Readers on wealth and taxes
Readers have a lot to say about the election, Barack Obama's plan to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans -- those households making more than $250,000 per year -- the record disparity gaps in income levels, the concentration of wealth among the upper classes over the last 30 years, and Republican complaints of "class warfare" every time it's mentioned. Thanks to everyone who reacted to recent columns on this subject; the civil feedback -- lacking profanity and invectiveness -- is very much appreciated. (For those who complain about the cost of government, the reason we pay federal taxes, just one thing: Welfare, as we knew it, is pretty much gone, never was a big part of the federal budget and not the reason why taxes are so high. The big-ticket items are Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and then defense-related spending, now estimated at close to a trillion a year.)
Nancy owns a company:
I read, shaking my head, the comments about who is wealthy. My grandfather was a German immigrant who lost everything after 1929. My father was born in 1920 and passed along his values to me. I took over his precast concrete business and I work very hard for what I earn, especially now. I can still hear my father say that he never minded paying taxes; it meant he made money that year. Can you imagine how wealthy this country would be if everyone thought that way? He took the advice of accountants and tax planners, but he always paid his share."
Jeffrey is an executive at a big bank, supports sales tax
"Who the wealthy are, and whether they should pay more taxes is irrelevant until they actually pay the share they are supposed to now. I am constantly reminded of the scene in Cheers where Sam beats millionaire Robin in a game of chess for their respective salaries. Robin pays Sam his annual salary, one penny. The point here is that most if not all high level executives receive a lot of their pay in stock options or other perks, like $400,000 retreats, that is not taxed at the top bracket, if at all. McCain (whom I am leaning towards) foolishly wants to eliminate capital gains taxes, essentially giving these same execs a tax holiday. The uber wealthy have abusive tax trusts, or hide their money and income out of the country, and don't pay taxes either. Many corporations do the same thing. The middle and lower classes comprised of mostly honest, hardworking, tax paying citizens cannot take "advantage" of all of this and pays their full "due" of taxes. Some unfortunate souls get caught by AMT and really hammered by taxes.
"The crux of the problem is that the tax code is so Byzantine and convoluted and full of loopholes, that the upper class is either taking advantage of directly or using sleazy accountants to do it for them. There needs to be a fair and reasonable way to apportion taxes and make sure that everyone pays them, before we even begin to discuss who should pay more or less. Again, we in the US are arguing over Band-Aids rather then fixing the problem. Of course, keep in mind that the majority of tax scofflaws work in the White House or Congress, so I guess its no surprise that none of them want to actually fix it. Its better to pander to the voters. But really, we are all being screwed.
"I personally support a national sales tax. It hits everyone equally and captures income from illegal sources as well (drug dealers would pay taxes on their Escalades). There are no special breaks for any group and it is applied equally across class, gender, and race. You would continue to exempt non-prepared foods, some services, and perhaps children’s clothing to avoid it being regressive. But it would reward savers and wise spenders and capture additional income on large luxury items. It would also prevent anyone from dodging paying taxes."
Penny is wise
"After hard work through college and some beyond we are fortunate, very fortunate, to be in that lofty 2%. We have willingly coughed up our taxes and don't gripe (well, not too much) about it. We've sent our kids to private schools and have been respectful of others who cannot afford or chose not to make the same choice. We have NEVER taken a dime without adding it to the total to be taxed, so I get really bummed when I hear people glibly talk about taking "money under the table", want to be paid in cash only, and other tax-dodging practices. Tell those thieves to be honest fool. . . We support Obama because, among many other reasons (brilliant, young, calm...NOT a maverick...who wants an out of control maverick as President?)....but because he IS trying to 'spread' things around....like making huge companies pay their share of taxes, and shredding the golden umbrellas for high rolling CEOs, and giving tax breaks to the terribly strapped middle and lower income folks. Yes, we know our personal tax bill will not improve, and our recently ransacked 401-ks may not recover in time for our previously planned retirement years (wait 15-20 years for them to recover? We'll be 77 & 78 by then, (Lord willing). . . . Yes, those making $250K+ are comfortable. So they may have to give up the country club or horseback riding lessons. Sorry, stop your moaning & groaning."
