Obama Tax Plan Show Dramatic Redistribution

July 8, 2008  ·  Filed under: News

According to a new Tax Foundation analysis, Senator Obama’s tax plan is a dramatic redistribution of the nation’s tax burden.

In Tax Foundation Fiscal Fact, No. 132, Tax Foundation president Scott Hodge uses revenue estimates from the Tax Policy Center to show that Obama’s plan would greatly accelerate the decades-long trend toward a federal government that depends for tax revenue almost exclusively on a few high-income people.  This contrasts starkly with the McCain plan, according to Hodge, which would give every taxpayer a cut and leave the current tax burden distribution approximately where it is. “Under the Obama plan for 2009,” explains Hodge, “more than $131 billion would be redistributed from the top 1 percent of taxpayers to all other taxpayers.”   

I thought the closing comments were interesting.

While many Americans may cheer this outcome as just or equitable, this sort of direct redistribution raises some important questions that should be part of a larger national discussion:
  • What is the long-term effect on the economy of so few households shouldering such a large share of the tax burden?
  • What are the consequences for our democratic system when a majority of Americans are disconnected from the full cost of government? Will that majority demand more from the government because they bear little of the cost?
  • Should the tax system be used as a means of redistributing income or simply as a neutral mechanism for raising money for government services? Can a tax system premised on redistribution also be compatible with economic growth?
  • The Obama plan assumes little behavioral change from such a large tax hike on high-income workers. Is this realistic or will the higher rates encourage tax minimization strategies and reduced work effort, which will lead to lower tax revenues?
Posted by Morph  ·  Trackback URL  ·  Link
23 Responses to “Obama Tax Plan Show Dramatic Redistribution”
  1. Maybe I’m missing something here, but the opening paragraph of this does not make sense to me. I assume this is a typo, but maybe I’m just dense of something…

    The first part of the paragraph says “Obama’s plan would greatly accelerate the decades-long trend toward a federal government that depends for tax revenue almost exclusively on a few high-income people.” This sounds like what my understanding of Obama’s plan is, not that I know much about it. However the quote at the end reads, “more than $131 billion would be redistributed from the top 1 percent of taxpayers to all other taxpayers.” This part seems to indicate redistribution in the opposite direction?

    Am I missing something here? Can someone explain what sound to me like polar opposites?

    Scott Nipp  ·  Jul 8, 2008 at 2:15 pm  ·  Permalink
  2. There’s a link to the full article in the post, which may help clarify it. $131 billion from the top 1 % would be used to offset all other taxpayers.

    Morphh  ·  Jul 8, 2008 at 2:37 pm  ·  Permalink
  3. Tax Foundation: “…the decades-long trend toward a federal government that depends for tax revenue almost exclusively on a few high-income people…”

    Undoubtedly, the “almost exclusively on a few” comment is overstated. In addition, the Tax Foundation’s statistics are unhelpful when they don’t provide a range of total income amounts from all sources of income represented by each quintile referenced, nor do they provide the mean effective tax rate from all sources of income paid by individuals in each quintile (advocates for lower taxes frequently speak in terms of marginal rates and absolute amounts and rarely, if ever, mention effective tax rates–far more useful statistics for apples-to-apples comparisons).

    In fact, the primary reason that the top 1 percent have been paying higher amounts in absolute dollars (not to be confused with paying higher effective tax rates) over time is that the real income growth among those at the top has dwarfed the real income growth, if any, among those at the bottom and in the middle. Obama’s “redistribution” plan is a reflection of the redistribution of real income that has occurred over the last several years, and perhaps, decades. His plan, I suspect, would likely achieve greater parity among effective tax rates incurred among taxpayers at different income levels and among taxpayers receiving most of their incomes from various sources.

    With regard to various sources of income, earned income (i.e. income from work) is, generally speaking, taxed at higher rates than income from other sources such as capital gains, inheritances and dividends (note that taxes on income from work is double-taxation in the same way that capital gains, estate and dividend taxes are double-taxation). Since most of those at the bottom and in the middle receive the larger proportion of their incomes from work while those at the top are more likely to receive larger portions of their income from other sources, leveling the playing field (my loaded phrase) could technically be labeled as redistribution–but depending on your point of view, that might be a good thing.

