Obama shares the wealth
Written by Maggie Thurber | Toledo Free Press Writer | mthurber@toledofreepress.comMuch has been said about Sen. Barack Obama’s comment to “Joe the Plumber” about “sharing the wealth,” and many people seem to agree that the “rich” should pay more in taxes than the ‘poor’ or the ‘middle class’ simply because they have more money.
It was Karl Marx who said, “From each according to his ability to each according to his needs.” And it is Obama who is promoting the same philosophy.
His approach to taxes is indicative of this philosophy. He wants to tax “rich” people more so he can provide “tax credits” to those who are “not rich.” In fact, many of the tax credits he proposes will go to people who are not paying taxes in the first place.
It’s sort of like the stimulus package that was passed by Congress earlier this year. They actually changed the name to “stimulus package” after they realized that it was a bit contradictory to give a “refund” to people who didn’t pay anything in the first place. Remember:
- The top 5 percent of tax filers (those making $153,542 or more) already are paying about 60 percent of all individual income taxes collected.
- The top 10 percent of tax filers (above $108,904) pay almost 71 percent.
- The top 25 percent of tax filers (above $64,702) pay just over 86 percent.
- The top 50 percent of tax filers (above $31,987) pay 97 percent.
(Adjusted gross income — figures based on tax year 2006 from the National Taxpayers Union)
Obama thinks that people who are already paying 60 percent of the nation’s personal income taxes aren’t paying enough, so his plan is to tax many of those people more so that everyone else can pay less.
So what does this mean? It is, indeed, a “share the wealth” philosophy — a warped sense that if someone earns something, there is an injustice that must be corrected by the government.
If your neighbor has steak for dinner and you have bologna, do you get to take part of your neighbor’s dinner just because he has something you don’t?
If you work hard at school and earn an “A,” should the student who didn’t study and gets an “F” be given some of your score so that both of you have a “C?”
What about in sports? Should every football player on every NFL team earn the same wage? Maybe the managers should take from the quarterback’s wages and give to the lineman so everything is fair.
And then there is the entertainment industry. We could take from the big stars and give to the unnamed actors and actresses struggling to get by. The fact that a star in a movie has more lines, a more demanding performance and can generate more profit the movie isn’t relevant — it’s not fair for the star to make so much and the extra to make so little. Let’s “share the wealth” in this industry.
Or, better yet, Obama’s campaign has raised more money than Sen. John McCain has. Let’s take the donations to Obama and spread them equally among the other presidential candidates.
If anyone tried to institute the redistribution inherent in these examples, it would be rejected outright — not just by the people who are being taken from, but by most Americans.
So what makes the tax policy any different? Why would we accept — much less embrace — a redistribution of wealth through our tax policy when we’d reject such Marxist ideas when it comes to other areas?
Have we become such a greedy nation that we somehow think it’s right to not only covet, but also to steal from others so that we can have something they’ve earned? Or is it just decades of entitlement-philosophical indoctrination that has led us to the point that some of us think it’s okay to expect others to pay for things we’re not willing to work for? Our founding fathers knew the folly of such ideas.
Ben Franklin said, “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”
Thomas Jefferson wrote, “To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
And James Madison said, “Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
No matter how much you might like the idea of “sharing the wealth,” it has led to failure everywhere it has been tried. Remember this when you go to vote on Nov. 4.
Former Lucas County Commissioner Maggie Thurber is the host of WSPD’s “Eye on Toledo.” She blogs at http://thurbersthoughts.blogspot.com.
Nice Site layout for your blog. I am looking forward to reading more from you.
Tom Humes
This comment was posted on October 24th, 2008 at 1:59 amYou information is incorrect. Barack’s plan only pays tax rebates to individuals paying payroll tax. Note that people paying payroll taxes do not always pay income taxes, but if you don’t pay payroll tax you can’t get a tax rebate.
I am an independent. Taxes have always been taxes. They go up they go down. Trying to call them socialism now just seems like a partisan thing. I like mccain, but as a candidate he has really disappointed me… he sort of dropped all his own thought process and is jumping all over the place. I can’t figure the guy out, which is disheartening to me.