Marc rants about other stuff:
"I will be delightfully surprised if Barack Obama wins because I have no faith in the American voter. I think the average American voter is incredibly stupid and lazy. Examples of this include the re-election of "W" and what should be a much greater disparity between those voting for the party of change and those supporting the party of the problems we need to solve. I am a middle-aged white man and I have a great deal of trouble believing white people my age will vote for a black man. I think our founding fathers thought that since the right to vote was so precious, we would exercise that right with more deliberate judgment. . . . NOTHING infuriates me more than being called un-patriotic because I vote Democratic."
Ellen shares Warren Buffett's views:
"So few people today counter the ridiculous fallacy passed off on us now for decades that a "trickle down" approach to the economy is a fair one and good for us all. Rather, it is a farce and was never intended, even by its knowledgeable proponents, to work. In short it was a scam passed off on us, a real work of class warfare, not this phony phrase passed around by the wealthy these days when their obscene tax breaks are called into question. . . . Class warfare is when the gap between rich and poor is growing past Robber Baron standards, as it is these days. Asking those with incomes over $250,000 to forgo some of the breaks that have put them on the nice side of the growing divide is not class warfare by any stretch of the imagination. That is called fairness, the kind needed if a democracy is to survive, since the research on the vitality of the middle class correlating with the vitality of a democracy is clear and persuasive. You cannot have a democracy with rich gated communities surrounded by struggling people. That is not what our Founders dreamed of, and it's what we are getting with trickle down tragic nonsense. . . . For what it is worth, while I am not on the nice side of this $250,000 divide, I am not too far off. Yet I have consistently advocated for an increased tax burden for the well-off, myself included. That is what being part of a democracy entails. It has never been about me first. It has always been about the common good. And a country with the income gap growing cannot be a just one with the common good enhanced."
Rocco Rotondo says they're stingy:
"The truth of the matter is people who make $250,000 are the bottom of that group. I would venture to say a great majority make well over that figure. They don't want to let any go."
Gerald, a CPA, points out Clinton factor:
"I've read with interest your columns of the past two days that each mentioned that, "The federal tax cuts of the early 2000s … were targeted primarily on wealthy families…". While I certainly can't disagree with that statement, perhaps it is fair and balanced to mention that shortly after coming into office, the Clinton administration sponsored and pushed through Congress the "Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993" which created a new higher tax rate of 36% on incomes in excess of $140,000 for married people ($115,000 for singles) and a top rate of 39.6% for incomes in excess of $250,000 for all. Prior to 1993, the top tax rate was 31%. To make matters worse, the new rates were enacted in August 1993 but made retroactive to 1/1/93. . . . So I think it's fair to say that, "The federal tax increases of the early 1990s … were targeted primarily at wealthy families." So all the Bush tax cuts did was cut back some of the Clinton tax increases on the wealthy. In fact, the Bush tax cuts only reduced the top rate to 35%, still 4% points higher than the top rate of 31% before the Clinton tax increases."
Carl thinks he's already overly taxed:
"I am, using the $250,000 annual income benchmark, among the 'wealthy.' We own and operate retail stores in the area where we employ about 50 associates. We are very fortunate to make a good living but it wasn't always that way. When we started our business 19 years ago, I worked in the store from opening to close every day. . . . We are 'all in' with my business. My girls work with me and my wife takes care of the books. We have loans against our home which guarantee our business debts. Although I don't work the hours I did when we started the business, we do not have banker's hours. I'm not whining, I just want you to understand that there are commitments that I make to insure my standard of living that I'm sure many would not. I also believe that many would not have taken the risk we took early on and continue to take. As an aside, about 2 hours ago we chased an individual from our store who had stolen some of our merchandise. Last week, we caught an associate who was using fictitious refunds to steal from us. It ain't easy!