    Finally, Obama’s plan recognizes that taxing households in financial risk is counter-productive for both our government and our economy. The question for me is not: what are the consequences for our democratic system when a majority of Americans are disconnected from the full cost of government? The question for me is: what are the consequences for our democratic system when a significant proportion of Americans have such low household incomes that they can barely afford to pay any taxes at all?

    Helena Odell  ·  Jul 8, 2008 at 4:18 pm  ·  Permalink
  4. Even though I’m pretty much of a Democrat these days, I don’t like the idea that an ever-increasing percentage of folks don’t pay any income taxes. I think everyone who has an income — from welfare recipients to hedge fund managers — should pay some meaningful percentage of their incomes as taxes, mainly so that we will all have the same vested interest to control government spending. When a sizable percentage of people don’t pay any income tax, they don’t get as upset as the rest of us about government waste, and it’s easy to view the government just as a source of services rather than a cost.

    Now, actually under our current system most people do pay some taxes. All workers pay social security and medicare taxes regardless of their incomes (though I don’t know if that gets fully offset by the “negative income tax”), so maybe they do get upset by government waste, but I don’t think most folks view SS and Medicare taxes quite the same way as they view regular income taxes.

    Just my opninion, of course.

    Hayden Kepner  ·  Jul 8, 2008 at 8:07 pm  ·  Permalink
  5. Scott,

    Make no mistake about it, Obama plans to raise the taxes on the top 1% of earners by $131B and lower the taxes on the rest of us by the same amount-$131B. The net revenue would be the same, but the number of lower income families who would pay no income taxes at all would certainly increase.

    This plan is an example of class warfare/wealth envy at it’s worst, and it ought to galvanize the wealthy to contribute the max to McCain’s campaign, imho!

    And it also seems to me that it reduces the probability for any consideration of a consumption tax under the Democrats to near zero. If the vast majority of Americans will pay no income tax, where is the pressure to get rid of it going to come from? Politically, the Fairtaxers ought to get on McCain’s band wagon. At least he seems to get it?

    Hank Van Gieson  ·  Jul 9, 2008 at 6:47 am  ·  Permalink
  6. Helena, I have an issue with the assertion that “a significant proportion of Americans have such low household incomes that they can barely afford to pay any taxes at all”. What is the percentage or income group of this “significant proportion” and what is their wealth level? Low income households already pay few if no taxes, yet often receive very progressive social program spending from the federal government. Those in “financial risk” at higher income groups are usually there by their own life choices and by living beyond their means. I wouldn’t even label this as some “robin hood” policy, it’s worse – it seems like robbery by the masses. Makes me want to go listen to The Law. I’m for a progressive tax system, but this seems extreme, unfair, and punishing. If the taxes are too high, than perhaps we should reduce the spending of government.

    Morphh  ·  Jul 9, 2008 at 8:43 am  ·  Permalink
  7. Morphh,

    The Census Bureau indicates that approximately one out of every ten household are living below a ridiculously low poverty line (currently $21,200 for a family of four). The median household income is at or below about $48,000–meaning that four out of ten of all households make somewhere between the poverty line and $48,000. This indicates that at least half of all households are “at risk”. A layoff, a medical condition, an auto repair even…any number of things can throw a family in this range over the proverbial financial cliff (if not already there).

    Also, it’s not true that low income workers pay little if no taxes. In fact, all low-income workers pay property taxes (whether they rent or own), sales taxes, payroll taxes, ad valorem taxes, gas taxes, fees imposed by states having little or no state income taxes, and yes, most do pay federal income taxes (including most illegal immigrants, by the way).

    It’s also not true that families in financial risk are primarily there because of life choices. Most who file for bankruptcy, for example, do so because of a medical condition not covered by insurance (for serious medical conditions, many blow through their meager $1M limits relatively quickly), layoffs or divorce (my friend, for example, didn’t choose his divorce–his wife did). Also, as you know, many struggling these days are young and college-educated, but are having more and more difficulty climbing out of overwhelming debt arising out of steadily rising college tuitions, books and fees.

    A progressive tax system isn’t robbery; it’s pragmatism (for the record, Adam Smith indicated support for progressive taxes in The Wealth of Nations decades before Karl Marx came along). It helps to grow and maintain a large middle-class which leads to a more stable economy and fewer social ills. Lately, we’ve been moving in the wrong direction in this regard (I assert, toward third-world status).

