Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080918/ap_on_el_pr/biden_taxes

Biden: Paying higher taxes patriotic for wealthy By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer
8 minutes ago



Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden said Thursday that paying more in taxes is the patriotic thing to do for wealthier Americans. In a new TV ad that repeats widely debunked claims about the Democratic tax plan, the Republican campaign calls Obama's tax increases "painful."

Under the economic plan proposed by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, people earning more than $250,000 a year would pay more in taxes while those earning less — the vast majority of American taxpayers — would receive a tax cut.

Although Republican John McCain claims that Obama would raise taxes, the independent Tax Policy Center and other groups conclude that four out of five U.S. households would receive tax cuts under Obama's proposals.

"We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people," Biden said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."

Noting that wealthier Americans would indeed pay more, Biden said: "It's time to be patriotic ... time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut."

McCain released a television ad Thursday charging that Obama would increase the size of the federal government amid an economic crisis. Contending that "a big government casts a big shadow on us all," the ad features the image of a shadow slowly covering a sleeping baby as a narrator misstates the reach of the Obama tax proposal.

"Obama and his liberal congressional allies want a massive government, billions in spending increases, wasteful pork," the ad says. "And we would pay — painful income taxes, skyrocketing taxes on life savings, electricity and home heating oil. Can your family afford that?"

The McCain campaign said the ad is set to run nationally.

___

Ahhh, good old fashioned Politics.

See him. He'll eat your Baby and then lease it's bone's back to you. Go on. Vote for me. I'll just take a nibble, honest.

News flash: 4 out of 5 households will get a tax cut.

New flash: If you're making 250k+ a year, you can bloody well afford to pay a little more.

New flash: Biden says sky is blue. McCain campaign releases fearmongering press release in response.

And that's why Obama-Biden have my vote.

I totally agree with Taxing the rich.

My Government recently stuffed me and thousands of others over by abolishing the lower tax band or some such. Net result? I pay more tax, despite not earning a great deal of money (just gone up to £14,000p.a.)

However, it seems some backpeddling has been done, and the thousands stung by this idiotic move (do they actually WANT us to vote for them?) should be getting a rebate to the tune of £60.

Mannahnin wrote:News flash: 4 out of 5 households will get a tax cut.

New flash: If you're making 250k+ a year, you can bloody well afford to pay a little more.

New flash: Biden says sky is blue. McCain campaign releases fearmongering press release in response.

News flash, the Democrats haven't put out a major tax cut since Kennedy. Current estimates are that Obama's pledged new "investments" are reching the $1.0Trillion with a T level. They'll raise the rates all right, but not lower them for everyone else.

Your household indicator is also incorrect (I've seen it on other sites). It include households of $18,000 or less. They don't pay income taxes now. How are they going to get a tax "cut?"

The budget was last balanced (and running a surplus) in the Clinton administration. When was the last time a Republican budget ran a surplus?

Re: the household indicator, have you looked at the actual report? The number you're looking for is in paragraph 2 of page 30:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411693_CandidateTaxPlans.pdf

"Overall, about 81 percent of households would owe less tax whereas only about 11 percent would be hit by a tax increase."

To give McCain credit, this ad only misleading, compared to the outright lies of the last couple of efforts. So at least he's getting better. Yes, it's still taking the American people for idiots, but less so than his previous couple of ads.

1. You conveniently didn't answer the question (Clintons raised taxes fyi). When was the last time a Democratic led Congress and President materially lowered taxes?

2. You still can't have people who pay no taxes get a "tax cut" thats a wealth transfer. Call it what it is.

Mannahnin wrote:The budget was last balanced (and running a surplus) in the Clinton administration. When was the last time a Republican budget ran a surplus?

Re: the household indicator, have you looked at the actual report? The number you're looking for is in paragraph 2 of page 30:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411693_CandidateTaxPlans.pdf

"Overall, about 81 percent of households would owe less tax whereas only about 11 percent would be hit by a tax increase."

Let us rephrase this.

"The budget was last balanced (and running a surplus) in a Republican controlled congress. A Democratric President, who went against his parties wishes of increasing federal spending, was hanging around."