This comment was posted on October 24th, 2008 at 3:03 amMaggie Thurber conveniently forgets that Jesus said, “To those to whom much has been given, much is expected.” Does she think Jesus was a Marxist? Republican Oliver Wendell Holmes, Civil War veteran, Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, gave $290,000 of his estate, over 50% of it, to the United States, because this country had been so good to him. He was a patriot, because anyone who loves their country will want to do right by it, and that means paying your fair share of its bills. Under Clinton we were doing that and paying off our debt. Thurber would prefer we not ask that of the rich so we can make our children and grandchildren pay for our excesses. Aren’t you embarrassed that fully half of all Americans make less than $32,00 a year, many of them with children to rear, braces to pay for, etc. Taxes should be collected from those who have the ability to pay them, not from those who do not. That is called fairness. The really rich–not grateful enough. Where is your sense of shame Maggie? You really think those with million dollar salaries and golden parachutes shouldn’t be asked to pay a bit more? Wake up! What would your life be like is you made less than $32,000 a year? Where is your shame, when you suggest that a return to the Clinton tax rates for the wealthy would be a horrible thing for this country. I bet you are worth way more than I am, and I bet you do not give anything like the percentage of your income to charities that I give. Do you want to compare tax returns?
This comment was posted on October 24th, 2008 at 3:59 amJohn – I don’t forget the teachings of Jesus, but for you to distort them so is appalling.
Jesus never said to his followers: “give your money to the government so they can take care of the poor.” No – he gave a command to each of us, individually, to care for others. To think that any follower of Jesus can absolve themself of the necessity to follow his teachings by letting government do it for them is – well, ridiculous.
As for people voluntarily giving money to government? Good for them. You can follow suit -as can any American. Go right ahead! Since you’re such a big fan of government getting more money, why don’t you tell us how much extra you’ve paid to them? I noticed you didn’t detail that contribution, but you seem awfully eager for ME to pay more.
And you’ve presented a fallacious argument by referencing Justice Holmes. HE made the decision what to do with his funds – government didn’t – through force of law – take the money from him.
Interestingly enough, Virginia started a ‘tax me more fund’ where residents could voluntarily pay more to help cover the costs of government. In six years, the fund received a little over $10,000, so they ended it. Turns out, despite people thinking government should have more money, they didn’t think THEY should be the ones providing it – sort of like you.
This is what economists call “revealed preference”. What you are really in favor of is higher taxes on other people.
Taxes should be collected from everyone. If we all paid 10% of our earnings, no matter what, rich people would pay significantly more than poorer people. But everyone would be contributing without an expectation that someone else would be paying for them instead. (note: I’m not advocating the Fair Tax proposal, just making a point.)
Since fairness seems to be your premise, how is it FAIR that I have to pay more so someone else doesn’t have to pay anything at all? And if someone decides to have more children than they can support, how is it MY responsibility to subsidize them? How is that FAIR? When you begin to expect government to take what everyone earns and disburse it as they see fit, that’s Marxism.
BTW, I’m willing to pay for the government services I receive, but then I want government to only perform the functions specified in the Constitutiion. I challenge you to identify where the Constitution gives Congress or the President the authority to tax me so you can pay for your kids braces.
On a final note, your personal attack on me because I don’t like a candidate’s tax policy is highly revealing. You don’t have any idea how much I make nor do you have any idea how much I give to charity – in terms of both time and dollars – yet you seem most eager to make assumptions. Talk about shame!
But just for the record, I gave more to charity in actual dollars (and as a percentage of income) than Barack Obama or Joe Biden over the past 3 years. Where is your comdenation of them? Or of their eagerness to spend other people’s money?
They very much want to give away other people’s money without giving away their own. Instead of attacking me personally, why don’t you ask them why it is that they don’t follow what they preach?
This comment was posted on October 24th, 2008 at 4:52 pmJosh – before you claim that I’m incorrect, please identify what, specifically, I said that was incorrect.
You’ve commented upon payroll taxes (which is just a weekly way of paying income tax) versus filing for income tax. Perhaps you don’t realize that those ‘payroll taxes’ are merely an advance on your yearly bill for income taxes.
If you’ve had the federal payroll tax deducted from your paycheck, you’ve paid the income tax. If the amount you’ve had deducted is greater than your year-end liability, you get a refund. If it’s less than your year-end liability, you have to pay to make up the difference. Payroll tax and income tax are actually the same thing, just different ways of paying the tax bill government determines you owe.
Many people think that if the withholding tax were eliminated and everyone actually had to write a check for their taxes at the end of the year, there’d be a revolution in the country.