    Do you know what you’re effective (not marginal) federal income tax rate was for 2007? Do you know what it would be under Obama’s plan? What about for those in various income groups? What if you include payroll taxes, both in their current structure and under Obama’s proposal? Until you know the answers to these questions, I don’t think you’re in a position to label Obama’s plan as “robbery”.

    Helena Odell  ·  Jul 9, 2008 at 3:34 pm  ·  Permalink
  8. I think Helena raises a number of good points (that you don’t normally hear on talk radio).

    In particular, what is the effecitve tax rate on the various income groups? I do not know, but my guess is that the highest quintile pay in the high 20s, the middle quintile pay in the low 20s, and the lowest quintile pay in the 10 percent range (assuming you count both sides of payroll taxes and deduct tax credits.) If anyone knows, please provide a link.

    Hayden Kepner  ·  Jul 9, 2008 at 5:23 pm  ·  Permalink
  9. Here ya go.

    Total (income, social insurance, corporate, excise) Effective Federal Tax Rate for 2005:

    Lowest Quintile: 4.3%
    Second Quintile: 9.9%
    Middle Quintile: 14.2%
    Fourth Quintile: 17.4%
    Highest Quintile: 25.5%

    All Quintiles: 20.5%

    Top 10%: 27.4%
    Top 5%: 28.9%
    Top 1%: 31.2%

    The CBO assume that corporate income taxes “are borne by owners of capital in proportion to their income from interest, dividends, capital gains, and rents.” If you believe the FairTaxer assumption that these taxes are paid by consumers through higher prices or the common economic theory that they are borne partially by labor through lower wages, these numbers would be less progressive.

    Fred Johnson  ·  Jul 10, 2008 at 7:42 am  ·  Permalink
  10. Helena, I think you took several of my statements out of context. I was referring to the federal government in that sentence regarding paying taxes as indicated by the second part of the sentence. Payroll taxes can often be offset with tax credit programs and then is paid back with interest in benefits – often thought of as “retirement funding” for themselves not the funding of government. I also stated that I support a progressive tax and did not call such robbery – I agree with Adam Smith. However, at a certain level of progressivity, it starts to become wealth redistribution on a larger scale as spending is also often progressive (or based on use – like gas/roads and many local taxes). In any case, I wasn’t disputing your case regarding effective tax rates, only that “a significant proportion of Americans have such low household incomes that they can barely afford to pay any taxes at all”. We’re the richest country in the world. The standard of living in the United States is one of the top 20 in the world, with a smaller government than most (relative to GDP). It’s often our life choices that put us “at risk”.

    Let’s examine the 1 in 10 figure. Today, the typical American defined by the government as poor has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a VCR, a microwave, a stereo, and a color TV. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not over-crowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry, and in the last year he had sufficient funds to meet all his essential needs. While his life is not opulent, it is far from what the popular consciousness understands by “poverty.” I’m fine with letting this group off the federal hook, but have issue when you start getting toward 50% of the population having little vested interest in controlling federal government spending.

    I find all your examples that “are not life choices” are in my opinion life choices. They choose their job, where to work, what city to work in, choose their schooling / self-training for the level of job, choose not to look for a another job when things looked difficult, did not increase their skill level sufficiently to quickly get a new job, ad nauseam. They could have secured more health insurance to prepare for more serious illness, got a different job with better insurance, lived a different lifestyle to prevent the illness, etc. They could have avoided credit, lived within their means and create savings to make sure that an issue did not cause bankruptcy. They could have choose a different spouse, done more to prevent the breakup, etc. All their life choices. I’ve done several of the things above to prevent such an at risk situation for myself. I’ve taken the extra time, spent less, trained more (much of it not easy). My life choices. I tired of people acting like their a leaf in the wind, blaming everything else – take responsibility for yourself.

    I did not call Obama’s plan robbery. I was using an analogy in regard to Robin Hood taking from the rich and giving to the poor but in this case it’s not just giving to the poor but pretty much everyone else. So it “seemed like robbery by the masses” in relation to the analogy, hence the reference to “The Law”. I do understand the philosophy (and lean towards it) that many taxes are legalized robbery (Obama, McCain, and even the FairTax), although this often has more to do with spending. However, I do agree to some degree, as expressed by Milton Friedman (or maybe it was Alan Greenspan), that the government has a role in economic equality.