Those 11 % who get the tax increase probably employ a good chunk of the 81% who will get a reduction. But what does that reduction matter when they are layed off? It's tough to take Obama seriously on the economy when his largest contributions have come from the former Fannie Mae CEO who also happened to pick out his VP for him. Only Chris Dodd (D) has taken more money from Fannie Mae/ Freddie Mac over the last few years.

Also, not starting an utterly pointless and illegal War probably helped keep the purse strings tight.

But hey, they aren't American lives are they, so not to worry.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Also, not starting an utterly pointless and illegal War probably helped keep the purse strings tight.

But hey, they aren't American lives are they, so not to worry.

You're right. If Kennedy hadn't started that illegal war in Vietnam we would have been much better off.

Still doesn't answer the question of when the last time the Democrats cut the national income tax. Was it really Kennedy, almost 50 years ago

Of course, this is significantly less ridiculous than all the things republicans call patriotic...good on the dems for at least trying to give the word meaning or take it back.

When is the last time a Republican president materially lowered taxes while keeping a balanced budget? Heck, when is the last time a Republican president kept anything CLOSE to a balanced budget?

Falling dollar, higher inflation, deficit spending...those are all just taxes under a different name.

I guess we should stop using the word "subsidy" for corporations - since in reality it's just a wealth transfer.

I love it when Warren Buffet (My hero! Swoon) complains about the tax rate -

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece

You know things are a-ok when he pay a significantly lower percentage of taxes on his income than his secretary does.

Since Reagan, the taxes on the rich have been cut ridiculously, all because of the Laffer curvehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve (and trickle-down economics) and their interpretation of it.

As for Clinton, yes, he raised taxes for some, and lowered them for others. And man, those were some lean years, the 90's. I hope we don't see the return of something like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Budget_Reconciliation_Act_of_1993

A balanced budget! Lower taxes on the poorest! Higher taxes on the richest! more tax brackets! A Nightmare of epic proportions!

I am so sick and tired of taxes being the be-all and end all of arguments for voting republican. This is probably because of my Father in law, who makes no other arguments. Anyway, would I prefer a government that taxed pretty much everyone less, AND had a balanced budget? Yes. Will we EVER see that from the republicans or the democrats? No. So stop saying the republicans are going to do something "good" (lower taxes or keep them the same) and the dems will do something "bad". It is a lot more complicated than that. God I am so sick of this deficit spending.

Then voluntarily give more money to the US government. I never see advocates of higher taxes doing that. Funny that.

WHy should the poor subsidies the wealthy?

Contrary to popular belief in the 1980's, greed is not in fact good. Greed has caused the economic problems we as a globe are currently facing.

Greed breeds loathing, particularly in a soceity rigged toward the protection of the currently rich to the extent it is incredibly difficult, but short of impossible, for someone of humble beginnings to atain wealth. That is unjust in the extreme.

DarthDiggler wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:The budget was last balanced (and running a surplus) in the Clinton administration. When was the last time a Republican budget ran a surplus?

Re: the household indicator, have you looked at the actual report? The number you're looking for is in paragraph 2 of page 30:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411693_CandidateTaxPlans.pdf

"Overall, about 81 percent of households would owe less tax whereas only about 11 percent would be hit by a tax increase."

Let us rephrase this.

"The budget was last balanced (and running a surplus) in a Republican controlled congress. A Democratric President, who went against his parties wishes of increasing federal spending, was hanging around."

Those 11 % who get the tax increase probably employ a good chunk of the 81% who will get a reduction. But what does that reduction matter when they are layed off? It's tough to take Obama seriously on the economy when his largest contributions have come from the former Fannie Mae CEO who also happened to pick out his VP for him. Only Chris Dodd (D) has taken more money from Fannie Mae/ Freddie Mac over the last few years.

"Put another way, a Republican controled congress, when led by a Democratic President, passes fiscally responsible budgets. When a Republican came into office, that said congress blew the budget out of the water with gross overspending."

You can't have it both ways.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:WHy should the poor subsidies the wealthy?

Contrary to popular belief in the 1980's, greed is not in fact good. Greed has caused the economic problems we as a globe are currently facing.

Greed breeds loathing, particularly in a soceity rigged toward the protection of the currently rich to the extent it is incredibly difficult, but short of impossible, for someone of humble beginnings to atain wealth. That is unjust in the extreme.