"Look, I'm a product of the sixties, too! We spent a lot of time talking in the day about how it would be different when we were in charge. But, somehow, it's not that simple. I know that I work hard and have built a business that helps to support 50 families. We pay Federal Taxes at the 38% rate and Maryland taxes at the 7% rate. Most folks don't realize that we also pay payroll taxes that this year will amount to about $60,000. That pays part of our associates Social Security, and it pays for Medicare and unemployment benefits for our associates. That comes right out of our pocket and is also a "tax." At times, it would be easier to sell the business and take our investment and put it into an interest bearing account. Less payback but a lot fewer headaches. I know this....when the taxes get too high people like me will do just that! . . . I know that there are lots of people out there who would change places with me in a heartbeat. I can't deny that the statistics about negative salary gains at the low end of the scale are distressing. However, I am also frustrated by a philosophy that says just because someone makes less than someone else, then that person is somehow 'entitled' to more. I am a firm believer in programs that help everyone to a better life but I am also realistic enough to understand that not everyone will participate! Why penalize with an even greater tax burden those who help create wealth in the first place! Why does it need to be a zero sum game?"
Hilary would love a new bathroom
"My spouse and I teeter around the $150k income mark. We used to make more until I went to a lower paying job to spend time with my daughter. The old job netted my husband and I more money but I valued my time more. The biggest change for us now is that we won't be able to save as much money, make home improvements or send my daughter to private school for her education and still pay our other bills. . . . If we had $250 or more, we wouldn't be driving fancy cars or sailing on yachts or taking big vacations, but we'd be able to afford that quality education, and make home improvements, like updating our ugly 70s bathroom! I had that quality education and wish I could give it to my daughter but I can't do that and be home with her on nights and weekends. These days, making the kind of money required to send your kids to private school means working nights and weekends.
"So, I had to make a choice. In making the choice, I evaluated what more money can buy -- a better quality of life, something that would make me and my kids richer in our life, not in money, but in the types and quality of things we could do. The choice impacted where I worked all day and where my daughter would go all day to school. It may not be the kind of wealth normally thought of -- shiny cars, big homes, expensive vacations, but being able to choose the best quality in what you already do is a kind of wealth. Having the same life, in the same home, but with better home improvements, and better schools IS a kind of wealth.
"And those people that e-mail you saying that $250k isn't wealthy need to realize that. They are wealthy. Making over $250,000 is rare and for a lot of people its either impossible or requires impossible sacrifices. Perhaps those e-mailers see other parents like them at the private schools or in the upscale supermarkets or at the workplace and think everyone is like them. They aren't. Some people can't afford to be at those same schools, or choose not to be in that same workplace. Instead, most people are making basic life choices based on money: where to send the kids to school, where to work, where to live, when/if they should improve their home. . . . If I had the $250k or more, I'd consider myself wealthy because I'd be able to send my kid to a great private school, save money, build for retirement and make home improvements -- I'd love a bathroom with double sinks and no ugly wallpaper. I would have a better quality of life. I'd feel rich. And statistically in this country, I would be!"
Tom makes a lot of money
"I am one of those families that make over 250,000. Dan, contrary to the popular stereotype, I wasn't born with a silver spoon. My father worked at the Point. I grew up in Rosedale and went to that fine institution that is now called Towson University. Nothing fancy about me. . . . What I did was work between 60-70 hours a week for 20 years. I worked my way up the corporate ladder until I was making around 100,000. . . I pretty much had no life to speak of. Then I decided to start a business. My wife and I picked up the family moved and got in the ground floor of a new business. We risked everything. . . Last year we paid 87,500 in taxes. I think that is a lot of money, don't you? I have no problem with the middle class. I do have a problem with people that
feel they should get more of my hard earned money. I had the option of staying in a comfortable job making 65,000 a year and working 40 hours a week. But I chose to do something different and much harder. And for that, I guess I should be penalized."