    Morphh  ·  Jul 10, 2008 at 8:20 am  ·  Permalink
  11. To clarify, since I sounded a bit cold, I do think we should provide a help up to those that do fall into a bad situation. That’s what social programs like unemployment, welfare, charity, etc. do by addressing those that actually need it (preferably done at the state or private org level for more accountability). We should avoid using the federal tax code for this.

    Morphh  ·  Jul 10, 2008 at 4:26 pm  ·  Permalink
  12. If one believes (as I do) that the government can’t control who pays the taxes (they can only control who is required to remit the taxes), the redistribution effect through the tax code isn’t as much of an issue as we think. So, it’s not that the bottom 50% are only paying approximately 3% of the taxes. They actually have a much higher burden. However, they (and other voters) believe they are only paying 3%. Which I assert is a much worse situation. Our income tax policy revolves around always the appearance of shifting the tax burden from poor to rich. Once this new level of distribution is established, any shift in the other direction is deemed as “stealing from the poor to give to the rich.” That means any time taxes are cut, or raised, the distribution from rich to poor has to be increased or, although not usually politically feasible, maintained. It’s called the “ratchet effect”.

    Our current federal tax system is theft, but (as Morph stated) it has to do more with what our tax money is spent on (SS, Medicare, Department of Agriculture, The Drug War, etc) than how it is collected. The basis for federal laws is the US Constitution, which implicitly prohibits such things via the 10th amendment (in addition to its basic logical structure).

    IMHO, the progressive tax structure is completely unfair and totally counter-productive. I guess I’m okay for now allowing some exempted amount of income, but why should your 164,551st dollar earned (after exemptions) be taxed more than your 164,449th? Why is the person in the 4th bracket charged more than the person in the 3rd, or 5th to 4th? Pick an exemption amount and then treat everyone the same.

    Personally, I think it’s a farce that the middle class is the creation of a progressive tax scale. I believe that distinction belongs to economic freedom such that people have the ability to move between economic classes. This is as opposed to one class (say the ruling class) controlling the resources and dividing them as they see fit. There was no Soviet middle class.

    Andrew Martin  ·  Jul 10, 2008 at 4:48 pm  ·  Permalink
    Unemployment at 6.1% simply reinforces McCain’s argument that if you raise taxes on businesses, they will have to cut back their work force in order to keep their doors open. In the short run, Obama’s desire to raise taxes on businesses, and give the money to struggling Americans sounds good … but, it panders to people’s desire for hand outs and immediate gratification … for, in the long run, this kind of bad judgement is like eating the goose that lays the golden eggs … or, like eating your seed crop, instead of using the seeds to grow more crops. Raising the taxes on businesses is the best way to dramatically increase unemployment in America.

    Howard  ·  Sep 5, 2008 at 2:52 pm  ·  Permalink
  14. “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.” —Thomas Jefferson

    Winghunter  ·  Sep 28, 2008 at 12:31 pm  ·  Permalink
  15. Obama’s tax plan will destroy the Social Security system.

    Obama says his income tax plan will lower taxes for 95% of Americans. There is just one problem with this, 40% of Americans already pay no income tax. Obama’s response to this is that these people pay Social Security tax. Well, that’s not income tax, but a contribution to their retirement plan. So if he wins and implements his tax plan, for the first time in the history of Social Security, 40% of the people who will get retirement benefits will have paid nothing for them. Social Security will then loose all pretext of being a retirement plan, and will become a national welfare program.

    This will cause Social Security to lose public support in a massive way. Leave Social Security contributions out of income tax plans. If you take some peoples income taxes to pay others Social Security taxes, Social Security will be destroyed forever.


    charles  ·  Oct 24, 2008 at 11:47 am  ·  Permalink
  16. Obama wants to be THE DISTRIBUTOR ?
    – Between Distribution and Freedom

    Freedom, the well-known word, means everybody are equality and equal right given natually by God.
    So Freedom socity consider all peoples are same value, which means Freedom socity under the value makes no class separation.

    Let us see inside of structure in the word of “Distribution” what the most Mr. Obama best likes.
    Everybody would be happy if he/she hear when something would be distributed to him/her without their own sweat.
    But by who ? Who would distribute anything to them, or to everybody ?

    Where should the anything, not little but very many things to be distributed to every person for long time, be come from ?