Whats your better way? Each from his ability each to his need HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

How about everyone:
* pays the same tax rate on cash inflows. NO DEDUCTIONS
* has the same access to primary and secondary education (including vocational schools).

jfrazell wrote:You're right. If Kennedy hadn't started that illegal war in Vietnam we would have been much better off.

Just because they did it first doesn't mean that it is justified the second time around...

I can't understand all the partisan venom flying around. Bashing each other on partisan shortcomings isn't going to solve anything. All that energy would be much better spent trying to find some solutions.

Back on topic:

jfraz: What is your suggestion for tax reform instead of a tiered tax system? The typical arguement against a "progressive tax" is always along the lines of: But those who make more money worked hard to get to that position, and thus, they should be rewarded instead of penalized. While I understand and somewhat agree with this stance, in order to maintain the same taxation revenues, any decreases in taxation from the rich (in a flat tax scheme based on straight %) would have to be redistributed to the middle and lower classes who work in (essential) service level industries, blue collar jobs etc. This added burden will reduce their spending output as it decreases their take-home pay. In the long run, as rich make up less than 20% of the population (IIRC, I think the rich make up less than 10% in the US), this would probably have some sort of impact on the economy due to decreased disposable income amoungst the masses.

jfrazell wrote:How about everyone:
* pays the same tax rate on cash inflows. NO DEDUCTIONS
* has the same access to primary and secondary education (including vocational schools).

Won't happen... because the Republicans wouldn't let it. Deductions are the bread-and-butter of their constituency, and they won't support paying for equal access, since few of their "power" contributors would get use from the process. Nevermind that an educated workforce makes for better employees overall; it's not corporately "cost-effective" to pay for real equal opportunity, in their minds.

jfrazell wrote:
How about everyone:
* pays the same tax rate on cash inflows. NO DEDUCTIONS
* has the same access to primary and secondary education (including vocational schools).

Because this system is harsher to you the lower your income bracket. If family of three is making 50,000 a year, any flat percentage cut from that salary means a hell of a lot more than a family of three making 250,000 a year.

And on the subject line, paying taxes IS patriotic. Paying to support the functioning of your nation is quite patriotic; expecting a free ride, defense and infrastructure and the rest for little to no cost to yourself... why, that sounds like a welfare state to me, almost communistic.

jfrazell wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:WHy should the poor subsidies the wealthy?

Contrary to popular belief in the 1980's, greed is not in fact good. Greed has caused the economic problems we as a globe are currently facing.

Greed breeds loathing, particularly in a soceity rigged toward the protection of the currently rich to the extent it is incredibly difficult, but short of impossible, for someone of humble beginnings to atain wealth. That is unjust in the extreme.

Whats your better way? Each from his ability each to his need HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

How about everyone:
* pays the same tax rate on cash inflows. NO DEDUCTIONS
* has the same access to primary and secondary education (including vocational schools).

No, you just tax the rich more. Not like they are going to miss the money.

In the UK, we have various taxbands which dictates how much you can earn in a year, tax free, and then the percentage of tax taken from the excess. Once you hit £100,000 per annum, thats something like 50%. So how do the greed gits get out of this? Simple. Pay yourself £99,999 as a Salary, and then stick however much extra you fancy in the form of Bonuses. Bonuses are of course taxable, but they cannot push you up a Tax Band.

Overall effect? The rich get richer, and refuse to pay those making all that money for them something approaching a fair wage.

News flash, the Democrats haven't put out a major tax cut since Kennedy. Current estimates are that Obama's pledged new "investments" are reching the $1.0Trillion with a T level. They'll raise the rates all right, but not lower them for everyone else.

Somebody has to pay for the current administrations fiscal irresponsibility and I say it might as well be the poor/middle class.

Define rich Grotsnik. I'd bet good money is just a hair over what you're making yourself.

jfraz: What is your suggestion for tax reform instead of a tiered tax system?

25% on cash flows. Not income-that can be played with, but cash flows.
No deductions. No small business deductions, no personal deductions.
Corporations. Same tax rate with the exception that you get a double declining break due to depreciation of investments in the US.
Investments. 25% on income on realized investments (aka similar to a 401K where the tax is deferred until you pull the income. No deductions.
Also, absent major war budgets must be balanced.

