wave, no big deal as they have food, clothing and shelter.

:thumb: All working Americans should be required to pay some part of the bill for maintaining the federal government just to remind them that services are not financed by monopoly money. I would rather see more non-monetary subsidies (housing, daycare, etc.) as opposed to sending checks to millions of Americans who pay no net federal income taxes.

 

Every American needs to be reminded on a regular basis that government services are not free and the best way to remind them is to give them part of the bill, however small it may be.

Thanks for the back up Habib.

 

I think people have mislabeles Obama's plan, primarily to scare but they have also no real clue what the free market vision of the some of the founding economists looked like.

 

I have stated many times, the invisible hand of the free market has no soul or moral compass, it must be guided by moral principles so that it does not become oppressive. Those more principles are regulations (child labor, etc) and a progressive tax code.

 

Putting aside the fact that one of my degrees is in economics, let me say that my concern with Obama is that I don't intend to have my estate diminished in order to provide a windfall to people who otherwise would not be the subject of my generosity. In other words, I will continue to assist the needy (as defined by me since it is my money) but not the ever-growing population of deadbeats who, generation after generation, lay around (unfortunately have a vote--or two) and live off the rest of us.

Putting aside the fact that one of my degrees is in economics, let me say that my concern with Obama is that I don't intend to have my estate diminished in order to provide a windfall to people who otherwise would not be the subject of my generosity. In other words, I will continue to assist the needy (as defined by me since it is my money) but not the ever-growing population of deadbeats who, generation after generation, lay around (unfortunately have a vote--or two) and live off the rest of us.

 

You like Hyperbole I take it.

 

Why don't you give some statistics to back this up? 1. The number people on welfare, who don't need it. 2. The percentage of that group who votes.

 

I think you have in your mind that there is this large swell of hanger onners. I just don't think the statistics back it up.

 

 

.087 percent of the governmental (local, state, federal) budget is spent on welfare programs. .087 There is still a long way to go until it is even 1% so why are we so worried about how much a few people are receiving?

You like Hyperbole I take it.

 

Why don't you give some statistics to back this up? 1. The number people on welfare, who don't need it. 2. The percentage of that group who votes.

 

I think you have in your mind that there is this large swell of hanger onners. I just don't think the statistics back it up.

 

 

.087 percent of the governmental (local, state, federal) budget is spent on welfare programs. .087 There is still a long way to go until it is even 1% so why are we so worried about how much a few people are receiving?

 

That's just AFDC. You then have to add in food stamps, SCHIP coverage, farm aid, student loans, one-way grants, school lunches, pensions for needy veterans, medicare, medicaid, and a myriad of other welfare programs.

You like Hyperbole I take it.

 

Why don't you give some statistics to back this up? 1. The number people on welfare, who don't need it. 2. The percentage of that group who votes.

 

I think you have in your mind that there is this large swell of hanger onners. I just don't think the statistics back it up.

 

 

.087 percent of the governmental (local, state, federal) budget is spent on welfare programs. .087 There is still a long way to go until it is even 1% so why are we so worried about how much a few people are receiving?

I work in a small town and I mean small.I see them everyday.They begin to get up around noon and come out and sit on the steps or sidewalks.Stay up most of the night and do it all over again the next day.There are several of them in this small town and I know the larger cities have a lot more too.:irked:

You like Hyperbole I take it.

 

Why don't you give some statistics to back this up? 1. The number people on welfare, who don't need it. 2. The percentage of that group who votes.

 

I think you have in your mind that there is this large swell of hanger onners. I just don't think the statistics back it up.

 

 

.087 percent of the governmental (local, state, federal) budget is spent on welfare programs. .087 There is still a long way to go until it is even 1% so why are we so worried about how much a few people are receiving?

 

Why in the world would I look at statistics generated by groups who manipulate the data to meet their needs? I can just look around me and confirm my beliefs? Like many, if I need statistics, I will merely look at the results of my Form 1040 and Form 740 each year.

Putting aside the fact that one of my degrees is in economics, let me say that my concern with Obama is that I don't intend to have my estate diminished in order to provide a windfall to people who otherwise would not be the subject of my generosity. In other words, I will continue to assist the needy (as defined by me since it is my money) but not the ever-growing population of deadbeats who, generation after generation, lay around (unfortunately have a vote--or two) and live off the rest of us.

Well stated. Too many welfare programs have led to too many people willing to use welfare as a 'way of life', with little motivation to better themselves and join the working class and tax payers. And the number of people in this group grows every year. It's passed on to their children.

 

A true story from my home town. In a grocery store a few years ago a woman shopper was asked how she was doing, normal store conversation starter-talk, and her answer was, "Honey, just great. Learned just yesterday that my youngest child just got on SSI (which meant the entire family of 5 was now receiving SSI benifits). The Lord sure has blessed us!"