You’re right. You can’t. And no matter how often you come to that realization, it still sucks.

Cognitive Dissonance. You were told a long time ago that “those dirty poor people are just lazy, if they would only work hard they would be fine”. You can’t see the universal truths that undermine that false premise, and cognitive dissonance keeps you from even trying to get it.

How do you suggest we get the locked up wealth spread around the society? or do you not understand the principle of finite resources/wealth/energy?

The “welfare” you’re talking about is mostly a myth and always has been. Even aid to families with dependent children (AFDC), the most commonly castigated form of welfare, was never designed to pay deadbeats not to work, but to keep children eating and sheltered. And it hasn’t always worked, as you know, because some parents use up all the money for themselves. And it was never much money to begin with.

Other forms of welfare included SS payments to the disabled (extremely hard to get, those who get it have paid into the system, and it’s also not a lot of money); SS retirement payments, Medicare, Medicaid, and unemployment benefits. Except for Medicaid, which allows the poorest families to sometimes get medical care, the others are paid into during one’s lifetime by either the individual or the individual’s employer.

Obama’s plan has nothing to do with welfare, by the way. He’s proposing increasing the tax $36 on every $1,000 over a taxable income (that’s after deductions) of $250,000 per family. The money won’t go to AFDC.

The fact is, we have a nearly $500 billion ANNUAL deficit. We can’t decrease spending substantially without decreasing spending on the military, SS, or Medicare. Those are the big pots. That’s where the money is. The rest is pennies. If we don’t decrease spending in those areas, we have to increase revenues. That means increasing taxes. The idea that we can decrease taxes and increase tax revenues was always voodoo economics. There is a Laffer Curve, of course, but we appear to be well below it.

In essence, people who object to taxes, ANY taxes, are saying they want America to become a second-rate economic entity, at best. Whether they know it or not, they want the US to borrow itself into oblivion. At that point, we won’t have to make a decision about reducing spending on the military, SS, and Medicare. The decision will be made for us.

I agree that straight welfare is a disincentive to work and be productive, but leaving large segments of society to flounder only drags everyone down. So maybe instead of bitching about how bad the current system is, you should all present plans for improving the system. And bootstrapping isn’t a plan because it’s bullshit. You didn’t do it; nobody does. If you got an education that allowed you to succeed it was because there was money to educate you and that money comes from society as a whole. I have no children, but i pay property taxes so that other people’s children can get an education. Sure, i could use that money for myself, but then i’d be surrounded by a nation of fools and knaves far worse than this one.

And how come none of you bitch about how the government redistributes your hard earned wealth to an army of bureaucrats inside the DoD and the DHS. What this country pays out in “welfare” is a pittance compared to what it pays out to be prepared for wars against imaginary enemies. Ike needed 300 generals to prosecute the European theater of WWII; your hard earned tax dollars support more than 3000 generals who, until 2001, had nothing to do except collect a paycheck…that’s welfare. (and most of them still don’t actually do anything except shuffle paper around)

If you want to bring down big government, start with where it is really big and really useless and then we’ll talk. Until then you’re just garbling your message by speaking out of both sides of your mouth simultaneously.

Finally, hit yourself over the head with a 2×4 until you understand that our current “conservative” administration has made up for “low taxes” by borrowing money that will have to be repaid – plus interest – by taxes in the future. The DoD is already paying $140B/year just to service its debt. Those are your hard earned tax dollars, no? To where are they being redistributed?

But first, you are required to give up that which is provided to you by the government. No driving on our roads, no calling the police when you want them, no calling the fire department, no drinking the water, no using the court system, no protection by the military, no social security, no regulation of your health insurance company, no protection from the USDA for your food, no protection from the EPA, or the CDC against communicable diseases, or the FDIC against your bank going under, no protection against lead in your children’ toys, no accounting or reporting regulations on the companies on the stock market, (good luck knowing what companies to invest in) all this and much more for the little amount of money you pay in taxes. Oh, and before you forgo all those things and return to a self-sufficient state of nature, you are required to pay back your and your family’s portion of the national debt, the greatest portion of which was created under Republican presidents. If you are married and have a kid, that will be $102,000 please. Pay up before you leave.

It sickens me to think that during World War II, millions of drafted Americans gave up their FREEDOM and their LIVES to support the country that they love, while, today, sloppy, soft American won’t support their country, the best damn country in the world, by paying a little more in taxes. Americans don’t deserve America.