Also, many people with no federal income tax liability get money from the government, especially with the EITC rules.
All that aside, I fail to see how I’m incorrect in stating that Obama’s plan is to have some people pay more so that others don’t have to pay (or get to pay less).
This comment was posted on October 24th, 2008 at 5:05 pmIt’s too bad that this has been turned into a theological issue. It doesn’t belong here.
Now that it’s here, a response is appropriate and relevant. Someone needs to address it because its errors are so conspicously bad.
First of all, you cite Luke 12:48 without asking yourself what is it about which can only be known by going back and looking at v. 41-48.
“From everyone who has been given much, much will be required,and from the one who has been entrusted with much, even more will be asked.”
This has absolutely nothing to do with politics or economics. It’s talking about one’s responsibility as an employee who will be held to a higher standard based on the instructions and duties an employer has left with the worker he put in charge while he was away.
v. 42: Wise manager of a household of servants
v. 43: faithfulness in doing the work that he was hired to do
v. 44: the manager will put that servant in charge over the manager’s possessions
v. 45: just because the manager is away doesn’t mean the employee isn’t supposed to do his job.
v. 46: the worker’s boss is coming back when the worker least expects: question: will the boss return to see if the work has been done as he instructed?
v. 47: the employee had been given instructions, but failed to follow them so will be punished severely
v. 48: lack of knowledge about the the specific instructions is no excuse, the consequences will not be as severe, yet he is supposed to use good judgement regarding his job.
Conclusion: to whom much instruction was given to the employeee, much will be required. He will be held to a higher standard in following those instructions than the employee who is ignorant of the his job.
This comment was posted on October 24th, 2008 at 6:44 pmI think Christ wanted us to be charitable.
I see the government more in the role of the money changers than God — even though many in government service see themselves as godlike.
Maggie is right about the Earned Income Tax Credit. In 1990 while my wife and I were struggling financially, we both paid payroll taxes. Because of our income level, we got back not only what we had paid, but approximately $1,000 more. The EITC is essentially a guaranteed minimum income to the working poor.
This comment was posted on October 24th, 2008 at 11:21 pmMaggie,
As you know, during the lifetime of Jesus the government of Rome collected taxes, but did not use them for the benefit of the poor. The Romans could hardly be called kind masters. It would have been very easy for Jesus to curry favor with the Jews who did not wish to pay taxes to such an oppressive regime. Yet Jesus said they should pay their taxes, even though they disagreed with the recipient and what that government would do with them. “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s . . .”
As far as paying taxes is concerned, I have voted to have my taxes raised every time the school district in which I live has placed a levy on the ballot, even though I do not have any children who will benefit from it. I cannot tell you what that has amounted to, as I do not begrudge the extra charges as I consider it a civic duty to do right by our children (our country’s children). I have also voted for candidates who would raise my taxes. Yup, I voted for Mondale. So your assumption about me (you did decry the fact that I made an assumption about you) that I only think rich people should be paying more taxes “—sort of like you” just plain happens to be false. As far as giving extra to our government, I do hold back on itemizing some deductions, as I do not want to shortchange on my statutory obligations. As far as making payments beyond, I prefer to make charitable contributions as I have a greater chance of giving to causes and organizations that spend their money more to my likes. (I don’t really like the fact that I have helped support the invasion of a country that clearly was not an immediate threat to us, or support the things we have done at Gitmo.) For example, when I found out how much the heads of Save the Children and the head of the American Red Cross made, and compared that with what the head of the Salvation Army in the US made, it was clear that my money would no longer go to the very well compensated former two, and was better spent on the latter. (Save the Children responded a number of times by telling me how many children would die without my continued support—talk about no lack of shame when its head, probably 15-20 years ago now, was making over $300,000. When Eliz. Dole was head of the American Red Cross, she was making $500,000 a year. Shameful, in my view.)
I have not seen what the Obamas have contributed to charities, but I did see what Joe Biden and his wife contributed, and while I like them, I was really shocked at how little they have given. They do not get a pass from me on that one. But both families are supporting a tax plan that will take more from themselves, as both make over $250,000 a year. So they are practicing what they preach. I can’t see how you missed that. As far as attacking you personally, since we do not know each other, there is really not much of a personal element to it. I am attacking wealthy Americans (and if you make over $250,000 a year, you are wealthy in my book) who complain about a small increase in the percentage of tax that they will be paying. Don’t you love this country enough to do that? Look what it has given you?