    That shall be taken from your pocket and your cash box, not taken from Obama’s.

    In Distribution structure of commun society, there must be separated Somebody to distribute and anybodys to be distributed from Somebody.

    Because of the meaning of the word “Distribution”, in the society there must be divided two or more far people classes between the Distributor and the many distributees FOREVER.

    And to distribute somethings like money to everybody, every people for long period, the Distributor has to collet great power to control all distributees in the nation.

    By the way, the distributees should be fallen under slavery class in the society structure, even though they just want to get some money and never want to be slaves, after first be taken out their sweated moneys and freedom.

    And the Distributor MAY distribute the taken moneyes to distributees just only after He, the Distributor, firstly collects His Power and distributees’ moneys with His Collected Great Power. There shall never be it happened that the Distributor takes first out His own moneys and give to distributees.

    Now, you can understand the Distirubtor must has the most first very big, Big Power even, to implement his own campaign “distribution”.

    This is not subject of “WEALTH”.
    This is subject of just “POWER”.

    Obama’s matter is not “distribution” but “POWER”, and he wish to become THE DISTRIBUTOR.

    All communists promise peoples to distribute moneys from more richer.

    But, who will fix its standard to be taken or to take much between richer(his wealth to be robbed) and poorer (he may get) ? By Distributor? By what reasons ? By what informations ?

    To complete perfect equal distribution working system over U.S. country, the Distributor could collect as much as information of all distributees.

    This is not subject of “wealth” but of “POWER”, and this is not matter of “distribution” but of “Freedom”.

    This is the time that your Freedom shall be robbed by The Would-Be Distributor. Why don’t you fight still, respectable American ?

    Do you want to be a distributee still ?

    *** Pardon my poor english.

    paaran  ·  Oct 30, 2008 at 12:01 am  ·  Permalink
  17. Paran,
    I admire your effort to write an expository piece in a language other than your own. What is your native language?

    One of the attractive features of the Fair Tax that addresses your points is that the Fair Tax ends class warfare. Up to the poverty level, nobody pays tax. After that everybody pays the same rate on consumption, over which they have some degree of control.

    Thank you for your effort.

    Jim Bennett  ·  Oct 31, 2008 at 1:15 pm  ·  Permalink
  18. Obama keeps speaking of “fairness”, even if it doesn’t make any economic sense. He has said that even though it has been proven a 15% capital gain tax gets the government more tax revenue than higher rates, he would still raise it for “fairness”. 100 million Americans own stock or mutual funds (this is obviously NOT only the rich), so raising tax on capital gains will impact a significant portion of the middle class and disincentivize investment and hence economic growth.

    Even though the top 5% of income earners contribute to 60% of the total income tax revenue, it is for “fairness” that he will increase their taxes. This is in light of the fact that 40% of Americans pay no income tax at all. Charge people “progressively” a higher tax rate and I fear the economy will suffer worse (much more would certainly go off shore), reducing tax revenues and therefore negatively impacting social services to those that need it the most.

    We are taxed publicly for our income EACH YEAR. A loss in the following year is incurred personally. Keep in mind that most small businesses fail because of cash flow problems. You don’t get a break in the next year and, under Obama’s plan, the cash flow that you may need will be in the government’s hand, not yours. Only about 5% of people start and run businesses. Their work employs the other 95% of us. A 20% profit margin is required to incentivize the 5% of entrepreneurs, because otherwise it is safer for them to put the money in lower risk investments. Take away the profit incentive and there will be significantly fewer small businesses to employ the rest of us. So much for fairness.

    I am one who is very charmed by Obama and WANTED desperately to believe in him, and to vote for him. The more I hear from Obama, it becomes apparent that he holds many of the beliefs of the stereotypical university professor socialist (if not borderline Marxist), while conducting his campaign with the precision of a true cult of personality. His rhetoric is powerful, his voice compelling. His words are carefully chosen to be palatable to the American electorate.

    Beneath the surface, however, it is becoming increasingly obvious that Obama is a radical socialist and his ideals (while sounding nice when packaged so pleasantly) are patently in contrast with the relatively free market and entrepreneurial principals that made America a great country. His views and policies are in contrast with the same principals that made the socioeconomic mobility of Obama himself to rise to the top of the economic, social and political hierarchy.