Patty reflects on what's rich
"A few years ago, my then-6-year-old asked me, 'Mom? Are we poor?' I knew it was time to sit him down and tell him some of the facts of life. 'No, dear. We are not poor. As a matter of fact, we are stinking rich! We have all the food we could possibly want to eat and as much clean water as we want to drink! We live in this enormous house (2200 sq. ft) – why, in other parts of the world 10 families would live in a house this size! We have great schools, a safe neighborhood, great doctors and dentists, beautiful libraries – we have everything we need! Why do you ask if we’re poor?'
“'My friends live in bigger houses. They have video games. They have more toys than we do.'”
“'Yes, dear. Around here we don’t look rich because some of our friends are even richer than we are. We live in one of the richest communities, in one of the richest states, in one of the richest countries in the world. If we compare ourselves to the other people that live around us, we might feel as though we don’t have enough. But we have more than enough. We are very, very rich.'
"(From Webster’s New World Dictionary: rich, adj., 1. having more than enough of material possessions; owning much money or property; wealthy.)
"I take a lot of pleasure in hearing him repeat this to his younger brothers. Need I mention that we do not have a family income of $250,000? If those folks making over $250,000 aren't able to brag about their wealth the way I am, maybe they're just not managing it very well. I'd be glad to give them a few pointers.
"Hate to be a killjoy, but in my opinion, as Americans we each need to take a serious look at our life and how we are living it. We are a bloated, selfish nation that needs a big, ol’ slap upside the head to knock some sense into us. How can anyone enjoy the good life when we have become so aware of the tremendous damage that good life is causing? When there is so much abject misery in the world? And to think there are some people in the throes of 'the good life' who are whining that their life isn’t good enough! That they can 'only save $5,000 or $10,000 a year' after they’ve paid for their children’s private school education! Do they understand that $5000 equals the annual income of 14 families in some very populous parts of the world? Give it up – save a few lives. Be a sport.
"There was an article in the Sun a while ago that said research determined that a family needed an income of $58,000 to be happy. Then, they found, happiness diminished when income went over $150,000. Might I suggest that your affluent readers look at the choices that they are making in their lives? If they are not happy with what they see, perhaps they should make some changes – it may lead to increased happiness."
Winston counts SUVs to get his sense of the country
"Based on the number of big SUV's and limousines seen on the roads every day around this city, Baltimore must have a much higher percentage than 2% of all households making more than $250,000! . . . I do believe you should give credit where credit is due regarding the "wealthy", whatever that term means. Many in that category have risked their life-savings to start small businesses. They take out second mortgages, rely heavily on their ability to borrow, take unusual risks, because they are dedicated to doing well and hopefully being rewarded for their efforts. They cover payrolls when things are not going well, they pay their taxes on time. And they are also dedicated business people who want to grow their businesses. Don't discount their importance to the economy. Small businesses employ a large majority of the workers in America. Check the stats with US Chamber of NFIB. Don't disrespect the goose that laid the golden egg! It appears we are headed in that direction, and that scares me!"
Jerry doesn't like any candidate
"I am currently working hard for my $150,000+ salary so I don't have much time but just a few comments: There has always been a significant difference between haves and have-nots in American society and, I trust, in almost every society in history and at present times. Why the sudden preaching about it? You seem to ignore, or at least fail to mention, that most of those in the high income brackets work very hard to earn their money and in the case of entrepreneurs and business owners often took tremendous risks with their personal savings to start up and finance their fledging companies. Why are they being castigated now?
You, yourself, are a long standing newspaper reporter whose work I have generally enjoyed for many years. I assume you are not in the lower income categories, so do you feel guilty?
If the country has problems with infrastructure, people going hungry, etc. I can live with higher taxes - If I can feel that that extra money is being used in a careful and effective manner. Nothing I see from current or likely political parties gives me any confidence. The current four political candidates for President and Vice-President are an abomination and a horrible indictment of the political process. Why aren't any of you astute political opinionists writing anything about that situation?"