You say you only want to pay for expenses incurred with “functions specified in the Constitution”. I do not see cancer research specified in the Constitution. Are you opposed to funding the NIH? I don’t see anything about solar power in the Constitution. Are you suggesting that trying to develop alternative energy sources so we can be free of dependency on oil from countries that don’t much like us should not get government funding? FDIC is not in the Constitution. You want to go back to the days when we had raids on banks? And you know I could go on and on.
The point about Holmes was that he demonstrated his patriotism with more than his mouth. I expect that if JFK were able to address the Republican National Convention this year, he would have been booed if he said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” My multimillionaire cousins never cease to complain about their taxes. So very rich, yet so ungrateful. When on vacation they stay in $500 a night hotel rooms. But that is not complained about because that proves to them that they are elites.
Now we have a huge national debt. How do we pay for it? There are reasons that suggest that it is only fair for the wealthy to pay a higher percentage than those who have little. Our military, for example, helps keep other governments from coming in and stealing from us, though I admit the days of Viking raids are long gone, but Americans have assets in less stable parts of the world. Just as the person with a very expensive house has to pay more to insure it than one with a shack, so too it is fair for those who have vast wealth to pay more to “insure” it than one who has little. So if you are making more than $250,000 a year, you should be paying a higher rate. How else are we going to pay off our debt? What is your plan?
We all know the tax code contains many provisions that wealthy people can take advantage of that those without wealth cannot. This point was driven home to me most powerfully in 1976, when I was in graduate school. It was the year Ronald Reagan made his first run for the Republican nomination. As a result his taxes for 1975 were published in the press. He and Nancy had an income of over $120,000. My income that year was about $7,500. Guess what? I paid more federal taxes than they did, and I paid more Minnesota state taxes than they paid in California taxes. (They also listed the amount of sales taxes they paid—it seemed like a lot to me, so they probably beat me in that area. On $7,500 one does not buy much more than food and university expenses.) Reagan was campaigning for a larger military. I said to myself, he wants to build more ships to protect his wealth, but seems to want me to pay for them. Does that push your fairness button?
Parents having kids they cannot afford. A hard issue, especially as I think humans have over-populated the planet. How do we tackle this tricky problem? A major component appears to be fostering the education of women. (The better educated the girls are in the poor countries, the lower their birth rates become.) But bringing it back here, there will always be the couple that has a child with major medical issues. Should they be destroyed by that? Or should we as a society say we will share in that burden? Would you prefer that they have to depend on charity? Or would you say that they should not be able to have children unless they have a job that provides enough insurance to pay for all those expenses an unexpectedly challenged child can have? And what about schooling for special needs kids? If you don’t have any special needs kids, would you say it is not fair for you to be taxed to pay for special ed?
You wrote “Jesus never said to his followers: ‘give your money to the government so they can take care of the poor.’” Do you think Jesus would be against the government responding to emergencies caused by natural disasters, believing it should all be done by private donations? Do you think Jesus would be against governmental intervention in Africa to stop the spread of malaria by giving the poor tents and netting to keep the mosquitoes away? The Jesus who speaks to me speaks not only of individual responsibility, but of collective responsibility. So many of our homeless are people with mental diseases, especially schizophrenics and drug addicts. So many are Viet Nam war vets. Our government sent them over there, shouldn’t our government help take care of them? I have yet to find anything in the Constitution that says what government is to do with people who are mentally ill, people who have been damaged by war, people who have become addicted to drugs. I guess it has to do with whether or not you believe government should play a role, or if people should be left to beg and hope there is enough charity in the land so that individuals will rise up and help them out. I think the down and out should not have to wonder.
As a retired person with less than $50,000 a year in income, I will get a tax cut if Obama’s plan is enacted. But that is not why I’ll vote for him. I would vote for him even if he told me my tax burden would go up by 10%. Our country is in a very bad way these days, much of it due to “W” and the tax policies of the Republicans. I am ready to sacrifice for the sake of my country. I just wish more Republicans were, especially the ones who are so well off. Yes Sarah Palin, it is patriotic to pay taxes. You should do so gladly for the privilege of living in this country.
This comment was posted on October 25th, 2008 at 8:17 pmSo John, am I correct in thinking that regardless of who wins the election you will be contributing 10% more to our government?