    Marc  ·  Nov 1, 2008 at 11:13 am  ·  Permalink
  19. One response that I read is that the restructuring of the tax burden is clearly wealth envy and class warfare. This person should put petroleum jelly around his head before writing in these types of forums, just incase someone like myself comes along to help him pull his head out of a dark place.
    The elitists have declared war on all other classes many years ago. They have the weapons to support this war (money). The meer facts that money makes money, money affords lobbiests and the support of special interest groups to change policies in their favor, and often has the ability to influence (bribe) policy makers to create greater burdens, difficulties for aspiring competition, aka ambitious hard working American entrepreneurs. Don’t you see, that this country is heading into the feudalistic model our brave forefathers fought to overthrow. And people like you who on the one hand take pride in America for their victory over tyranny and opression, and take pride in the creation of a democratic society which it hopes to spread world wide to make the world a better place for all of humanity, on the other hand for your own selfish personal greed, you’d undermine this system by promoting this system of elitists who are above the law, above the community of workers that must contribute to support it, you’d support a group of people who could care little about the countries well being, consider the poor hard working people of this country, a burden, a group of ignorant, criminally minded unethical scurge that

    Brian  ·  Dec 29, 2008 at 11:43 pm  ·  Permalink
  20. Can people really be so blind? Big MONEY, bankers, corporate giants, mega wealthy elitists, crooked politicians, and the cream of the crap of the ambitious yet unethical are all working together to grab grab grab while the ethical hard working patriotic suckers work work work to shovel crap against the ever growing tide which the top performers and manipulators create.
    Maybe I’m wet behind the ears a bit, maybe it’s always been this way, but I know it doesn’t have to be. I also know that the same people who robbed the system so much that they created a world wide recession still have no idea that they’ve done so, nor will any of them be punished for doing so. If we ever pull out of this mess, it will not be because our government placed bail outs in the right place, or because ingenious analytical geniuses from the federal reserve or other financial institutions have done so, it will be as it always is, the resilience of the individual to manage and navigate through the messes the evil greedy elite create in order to do the first most important dynamic of life which all are endowed with by the grace of god, and that is to survive no matter what. Go ahead and support the elitist tyrants as if you are one of them, which if you are reading this, you are not. You’re only stupid enough to believe you might be. Trickle down economics… ??? Are you not insulted that someone even tried to fly that passed your intellect… when the rich are done eating any scraps they let fall of the table will be good enough for the rest of the world to survive on… Yeah right. When the wealthiest people of the world have all the money they will create more jobs…. and who will buy goods and services from these companies that the jobs were created in when nobody has any money??? The only answer is and always has been a system of upward mobility. Where nobody including the rich get to sit on their asses and let paper work for them. We need a system where everybody must work hard to keep the next guy from surpassing him and taking over his market. A universal struggle or competition to ethically and fairly grab a bigger portion of the so called pie, is the only answer. When you see a shrinking middle class, you are witnessing the beginning of the end of a great economy, and perhaps the beginning of the end of a great country, society, philosophy, economic system. Greed is not good Gordon Gecko… Ambition and ethics are good.
    Any seemingly unfair tax burden on the elite at his point should not be viewed with any sympathy, where was their sympathy during the 22 of the last 30 years in which this group had enjoyed undeserved tax privileges and advantages, while the salt of the earth struggled in horrible working and living conditions to merely survive.
    Warren Buffet may be a good man, he went before the congress and said you have to tax people like myself more. Is he the only rich man with any ethics? Or did he just want to look ethical because he knows historically, this is the time where the mobs form and the gallows are erected? I don’t know the answer, but I do know he couldn’t be more right.
    Believe it or not, if more wealthy people would stop interfering with the system and the distribution of wealth, all including themselves, would actually do better. Once you’ve over fished the pond, everybody goes hungry. Right? Only an unsophisticated, ravenous and gluttonous greed for wealth, would be so blind not to see the long term devastating effects of over fishing the pond. And I’m telling you these are the people controlling our fate. Now do you still think taxing the top a little more to restore the balance is “wrong”???

    Brian  ·  Dec 30, 2008 at 12:13 am  ·  Permalink
  21. Howard,
    How can taxing the wealthy cause them to produce less jobs? They will have to work harder and employ more to keep up with their status. The unemployment problem today is not going to be cured by taxing the wealthy less and taxing the middle and lower classes more because, what will these companies with new additional employees sell? and to whom when nobody in the consumer class has any money???