When will it be enough? How is Obama’s tax plan going to give us economic nirvana? I’ll admit that I don’t think there’s any “perfect” economic system, but I’ll err on the side that lets me keep the most amount of the money that I worked to earn. Call me selfish, you don’t know anything about my charitable efforts. I want to decide who I help, I don’t need yet another person from “up on high (kind of like your evil CEOs)” deciding how much to take, and who gets, my money. I’m pretty capable of thinking for myself, and quite frankly, it pisses me off that someone can come along and tell me how stupid I am and that I should just work so they can spend my money for me.

How silly.

First off, those inheriting billion dollar estates didn’t work a damn day in their lives towards those billions. Secondly, those making millions a year aren’t “working” that hard, and the board members that can have “4, 5, or 6 or more” “jobs” at a time (sitting on various boards) clearly aren’t working that hard either.

You’re trying to make a black and white argument out of something with millions of shades of gray.

“It’s a sad day when people who spent their entire lives building what they have are vilified because of the hard work they’ve accomplished.”

no one is vilifying anyone. There’s a simple understanding of the fact that the rules are set up by the rich to allow the VERY unfair advantages in a lot of cases. It creates environments where the masses have no chance because the deck is stacked against them. We’re also looking at the FACT that there are a finite set of resources in the world, that means the “wealth” MUST be “spread around” via SOME mechanism, otherwise you have what we do today.. 10% of the population controlling 90% of all of the wealth. That leaves 90% of the population fighting over 10% of the scraps. … ever see two dogs fighting over a bone? are YOU gonna stick your hand in there and take it? ..if you were starving to death you’d kind of have to.

“I used to want to work hard and move up the ranks, but I’m starting to think it’s much easier to stay on the bottom and be fed.”

Then you’ve clearly never been “on the bottom”. Violence daily, hunger, disease, frustration, crime, death.. I’ve lived “on the bottom”, and I busted my ass to get out. I have one thing over the masses.. I’m a damn lot smarter. That means that MOST people “stuck on the bottom” don’t have a lot of choice, nor do they have a lot of options. Again, 90% of the people fighting over 10% of the wealth. Do the math. You work hard to have it MUCH better than being on the bottom, and that means SOMEONE has to be on the “bottom”. We can take some of the locked up wealth on the TOP, from those that tend to play a rigged game and live like kings, and lift up the whole bottom to a place that isn’t so rife with suffering… and the TOP can STILL live like kings, just not quite as over the top. …. seriously, does ANYONE need a $3,000,000 toilet?

“and just gave everyone exactly the same amount (which is what this is, on a smaller scale),”

Again you show either your dishonesty or ignorance. Lifting up the bottom while barely lowering the top is nothing like “giving everyone the same amount”. Get real.

“Why strive to innovate, invent, achieve, and push harder than “what’s necessary”, when all you have to do is let someone else do it?”

You apparently don’t understand the idea of self actualization. That’s what humans do when they are freed from the basics of living, when they don’t have to fight like wild dogs just to survive. You’re providing a lot of “what ifs”, but they aren’t based in reality. But that’s ok, I’ve come to expect nothing less from the “why should I care about anyone but me” crowd.

“What’s the end goal here? What’s really fair?”

To have a society where suffering isn’t mandated so the very few can have more than they could EVER spend or need or make use of. It’s not “fair” that human beings are being killed in the name of corporate profits. It’s not “fair” that one person can have access to the kind of money that allows them to drink a million dollar bottle of wine while hundreds of thousands of their countrymen are left to starve.

If people would stop being petty and greedy and selfish, we have enough resources for the entire country to be ‘comfortable’ and STILL have an “upper class” that can lavish luxuries on themselves.

It’s a sad day when people who spent their entire lives building what they have are vilified because of the hard work they’ve accomplished. I used to want to work hard and move up the ranks, but I’m starting to think it’s much easier to stay on the bottom and be fed.

I’m curious, if the government suddenly took stock of ALL the money in the system and ALL the people, and just gave everyone exactly the same amount (which is what this is, on a smaller scale), what are you left with? Why strive to innovate, invent, achieve, and push harder than “what’s necessary”, when all you have to do is let someone else do it? And, eventually, there won’t be anymore “someone else’s”.

What’s the end goal here? What’s really fair?