This comment was posted on October 27th, 2008 at 4:07 amBy the way, you may want to rethink the cause of our “bad way these days.” Nearly all analysis relate this crisis back the Clinton era NAFTA and the sub-prime loans (the ones that Clinton and Janet Reno pushed so hard for Freddie and Frannie). As far as the biblical tie in is concerned I must agree with the others who have stated that this is a sad and inappropriate distortion of the bible and Jesus. It does not belong here. However, my Jesus says we are to have faith in him and not our government. I may be very young but I still believe that if I have faith in God and he is on my side who can be against me?
So John am I correct in thinking that you will be contributing 10% more regardless of who wins this Nov?
This comment was posted on October 27th, 2008 at 4:25 amYou may also want to rethink your cause of the “very bad way these days.” Nearly all of our analysis relate this economic crisis to Clinton era NAFTA and sub-prime lending (the ones that Bill Clinton and Janet Reno pushed for Frannie and Freddie).
I also find your reference to women needing more education to reduce child birth rates completely offensive. I equate it to saying lets just castrate men- that would fix the pregnancy problem. It is not just an education problem- most US citizens can tell you want causes pregnancy and how to prevent it.
The biblical reference does not belong here (as others have also noted). However, I may be young but the Jesus I believe in wants us to have faith in him, not the government. If God is on my side who can be against me?
John – there’s a difference between you voluntarily giving your money – in whatever way you choose – and government deciding to take my money because it thinks someone else is more deserving.
THAT’s the distinction.
Tax levies that are voted upon are the same thing – it is a tyranny of the majority which was never intended by our founders. (You seem to be good at researching, so I hope you’ll look it up – and I mean that sincerely.)
When the majority can vote to take something away from everyone, that’s tyranny and not the nation our founders wanted us to have.
So if you want to pay more in taxes, please do so. But there are some of us who’d prefer to spend our money as WE choose – not how the government chooses. Americans are the most generous people on the earth. If government didn’t take so much of my income, I’d have a lot more to spend helping projects I believe in. And so would every other American.
Also, remember, that every time the government taxes to give to some charitable function, it takes it’s cut off the top, leaving less for that particular charitable function. You’d be better off giving directly to stem-cell research if that’s your preference, than you would to let government take your tax dollars, take their share off the top and then distribute the balance to such research.
In the end, it’s not about what you want to do – it’s about letting other Americans have the same choice. Just because you’d choose to let government tax you more, don’t force the rest of us to make the same decision. While you might find it easier to go this route, there are many others who would prefer not to have a middleman.
This comment was posted on October 27th, 2008 at 2:16 pmSocialist is too mild of a word to describe the Marxist Obama. Obama has already implemented his first Marxist act, that being Obama’s US Senate bill S2433 that Obama is currently sponsoring in the US Senate. Obama’s S2433 is a global MARXIST WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION scheme. The tax money that is squeezed out of us by Obama’s S2433 will add an “ADDITIONAL” 845 Billion in taxes on an already over taxed America and Obama’s S2433 will consume seven percent of our GNP. The money from Obama’s S2433 will be given to the corrupt United Nations, specifically for “The UN Global Poverty Act”. Your money will then be REDISTRIBUTED to despicable third world dictators. This is factual and can be verified, just Google “Obama’s S2433″ and read for yourself how Obama is working to REDISTRIBUTE your hard earned money to the tyrants of the world. Obama has also vowed to eliminate the reduction on the death inheritance tax that President Bush implemented so he can get his sticky hands on most of your inheritance money. Know who to curse when your love ones leave you something and Obama’s Marxist government takes most of it from you and REDISTRIBUTES it to the lazy, unproductive losers of the USA and the world. Obama has also vowed to double the Capital Gains Tax so if you bought a second house to cash in on for your retirement, you can expect your property investment return to be cut in half at the very least so kiss your retirement goodbye. These acts and Obama’s S2433 are only some Comrade Obama’s planned take from and give away programs with many more coming if he gets into office. There is NO way that Obama can implement all his Marxist’s plans without taxing Joe Average to death, forget about the rich. There is a bottom to every well and the rich aren’t rich enough to fund all the massive Marxist CHANGE that the Messiah has in the closet. That is Obama’s economic plan, vote for John McCain and keep your money.