Bill makes an interesting point
If "going shopping" is considered "patriotic" (by Bush), then why is paying taxes "unpatriotic" (according to McCain)? And since McCain doesn't want to raise taxes to pay for the war in Iraq he supports so vigorously, how fair (and courageous) is it for him to effectively hand the bill for it to our children and grandchildren? John McCain talks about taking on and cleaning up Wall Street and greedy corporate CEO's. Boy, those tax cuts he wants to give them will really fix them, all right!
Ken comments on white-collar privileges
As a Guy out of work and struggling to save his home, Pests & Family, as well as being Deaf, as
well as hearing of hearing of this 700 Billion Bailout which failed to enforce any accountability on Wall Street, it simply goes to show that White Collar Crimes Pays Well! But let a blue-collar or poor person do something to try to survive and the Law is harsh an unrelenting in Jailing them for even minor offenses. Unfair laws in an unfair Nation that doesn’t care about others unless you got the money! Maybe it is time we have a Class War! Guarantee every American a Basic Salary and then maybe things in America would change! We also need to start cutting from the Top; Such as Politicians Salaries, and CEO Salaries etc. This is NOt Socialism but Social Reasonability for all Americans. I hope that is NOT too much to Ask for, in what is supposed to the Richest Nation on Earth!
Comments
The left constantly calls the right "greedy". As far as I'm concerned, expecting something for nothing is the true definition of greed. "Spreading the Wealth" is welfare, or if you prefer, you can call it charity.
Posted by: Kathyhansen2@mchsi.com | October 22, 2008 9:25 AM
BAR STOOL ECONOMICS
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
'Since you are all such good customers, he said, I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.
Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.
But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.!
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pays $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
'I only got a dollar out of the $20, 'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, 'but he got $10!'
'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'
'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'
'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
Posted by: barry smoger | October 22, 2008 10:09 AM
A different perspective for readers.
My husband and I were born to poverty on a rural Oklahoma farm, literally on a farm. Born ignorant and penniless, we have worked our fingers to the bone for decades to arrive at a position in life of comfortable wealth. We worked our way out of poverty to wealth, worked really hard.
Last fiscal year we paid a fifty-three percent tax rate, a combined personal income tax, capital gains tax and other taxes. More than half of our income is taken away by taxes, not including typical retail taxes. We estimate under an Obama administration, our tax liability will move up ten percent, to about a sixty-three percent tax rate. Under a McCain administration, our total tax rate will be significantly reduced.
High taxes, this annoys us. However, what really angers us is our family, including our daughter, will be carrying the weight of a majority of Americans upon our backs. Bad enough as is, but Obama will make this worse by taking away our hard earned money then giving our money to those who pay no taxes, to those who do not contribute as much to America, to those who do not work as hard as our family.
Obama will render our family a welfare agency, in fact. This is his plan.
Our family response, should Obama be elected, will be to cash out much of our stock market investments, cash out our real estate investments, cash out almost all our investment holdings. We will do this to lower and hopefully eliminate our tax exposure. Millions of other families, I am sure, will do the same. We will withdraw our family money from America.
Obama will prompt many to take actions which will lead to economic disaster for America.
Our family is extremely angry about this prospect of carrying the weight of Americans upon our backs which includes, most likely, you readers.
Our family was born to poverty. We worked our way out of poverty, on our own with no help from any nor our government. None of us have ever collected unemployment benefits, never have received food stamps nor received welfare. We have pride. We work hard. We carry our own weight as all people should.
Where is your pride? Why should our family have to carry your weight upon our backs?
Okpulot Taha
Choctaw Nation
Posted by: Purl Gurl | October 22, 2008 10:21 AM
I think there are many standard myths being used to make lower income earners feel better about themselves and to promote the idea that the government must do something to help all the people that are victims of an unfair economic system. Those myths include rich people all use tax loopholes and don't really pay any taxes anyway, rich people are crooks who make money by taking advantage of others, rich people are less happy than poor people, and higher taxes create higher tax income for the government. In reality, the top 1% income earners make 19% of all income and pay 37% of all taxes while the bottom 50% of income earners make 13% of all income and pay 3% of all taxes. It is extremely rare for someone to make high income without doing something for the community -wealthy people have spent their lives providing a service or a product valuable to others. I think high income earners are as happy as anyone because they know the joy of action, the bliss of growth, and the splendor of achievement. Finally, the tax rate and the tax receipts usually have an inverse relationship. Lowering the tax rate on production, work, investment, and risk taking will encourage these activities and will produce more tax revenues not less. I wish people would use more facts to shape their opinions.
