Off Topic · How do you folks feel about Obama spreading the wealth? (page 1)

If it's so simple, then why didn't anyone else do it? Could it be as simple as being president, appointing your 'own' kind of Supremes when about two seats become vacant and then getting congress to vote in your favor, could it all be that simple??

What is the down sides of spreading the wealth? Will it hinder an established system that may take years to reverse, if that's what is needed? What could happen if it didn't work and for what reason wouldn't it work.

I have to ask because I just don't think things can be that' simple! Article below:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10282008/pos...

Spreading the wealth makes sense if you believe the middle class--the majority of Americans--drives this economy. If you believe in the trickle down philosophy of George Bush--put as much money as possible in the wealthy and they'll stimulate the economy and it will trickle down to everyone else--then it wouldn't make sense.

The only major trickle down effect that happens in the wealthy world is fund raising. Fund raising is one of the biggest money taking/making systems that is taken from the very wealthy and nothing more. That's the only trickling going on, because they can write it off on the taxes.

But someone pointed out to me that what we have now is very, very bad. This system I'm talking about of very rich and highly taxed middle class. Well my question above is geared towards this system. Again, if you try to spread the wealth, does the worse situation get even worse? How' I don't know. That's my question. Can it be done without destroying another part of our system? Something that is unforeseen?

If I donate $100, it still costs me $65 out of pocket net. Not like a total write off.

The wealthy pay capital gains taxes, AMT taxes, taxed on luxury goods, plane tickets, cars and real estate.

Most small companies employ the majority of this country. When I Hire someone it costs about 30% more than just salary in Taxes, pension, and insurance.

You don't hear "the wealthy" complain about taxes because its understood what responsablitly taxes are necessary to keep the government, and many of the programs going. Many of the programs are for aid both here and abroad.

You can argue about "Bush trickle down" all you want, but phuching "the wealthy" won't work. Mess too much with Capital Gains taxes and divident taxes and they'll move it offshore and/or buy more tax free bonds. Remember, stocks are the capital used to build factories, offices and job creation. Not just casino nite for the IRA's.

"the wealthy" might be a nice political tool to use to get elected, but don't phuch with them cuz they are the ones with real power.

Bonne, your 30 now and finally have a job? Congrats. I guess your an expert in finance now? Teaching philosophy in Alabama? Enjoy the work and let the rest of the world handle the stress.

Posted by Nalod:


If I donate $100, it still costs me $65 out of pocket net. Not like a total write off.

The wealthy pay capital gains taxes, AMT taxes, taxed on luxury goods, plane tickets, cars and real estate.

Most small companies employ the majority of this country. When I Hire someone it costs about 30% more than just salary in Taxes, pension, and insurance.

You don't hear "the wealthy" complain about taxes because its understood what responsablitly taxes are necessary to keep the government, and many of the programs going. Many of the programs are for aid both here and abroad.

You can argue about "Bush trickle down" all you want, but phuching "the wealthy" won't work. Mess too much with Capital Gains taxes and divident taxes and they'll move it offshore and/or buy more tax free bonds. Remember, stocks are the capital used to build factories, offices and job creation. Not just casino nite for the IRA's.

"the wealthy" might be a nice political tool to use to get elected, but don't phuch with them cuz they are the ones with real power.

Bonne, your 30 now and finally have a job? Congrats. I guess your an expert in finance now? Teaching philosophy in Alabama? Enjoy the work and let the rest of the world handle the stress.

Oh I've definitely got my fair share of stress but I usually enjoy the work!

Posted by Nalod:


If I donate $100, it still costs me $65 out of pocket net. Not like a total write off.

65% isn't a total loss either and didn't mean to imply that it was 100%. I'm not sure how much anyone gets back when writing off, but I know they do get something back. Good post Nalod.

Posted by 4949:

Posted by Nalod:


If I donate $100, it still costs me $65 out of pocket net. Not like a total write off.

65% isn't a total loss either and didn't mean to imply that it was 100%. I'm not sure how much anyone gets back when writing off, but I know they do get something back. Good post Nalod.

Don't confuse write offs vs. Tax credit.

If I receive a credit, I can use it dollar for dollar against taxes. If I put a Solar heat system I receive a $2000 credit. That is only useful if I actually pay taxes. If I do, then I apply the credit and the cost of my heat system drops by that amount.