This way everyone has to feel the pain of taxes. Else we have the current system where the masses vote for increasing spending and the elites are ok as they have loopholes they can reduce their tax rates with. I can guarantee your average millionaire Hollywood type pays less per tax rate then anyone paying taxes (in my former life I looked at financials for wealthy persons and their personal businesses-nothing disgusted me more than seeing a millionaire literally paying less taxes than I was as a $40M a year schmo).

It always amazes me that the South and a lot of the poorest areas of America traditionally vote Republican, what an brilliant job of spin they have done. Right wing politics benefit the rich, getting poor people to endorse that is a master stroke. In the UK, the general rule is, the poorer the area, the more left wing, as in most countries.

And as you can see voting left wing has helped the poor world wide hasn't it...

jfrazell wrote:Define rich Grotsnik. I'd bet good money is just a hair over what you're making yourself.

Well, sorry to disappoint. I currently earn £14,000 per annum, roughly equivalent to $28,000 or so US. Now, this equates, after tax but before my bonus, to around £960 a month. Bonus will kick that slightly above £1,000 in a good month (not a great bonus but hey, it's extra money for doing my job).

In my area, and I've been looking recently, a 1 Bedroom Bedsit (single room apartment, often with a shared Kitchen and Bathroom) goes for around £500 a month. Add on top of that Council Tax (basically paying for daring to exist!) of £80ish a month, Gas, Electricity and Water Rates, and I'd be shelling out £650 a month. Then comes food. Sadly, and this is largely my fault, I am something of an amateur foody, so my shopping bill, including my tobacco and that will be around £150 a month. So that leaves me with a dependable £150 a month. Of course, then I have the loan I am paying back to my Parents, which eats that up. SO just to exist takes my entire wage.

In order to have a decent standard of living, I reckon a typical Family (2 Adults, 2.4 Children) would need an annual income of around £30,000. This should cover all bills and some leisure pursuits. Families however do get Tax Breaks over here, but because I am sensible enough to try to live within my means, I can go and get stuffed as far as the Government is concerned.

So, a fair wage, to my mind, should be around £25,000. Quite a bit more than I am on, I'm sure you will agree.

And for point of reference, and in anticipation of your next question, my current outgoings are around £400 a month. I am very lucky in my home situation!!

I missed it. Whats rich?

No, you didn't miss it. Like a twonk I forgot to bung it in.

Rich...well, Rich is the point where you are able to bank more than you are spending on the necessities by more than double.

However, it is a tricky thing to define. For example, although fairly low paid now, I have a few irons in the fire which could lead somewhere (they aren't likely to, but as I just said in another thread, trying costs nothing). Add in that my *Family* are fairly wealthy (only one Mortgage being paid in my extended family) and when it comes to inheritance, I could be fairly well off.

It also depends entirely upon point of view. Someone with one child and a partner, living in a 5 or 6 Bedroom house clearly has far too much money on their hands, and has bought the property as a status symbol. Take a bit more of their spare cash. At least, thats my call. It's nowhere near an absolute I'm afraid, but then I'm smart enough to never deal in such things.

Thinking on it a little further, I think I can sum this up fairly easily, if I can choose the right words. So not that easily really...

The measure of a persons wealth in deciding on whether they classify as rich or not, can (in my opinion) be defined by the percentage of their post-tax income compared to their outgoings. The smaller overall percentage they pay, then the richer they are.

Now, quick question for you, and I don't mean this to be agressive, so I'll apologise now if it comes across wrong....

Is it justifiable for the owner of a Business to pay themselves a considerably higher percentage bonus, than the people in his employ who made it possible? Example, my own Uncle Derek. He pays his workers a relative pittance in his Printhouse. I should know, I used to work there. Now, he will happily overbook orders, meaning his employees do overtime at time and a half (at this point, the wage becomes pretty decent). However, because of this, the business makes a lot more money, and eventually profit (he is a miserly slave driver, hassling and harunging his workers to do as much in normal time as possible, despite the overbooking being his call). Sure, the workers make a certain extra amount, but at the end of the year, he pays himself a pretty massive bonus (thats the trouble with a family business. It's family business. Everyone knows everything!) and no extra to his workers. Is that fair? What if they had, quite legally within the terms of their contract, refused the overtime? The order would not have been done, and he'd have lost money and trust. The only reason people sign up for the overtime is it's the only way to make decent money at that company....