First, it’s a 4% increase to just under 40%, and that’s on PROFITS. I’ve never understood how taxing profits (post-expense left over money) hurts a business since the business had already paid it’s employees from its gross receipts.

As far as “creative accounting”, that’s called being dishonest. And yes, MANY “business owners” do just such things. Hence, the need for oversight, right? And a need to tighten up the tax code to shut down all of those loopholes that were INTENTIONALLY put in there by PRO-BUSINESS lawmakers who were simply earning their perk money.

And incorporate offshore? You DO realize we control that, too.. right? Simply tax the shit out of their business instead of giving them tax breaks to encourage “free trade”. …. free trade is the lie that allows the richest 1% to keep fleecing the country.

We can fix all of the concerns of the right-wing with respect to letting businesses flourish if the actual intent is to be reasonable. Unfortunately, that’s not the right-wing agenda. The idea for them is to make it possible for the precious few to control everything. What do you think corruption is all about?

I yam what I yam.

Responder, you’ve made a logical error. If it’s true that 2/3 of small business tax revenue was reported by households earning $250,000 or more, that would not translate to 2/3 of all small businesses. All that means is that many small businesses are barely profitable and, so, pay very few taxes. A very few small businesses are quite profitable and pay many more taxes.

• Total number of sole proprietorships, S corporations, and partnerships: 28 million
• Total number of “high income” (> $200,000 NET income) individual tax returns with income from a sole proprietorship, S corporations, or partnerships (assuming no overlap): 2 million.
• MAXIMUM percentage of “small businesses” that will be affected by Obama’s individual high income tax increase: 7.0%

And again, that assumes no overlap between high income households who are both in a sole proprietorship and an S corp or a partnership.

Sources:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/05sp01br.xls
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/05in01ar.xls
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/05co1120sfigd.xls
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/05pa01.xls

I wasn’t excusing your behavior. I was instructing others to ignore it, regardless of its apparent political stripe.

Senator Obama wants to raise taxes on people making more than 250K a year. Two-thirds of the $700+ billion of income from small businesses in 2006 was reported by households making $250,000 per year or more. Thus, raising taxes on 250K plus people effectively raises taxes on 2/3 of small businesses.

If you raise taxes on small businesses, then either they hire less people (meaning you do more work), they lessen benefits, or they fire you.

This also decreases growth in companies. A 50% tax rate will decrease a business’s likelihood of growing. The ones who do grow will evade taxes with creative book-keeping, or by incorporating overseas.

And since you don’t own your own business, nor can you be assured that your job will remain in a volatile market.. What happens when you lose your job? Can you “afford” your children then? for how long?

Say you lose your job because you refuse to provide birth control pills to “baby mama” because it’s against your “values” (we’ll not even talk about the MASSIVE hypocrisy of telling someone to stop having kids, but denying them a socially and morally acceptable means to do that). It becomes well publicized, and your unemployment runs into the very long term. You take that job at McDonalds, because, as your party is fond of saying, “you do what ever it takes”. That second party time job selling shoes at the mall has become very stressful, and even with both of those jobs, you’re only clearing $25,000 a year. Can you STILL afford those kids you could so easily afford on $70,000 a year?

I know, I know.. “it can never happen to you”, right?

And sloppy syntax. “Cliche” is a noun; “cliched” is the adjective or subject complement.

Bitches.

The facts of this case are rather simple: NOBODY will pay more income tax under Obama’s plan UNLESS they take home over $250,000 per year. That’s take-home profit, NET revenue, after all business expenses, capital improvements, and even loan interest have been deducted.

This doesn’t preclude the idea that raising taxes on these folks is a bad idea, which is an economic theory I can respect even though I may disagree with it. However, it does pretty much disprove that Obama’s tax plan will raise income taxes on “Joe the Plumber” or any TRUE small business, which has become the thrust of the McCain campaign.

(How many true “small business” owners take home $250,000 profit in one year? And if they do, how many jobs are honestly going to be cut by such small business owners — already quite successful, to the tune of $250,000 individual profit in one year — because of a 3% marginal tax increase on profit over $250,000? I think we’ve been hearing about this long enough that ONE example would have presented itself… instead, all we have seen, and all that the McCain campaign has latched on to, is people confusing profit and gross revenue. A tricky distinction for many, and an honest, understandable mistake, but personally I think the McCain campaign knowingly exploiting this confusion is pretty low. “Politics as usual” some will surely say, but I don’t know… this strikes me as particularly egregious.)