A solar heat system is about 8-10k just for hot water. A tank water heater is about 5-800$, a tankless gas model with install is $2500. I have to put a new system in soon and looking at all alternatives. with current pricing on a Solar system will pay for itself in about 6 years for a family of 4. I think longer.

I wish I had a radiator system to pump hot water thru it to heat in winter and my savings would be huge. But 10k for hot water is a bit much.

spreading the wealth is better than spreading your butt cheeks which will happen if mccain/palin is in office.

4949, what do you think Obama meant by saying spreading the wealth? Do you think he will take from me and you and give to the ones making less money than us? Do you think he will take from the rich and give to us? Do you think he will take from the ultra rich and give to the rest of us? Can you tell me what group he is going take from and what group/groups is he going to spread around to?

Unless you support a flat tax rate, you believe in spreading the wealth

Posted by jazz74:

spreading the wealth is better than spreading your butt cheeks which will happen if mccain/palin is in office.

I understand the meaning, but not sure what you meant by that directly. I already know there is no alternative and only wanted to know if there were down sides to spreading the wealth, no matter who is in there. What does it mean in the long run?

Posted by Silverfuel:

4949, what do you think Obama meant by saying spreading the wealth? Do you think he will take from me and you and give to the ones making less money than us? Do you think he will take from the rich and give to us? Do you think he will take from the ultra rich and give to the rest of us? Can you tell me what group he is going take from and what group/groups is he going to spread around to?

How should I know?! That's why I'm asking! Do you guys really know what 'spreading the wealth means'? I think it's worth talking about, because I really don't know what it will affect if put into place and it's going to offset some things if and when it does happen.

And don't get me wrong. I want people to have a fair shake and to be relieved of all of these crazy tax hikes, but when someone wants to change a major part of our financial system, shouldn't we ask questions first, just to make sure it's not going to upset something bigger in the long run? I think so. And that's what I'm getting at. I just don't think it's that simple, otherwise the majority would have been pushing for it long ago.

When bush wanted to grab our tax system and put it 'in our hands' (yeah right) it sounded good at first, but then a lot of people backed off of it, because they suddenly didn't trust the idea or the way it was going to be carried out. Now I don't think spreading the wealth is going to be that' drastic, but I still think we should ask questions all the same, just as we did under that tax situation. Don't you think?


[Edited by - 4949 on 10-31-2008 07:14 AM]

Posted by 4949:

Posted by Silverfuel:

4949, what do you think Obama meant by saying spreading the wealth? Do you think he will take from me and you and give to the ones making less money than us? Do you think he will take from the rich and give to us? Do you think he will take from the ultra rich and give to the rest of us? Can you tell me what group he is going take from and what group/groups is he going to spread around to?

How should I know?! That's why I'm asking! Do you guys really know what 'spreading the wealth means'? I think it's worth talking about, because I really don't know what it will affect if put into place and it's going to offset some things if and when it does happen.

And don't get me wrong. I want people to have a fair shake and to be relieved of all of these crazy tax hikes, but when someone wants to change a major part of our financial system, shouldn't we ask questions first, just to make sure it's not going to upset something bigger in the long run? I think so. And that's what I'm getting at. I just don't think it's that simple, otherwise the majority would have been pushing for it long ago.

When bush wanted to grab our tax system and put it 'in our hands' (yeah right) it sounded good at first, but then a lot of people backed off of it, because they suddenly didn't trust the idea or the way it was going to be carried out. Now I don't think spreading the wealth is going to be that' drastic, but I still think we should ask questions all the same, just as we did under that tax situation. Don't you think?


[Edited by - 4949 on 10-31-2008 07:14 AM]

it means that everyone shouldn't be taxed the same. if you are wealthy, over $250,000 salary annually, which is less than 10% of the population, you will get a significant increase in taxes while the middle class get a tax break. it isn't socialism, but common sense. if you can afford to pay more taxes, why not? instead of the corporate tax cuts and upper class cuts that the last administration did. how are we doing with that philosophy now? clinton did it to an extent when he was in office but obama has a more aggressive campaign i guess because the economy wasn't nearly as bad as it is now ( though it is ironic that clinton came in to office because of almost similar circumstances with the recession of '91).