This comment was posted on October 28th, 2008 at 11:42 amMaggie,
I wanted to pass on this story, I tried emailing without any luck….seems quite similar to what Tom Noe is serving time for…can we get any traction with it?????
Here’s the third punch: Obama accepted a bribe as a state senator when he arranged a grant for Yesse Yehudah so he could take a $10,000 cut
Posted by hillbuzz under Uncategorized
NOTE: The article below is from last year. It’s a story that was never picked up by the media (since when have they ever picked up anything about Obama?) and the Clinton campaign did not know what to do with this — people we’ve spoken to said that, in retrospect, they realize what a mistake this was because what Obama did here is actually a prosecutable crime. We were told, specifically, that the bribe Obama took as a state senator is the thing David Axelrod has lived in terror of this whole campaign — he has been praying this does not get out.
This comment was posted on October 30th, 2008 at 5:25 pmOne reason this never came back to bite Obama is that the article below is overly long — and the part about the bribe is buried in the middle — it’s no coincidence this story appeared in the LA Times. The article’s author, Dan Morain, tried to bring this bribe up in the primaries, but never had any support in the media to go anywhere with it.
One of the greatest advantages Obama has is that he’s surrounded by so many crooked deals, kooks, loons, and criminals that it’s hard for the public to understand most of what’s going on. Here in Chicago, Team Hillary kept trying to bring up Obama’s connections to Tony Rezko and the land deal for Obama’s Mansion — but people couldn’t understand what the Rezko dealings were all about. They still don’t understand it. And they won’t read a long article like the one below about the rest of Obama’s dirty dealings.
In short, Obama had massive campaign debt coming off of his failed bid to challenge Bobby Rush for a seat in Congress. Smarting from that loss, Obama needed money, so he turned to Yesse Yehudah. What’s so strange about this is that Yehudah is a Republican — so why would he raise money for Obama? What the article below does not say is that, magically, 10 people who work for Yehudah and have never given money to any elected official before – AND WHO COULD NOT AFFORD TO MAKE $1,000 donations – all made $1,000 donations to Obama simultaneously. As if someone else made the donations for all of them, in their names, with money that came from somewhere else.
The quid pro quo on this is simple: Obama took a $10,000 bribe from Yehudah for using his position in the state senate to throw a $75,000 grant to Yehudah’s nonprofit organization. People here in Chicago say this was obvious politics in Illinois: where Obama agreed to get Yehudah a grant, but Obama’s fee for this transaction was $10,000 to pay off his campaign debt.
Yehudah’s nonproft later came under investigation, and Obama panicked: he dumped $5,000 of the bribe money he took over to Yehudah as fast as he could after that.
Read the story below from Dan Morain. We know this one is tough because it’s not easy for most people to understand Illinois politics — but what Obama did here with this grant is illegal, and it’s the kind of things politicians in Illinois go to jail for all the time — including our last governor George Ryan, and most likely our current governor Rod Blagojevich too.
Bribes like this are what people mean when they refer to “dirty Chicago politics
I think this article does a great job of explaining things that most voters do not even seem to be aware of! As someone who has consistently worked 2-3 jobs to get through college and will graduate with over $100,000 in student loans, I think that I have worked hard to earn the $100,000+ that I will be paid when I am finished with school. Since the age of 18 I have been totally self-sufficient not asking for help from my parents and realizing that making it through college was my responsibility. You control your own destiny and if you aren’t happy with your current living situation it is your responsibility to change it. It is not the government’s responsibility nor should it be their place to say that because I make more than you I should essentially have to share more of my income with those “less fortunate.” It seems very unfair for those who may have worked very hard to get to where they are and would basically be penalized for being successful, hard-working, motivated, and ambitious.
This comment was posted on October 30th, 2008 at 7:16 pmGreat article, Maggie. You asked why Obama doesn’t share his campaign wealth with McCain! Great question!
I don’t like how Obama speaks about “the rich” when he talks about Geo. Bush’s tax cuts for the most wealthy americans. Did the most wealthy really get bigger tax cuts on some kind of graduated scale? That’s what he suggests. I wasn’t aware if he did that; perhaps you know.
He feeds that sentiment that could provoke masses to revolt in time of economic crisis–the idea that the rich are evil and undeserving of the fruits of their labor –that the poor are ENTITLED and deserving to receive those fruits of another man’s labor because they have needs.