Posted by: Geoffrey Beardall | October 22, 2008 10:32 AM
McCain/Palin have a plan for the future. Their plan will improve future economics. Obama's plan is a gimme right now that has drastic results for the future.
McCain/Palin are only 7 % behind in the polls. Despite Obama having the elite media in his pocket, Acorn to do his dirty work, and zillions in campaign cash.
That should tell you something about what the American voter is thinking.
Posted by: randall | October 22, 2008 10:41 AM
the problem with the republican party & bush in particular, is the failure to communicate a positive vision to American's, their future, & how to achieve balance & security. we should be proud to invest in our highways, schools, & infra-structure. we should be proud to invest in our country for our benefit. the only way to do this is to accept the responsibilty of taxes. the 'giants of propaganda' have have delivered bankruptcy to our door step thru programs & wars based entirely on profligate borrowing & theft of revenue from programs they don't like. and now, America has a problem of historic proportion. i am happy to contribute a larger tax to stabilize my country & it is time for all American's to embrace the requirements our great & expensive society. i look forward to casting my patriotic vote for Barack Obama!
Posted by: lawrence | October 22, 2008 11:15 AM
I have my doubts my family income will ever hit the $250K threshold. Of course with the deflation of the dollar over the years, you never know. I've chosen to live in a small state where incomes aren't high. The quality of life is excellent, though.
Having said that, everyone in the country is paying too few dollars in taxes at the rate Congress is spending money. We need to reign in Congressional spending and get the total debt significantly reduced.
Neither major party is likely to do that. The Republicans didn't when they controlled the executive branch and legislative branch and I doubt if the Democrats will if they win control of both in this election. I do think that Sen. Obama has a much better chance of succeeding than Sen. McCain does. Reducing the money spent on wars that can never be won due to generational hatred will be a significant help.
I would like to see four things happen with respect to taxes.
First, I would like to see corporate income taxes eliminated. I would end subsidies and credits at the same time. The transition period would be messy but the end result would be great. Corporations don't pay taxes. They pass the cost on in the products they sell. By the time you buy a finished product, the price is severely inflated as each portion of the manufacturing, transport, and retail process covers the cost of taxes for the parts that go into it and marks their sell price up to make a profit. There may be limits in completely eliminating taxes from corporations, but I believe it can and should be done. That one action might do more to reinvigorate America as a manufacturing location again than any incentive that Congress could pass.
At the same time I'd really prefer that all tax withholding from paychecks be eliminated as well and the people be forced to just write one check a year to cover all their current federal and state tax obligations. Stop making the company pay half the federal tax burden directly to the government and stop withholding some from each paycheck. There would be a lot more people caring about what Congress was doing if they had to write a single check at the end of the year for the full amount. Those bridges to nowhere won't seem nearly as useful. You can make the penalties steep enough that people will ensure they can cover their tax bills, but as long as the process is mostly painless and most people over withhold so they get a "refund" there is no real incentive to change.
I don't object to the wealthy. Someone already posted about how rich everyone in America is, and my family would view things the same way. My mom grew up in a tiny three room farm house with 8 other brothers and sisters. It would come close to fitting in our living room - certainly our living room and dining room/kitchen combined. My dad went through the depression. Their large family struggled to survive as well. Yet my parents both grew up and established a solid middle class family. We aren't rich but we are also solidly middle class. God has certainly blessed us.