"Spreading the wealth" is a statement to get votes form the middle/lower majority.

Bonnie, Elaborate you your flat tax statement, its an interesting subject.

I (fundamentally) like a flat tax but I think its really been proposed in the form of a VAT (value added tax) on the purchase of goods and services. The more you make, the more you spend? Also the fact that nobody gets away from it. Cash business or illegal business will still be spending, so tax rolls are finally caught into the system.

How you actually collect taxes accuratly is another question, and the dozens of lobbies agsinst this are huge.

I think a lot of people don't fully understand our *graduated* income tax system. If Obama's tax plan is passed and hypothetically Joe the Plumber were to make $280K a year, then Joe the Plumber would still receive equal treatment to everyone else. It's only for the nmarginal portion of his income above $250K (i.e., $30K) that he would have a tax increase from 36 to 39%. For the first $250K of his salary, he keeps the same low tax rate of other people not making above $250K. So if high school teacher makes $42K a year, then the amount she pays in taxes is the same as what Joe the Plumber pays on the first $42K of his income. There's equal treatment for everyone at each level of their income.

Bonnie, Elaborate you your flat tax statement, its an interesting subject.

Now that I think more about it, I'm not entirely sure my statement was correct. Basically, what I was thinking was that with higher income tax brackets, wealthy people will be paying disproportionately more. Some of this money will go directly to spreading the wealth (e.g., welfare programs); at other times, it will be more indirect, as when the wealthy contribute more money to public services that we all benefit from like public education. HOWEVER, what I wasn't taking into account was that even with a flat tax, the wealthy would still end up paying more in total taxes and you could still spread the wealth, just not by as much as you can with a graduated tax system. So I think the point of what I was saying is still correct, but I might revise it to something like "unless you believe everyone should pay a flat tax, you're proposing spreading the wealth." (Note the distinction between a flat tax and a flat tax RATE.)

Most business valuations are about 5x revenue for a small biz. I don't think Joe the Plummer knew what he was talking about. Tax his adjusted salary is a bit different for revenue taken for a business.

A biz throwing off INCOME over 250k giving a 50% profit margin (I don't know if possible) would have to cost 2.5 million.

Joe the Plummer I don't think has that kind of money to put down and borrow on.

Joe is not very bright.

Posted by jazz74:

Posted by 4949:

Posted by Silverfuel:

4949, what do you think Obama meant by saying spreading the wealth? Do you think he will take from me and you and give to the ones making less money than us? Do you think he will take from the rich and give to us? Do you think he will take from the ultra rich and give to the rest of us? Can you tell me what group he is going take from and what group/groups is he going to spread around to?

How should I know?! That's why I'm asking! Do you guys really know what 'spreading the wealth means'? I think it's worth talking about, because I really don't know what it will affect if put into place and it's going to offset some things if and when it does happen.

And don't get me wrong. I want people to have a fair shake and to be relieved of all of these crazy tax hikes, but when someone wants to change a major part of our financial system, shouldn't we ask questions first, just to make sure it's not going to upset something bigger in the long run? I think so. And that's what I'm getting at. I just don't think it's that simple, otherwise the majority would have been pushing for it long ago.

When bush wanted to grab our tax system and put it 'in our hands' (yeah right) it sounded good at first, but then a lot of people backed off of it, because they suddenly didn't trust the idea or the way it was going to be carried out. Now I don't think spreading the wealth is going to be that' drastic, but I still think we should ask questions all the same, just as we did under that tax situation. Don't you think?


[Edited by - 4949 on 10-31-2008 07:14 AM]

it means that everyone shouldn't be taxed the same. if you are wealthy, over $250,000 salary annually, which is less than 10% of the population, you will get a significant increase in taxes while the middle class get a tax break. it isn't socialism, but common sense. if you can afford to pay more taxes, why not? instead of the corporate tax cuts and upper class cuts that the last administration did. how are we doing with that philosophy now? clinton did it to an extent when he was in office but obama has a more aggressive campaign i guess because the economy wasn't nearly as bad as it is now ( though it is ironic that clinton came in to office because of almost similar circumstances with the recession of '91).

I agree jazz. Spreading the wealth does not mean taking from the rich and giving to the poor. What he said by spreading the wealth isn't even socialism. And people have to understand the difference between communism and socialism.