We already have social programs for the needy –and we already have the rich taking care of everyone else. What we need now is economic growth –so we should give the wealth-makers every incentive to keep business in the US, so they can hire more, spend more, give more –and pay more taxes. We also need more children for many reasons, including the tax base of the future.
This comment was posted on October 31st, 2008 at 12:30 amMaggie,
This comment was posted on November 1st, 2008 at 12:11 pmI haven’t always agreed with you over the years but you’re right on this time. People need to be educated as to who is really shouldering the tax burden. And its not the people who are not contributing, who are not achieving. This country was not founded by or for people who want a job. It was built by people who built up a business and created something for themselves and their families. This is still the land of milk and honey, the streets ARE paved with gold. If you are willing to work for it and that does not mean getting a job and expecting the owner of the company to take care of you.
Keep up the good work Mags!!
joe@joejoestravel.com
Before you talk about whether spreading the wealth is right or wrong, you might want to consider how concentrated our wealth is — a third of it is held by 1% of us, and 57% is held by 10% of us — and how concentrated our income is — 10% of us get 36% of the wages and close to 50% of total income. 50%!!
Do you believe that all of that concentrated wealth has been earned without stealing from the rest of us?
Do you believe that all of that concentrated income is really a return to hard work, or might you consider the possibility that it is largely a return to various kinds of monopoly power and wealth?
I read somewhere that 19% of us think we’re in the top 1%. Are you really part of the top 10%? Do you realistically think that you or any of your children will ever be part of the top 10% (defined either by income or by wealth)? Do you think it is in your children’s genuine best interests to defend the privileges we give to our best off people?
See lvtfan.typepad.com for more about how we might dismantle the poverty machine, and move toward economic justice.
This comment was posted on November 1st, 2008 at 2:49 pmLVTfan – why do you think that simply because someone has gained or earned something, s/he has done so at the expense of others? If I sell you a product that you are willing to pay my established price for, I did not ’steal’ from you.
To paraphrase others, ‘economic justice’ is just a code word for socialism/marxism. It purports that equality of OUTCOME should be the criteria for all things, rather than the foundation upon with this country was built: the equality of OPPORTUNITY.
Read what Ashley wrote above…your life is what you make of it and if you’ve managed (through luck, hard work or accident of birth) to become wealthy, why do you think someone else is somehow entitled that any of that – or that government should confiscate it in order to give it to someone else?
While you’re so concerned about who has wealth, you might also want to look into who pays for all the things government already does? The top 50% of taxpayers cover 97% of the costs. That means that the bottom 50% of taxpayers (those making under about $32,000 AGI http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6) aren’t paying their ‘fair share.’
Also, those ‘with’ the money are the ones creating and providing the JOBS. Please show me how many poor people hired others.
And yes, I think that anyone who wants to work hard enough can easily get into the top 10% of income earners…especially when you consider that you’d only have to make about $109,000 per year to be in that group.
This comment was posted on November 2nd, 2008 at 1:24 pmFor those of you who think that people who’ve made money somehow ‘owe’ us, read this:
http://townhall.com/columnists/AndrewTallman/2008/10/31/do_the_rich_owe_us?page=full&comments=true
This comment was posted on November 3rd, 2008 at 10:52 amLVTfan –I don’t like to see CEO’s making exorbitant salaries –demanding such salaries –and then leaving with huge severance packages after they have supervised the company’s bankruptcy–and company lay-offs. I can’t think what their boards are thinking of, in making such contracts!! They must all be alot of MBA’s doing quid pro quo when they skim a company while destroying it.
I do think wealthy business owners should care about their employees, rather than exploiting them –and do the best they can to “spread the wealth around” and provide benefits according to the company’s ability to provide. If they don’t provide benefits, the people then want unionization and/or federal welfare programs. Unions don’t get a foot-hold in businesses where the workers feel appreciated and compensated fairly. But once the union gets in, it is never satisfied –as greedy as any business owner.
In fact, I say, give businesses plenty of tax incentives to hire and expand, provide benefits and take risk –rather than sending those companies out of country by excessive regulation and taxation–and gov’t hostility.
Greed at either end is a problem. Or as the Bible says, “The love of money is the root of evil.”
But Jesus also gave some examples of good stewardship and investment and doing what the boss tells you–along with his teachings on generosity and compassion.
This comment was posted on November 7th, 2008 at 8:51 pm