But the truly wealthy do have advantages that aren't available to most of us. I would like to see all people paid in cash / equivalents as opposed to stock options and the like. If they think the company stock is a good buy - let them buy some on the open market. I'm all for investing in the stock market, but the games executives play with "incentive plans" disgusts me. I routinely vote against all such plans in proxies. Pay the people in dollars and get rid of the perks. While you're at it, get rid of all the derivatives and options completely. I like the contrast in "Pretty Woman" between the old school manufacturer and the jet setting financial wizard. The country needs to get back to building boats and not thinking up forty new methods of gambling on the direction a stock will go.
Funally, stop playing games with the tax code. I'm not convinced that the sales tax is a workable idea, although it might be if certain items that would hit the poor excessively had a reduced rate. However there is no reason that the current tax code needs to be more than the size of a 1040 instruction document. The fact that it is clearly indicates there is too much room for abuse. I would hate to loose my deductions for mortgage interest. I would hate to loose my deductions for charitable donations (at least I know that money is going to worthy causes as opposed to how my tax dollars are spent). But if it meant that everyone was paying their fair share on all income, I would be for it.
I am also not anti tax. We do need some services that our government provides. However it has grown far past what was originally intended, usurping many functions that were meant to be in the state's control. With the advantage that incumbents have and the incredible willingness of the people to continue to elect those who can't seem to get spending under control, I see little hope for change.
Everyone needs to have a stake in the government. It needs to matter to everyone how the government is spending their money. Huge credits aren't the answer where many who would have no tax liability get a refund from the government. I was in that situation one year due to the child tax credit. It didn't feel right even though it was completely legal.
Whatever your feelings, vote for a candidate. If you don't like the major parties, vote for a third party. The only time you waste your vote is when you vote for a lesser of two evils rather than a candidate you truly believe in.
Posted by: hierofalcon | October 22, 2008 11:31 AM
Actually, I think the problem with the wealth distribution is inherited wealth. People who started with nothing, but who scratch and claw their way to the top should not be penalized for their hard work. But I think we need to re-work the inheritance tax to prevent the huge disparity between the uber-rich and ultra poor. I am only talking about the richest estates (6 figures). Let all people work for their money, not inherit it. That would be a true meritocracy.
Posted by: Mike | October 22, 2008 1:34 PM
McCain depended upon his father's income as an Admiral from taxpayers as a child. His father depended upon McCain's Grandfather, another Admiral. McCain got into Annapolis due to his WASP affirmative action. His financial existence is based upon the funding from the American taxpayers. Then he married Cindy Hensle, a wealthy Paris Hilton ” want to be”. He then equates Paris to Obama as a“rock star”. Now he calls Obama , who pulled himself up by his “bootstraps” a socialist. Gee, if my tax dollars paid for McCain’s persona, and Obama pulled himself up by his bootstraps, I can conclude that McCain is the socialist by de facto.
Posted by: Larry Linn | October 22, 2008 5:30 PM
I'm not against super rich people paying more in taxes, but the gov't must overhaul the tax code, eliminating all the perks and loopholes where the rich are evading paying thier fair share. On the other hand, I am totally against giving money to loser people who do not contribute and are only given handouts and entitlements. I mean the uneducated, lazy, drug addicts, criminals, multiple baby-making woman who cannot afford more kids, just losers in general. I was raised to believe that we must work to acquire the life we wish. Education is there for the taking if one wishes. If you choose to drop out or gain no job skills, then why should we the people give you anything? We can't punish the people who do the right thing - get a good education, use that to get good jobs and work hard for what they achieve. Obama also wants to give full citizenship and complete benefits to illegal aliens, people who are not even citizens of this great country. How stupid is that? Give social security, healthcare and all benefits to criminal people who have totally ignored and broken many of our laws with many never paying a penny in taxes. WE NEED TO TAKE CARE OF AMERICANS FIRST, not every poor, illiterate slob from any hellhole of a country that can sneak over our borders and ignore any law that doesn't work for them. Sorry but I can't agree with Robin Hood Obama.
Posted by: Deb | October 23, 2008 10:59 AM