Posted by jazz74:

Posted by 4949:

Posted by Silverfuel:

4949, what do you think Obama meant by saying spreading the wealth? Do you think he will take from me and you and give to the ones making less money than us? Do you think he will take from the rich and give to us? Do you think he will take from the ultra rich and give to the rest of us? Can you tell me what group he is going take from and what group/groups is he going to spread around to?

How should I know?! That's why I'm asking! Do you guys really know what 'spreading the wealth means'? I think it's worth talking about, because I really don't know what it will affect if put into place and it's going to offset some things if and when it does happen.

And don't get me wrong. I want people to have a fair shake and to be relieved of all of these crazy tax hikes, but when someone wants to change a major part of our financial system, shouldn't we ask questions first, just to make sure it's not going to upset something bigger in the long run? I think so. And that's what I'm getting at. I just don't think it's that simple, otherwise the majority would have been pushing for it long ago.

When bush wanted to grab our tax system and put it 'in our hands' (yeah right) it sounded good at first, but then a lot of people backed off of it, because they suddenly didn't trust the idea or the way it was going to be carried out. Now I don't think spreading the wealth is going to be that' drastic, but I still think we should ask questions all the same, just as we did under that tax situation. Don't you think?


[Edited by - 4949 on 10-31-2008 07:14 AM]

it means that everyone shouldn't be taxed the same. if you are wealthy, over $250,000 salary annually, which is less than 10% of the population, you will get a significant increase in taxes while the middle class get a tax break. it isn't socialism, but common sense. if you can afford to pay more taxes, why not? instead of the corporate tax cuts and upper class cuts that the last administration did. how are we doing with that philosophy now? clinton did it to an extent when he was in office but obama has a more aggressive campaign i guess because the economy wasn't nearly as bad as it is now ( though it is ironic that clinton came in to office because of almost similar circumstances with the recession of '91).

Yeah, but wouldn't common sense also tell us that if they do' tax them, then they'll only raise the prices once again. So much for getting a break on taxes.

Posted by 4949:

Posted by jazz74:

Posted by 4949:

Posted by Silverfuel:

4949, what do you think Obama meant by saying spreading the wealth? Do you think he will take from me and you and give to the ones making less money than us? Do you think he will take from the rich and give to us? Do you think he will take from the ultra rich and give to the rest of us? Can you tell me what group he is going take from and what group/groups is he going to spread around to?

How should I know?! That's why I'm asking! Do you guys really know what 'spreading the wealth means'? I think it's worth talking about, because I really don't know what it will affect if put into place and it's going to offset some things if and when it does happen.

And don't get me wrong. I want people to have a fair shake and to be relieved of all of these crazy tax hikes, but when someone wants to change a major part of our financial system, shouldn't we ask questions first, just to make sure it's not going to upset something bigger in the long run? I think so. And that's what I'm getting at. I just don't think it's that simple, otherwise the majority would have been pushing for it long ago.

When bush wanted to grab our tax system and put it 'in our hands' (yeah right) it sounded good at first, but then a lot of people backed off of it, because they suddenly didn't trust the idea or the way it was going to be carried out. Now I don't think spreading the wealth is going to be that' drastic, but I still think we should ask questions all the same, just as we did under that tax situation. Don't you think?


[Edited by - 4949 on 10-31-2008 07:14 AM]

it means that everyone shouldn't be taxed the same. if you are wealthy, over $250,000 salary annually, which is less than 10% of the population, you will get a significant increase in taxes while the middle class get a tax break. it isn't socialism, but common sense. if you can afford to pay more taxes, why not? instead of the corporate tax cuts and upper class cuts that the last administration did. how are we doing with that philosophy now? clinton did it to an extent when he was in office but obama has a more aggressive campaign i guess because the economy wasn't nearly as bad as it is now ( though it is ironic that clinton came in to office because of almost similar circumstances with the recession of '91).

Yeah, but wouldn't common sense also tell us that if they do' tax them, then they'll only raise the prices once again. So much for getting a break on taxes.

they are raising the prices anyway because the demand has reduced since everyone is cutting back. common sense is that if most of America, like the middle class, have disposable income, they will spend it. hopefully these tax breaks will do that and free up the market so people will spend instead of save.

Good points, thanks. Lots of information to take into account here.