    Brian  ·  Dec 30, 2008 at 1:16 am  ·  Permalink

    type in newsmax magazine to keep informed about obama
    type obama the next greatest depression

    also type in glen beck. com
    get on his daily e-mail list to keep informed.
    he says it like no other…the way it is. if you never read the paper or watch other related tv. programs…consider yourself informed on the latest going on in america and the world…he will be changing channels….Jan 19 to Fox

    obama’s agenda…
    his tax plan in the newmax magazine is absolutely frightening to say the least…

    i do not believe ONE thing claimed by obama. based on all that i have read, he will be a president like no other in american history. his plans and tax proposals are dressed up to make you believe you will benefit and receive financially. not so, he is a socialist and unfortunately far beyond left than you can imagine…we have always believed…the company we keep is the window to our soul. does this mean obama’s company makes him a saint? if you have been staying informed, his plans are not designed for the best interest of true american citizens. I feel you are going to quickly learn about the promises, the promises never intended to be, lies and decit that will be forced on you. the pork spending is just beginning to start like never before. this country as we know it will never never be “our” country after jan 20, 09.

    omaba is
    planning a poverty tax in the amt. of approx. 180 or 185 billion dollars…you can bet americans will not be see the majority of this tax hike.
    he is planning on raising social security and basically [all other] taxes.
    he is planning major [redistribution] of social security.
    a form is currently being mailed to americans for approval or disapproval of
    giving your social security to illegals from mexico. If i understand this correctly this means more soc. sec. withholdings, more years to work, less money to receive in order to become a socialist government to give it to those who didn’t do anything to get it. It appears our soc. sec. is a welfare pot of socialism. whats wrong with the system soc. sec. was designed…[if] you work you receive. the bible basically says if you dont work, you dont eat. why reware those who dont work and penalize those who do?
    obama compains about amt. spend on tax by bush, yet he is not going to cut this amt. , but instead spend it for other things.
    a congressman whos term has expired, wrote a book stating….a depression is coming, it is not a matter of if, but when. he discussed the new world order and how our government is moving us in that direction. he also stated there are so many dominos lined up against america…when one goes, they are all going. he said pay off your credit cards and mortgages.

    a summary:
    why would anyone vote for a president who want all taxes HIGHER.
    why vote for anything that isnt logical …
    when the pork spenders have squandered our money to prevent us from the usual soc. sec. retirement age. who are preventing us from enjoying the fruits of our labor….and now obama is possibly going to steal our money [fraud] to give to illegals and others not due it. REMEMBER…illegal means exactly that…..it doesn’t matter how illegals get here [in the court it doesn’t mean legal]…the FACT is they are illegal and congress and presidents are defrauding the tax payers by spending money on that which is illegal. Try you enter other foreign countries like illegals come into this country. Try to get pork money to start a business and retirement as a bonus because you broke the law to enter the country. NUMBER ONE … it is like rewarding your children for being bad by giving them money or anything they want without following the rules [law]. why does the us. have laws and allow a select groups luxury benefits without paying the price that is paid for by hard working americans.
    very few congressman have a back bone or integrity. it is all about getting the vote and $165,000.00 and retirement. it is not about voting in accordance with tax payers desires.

    it is very obvious…the you gov can’ t keep a bal. budget or manage this country.
    why should we be penalized to pay for the fraud committed by congress pork spending and the bail outs we didn’t create…we have our on financial problems we have to keep in check.
    why pay each [unqualified member] of congress $165,000 who can’t perform basic management functions.
    why pay them for not showing up to vote.
    why pay them to spend our money illegally.
    congress should be allowed to vote on only [one] bill at a time…not by bundling many pieces of pork fat to slide a bill through to deceive americans.
    why do americans who [can’t afford] health care think the gov. can solve the problem by adding it to the problems below…the government [can’t manage] the existing crisis.
    soc. sec.
    especially when banks, insurance co., auto makers are failing, mortgage co. are failing. many more to follow: this means less businesses to pay taxes, less employees to pay taxes, less taxes from those who lost their job all over the us. this means the fed and state tax funds will be extremely limited.
    this also means people living in poverty without money, food, shelter.
    obama stated on tv he was going to give EVERY BOY AND GIRL a college education, but he expected one thing in return…working community service. community service does not pay it back because the services already performed by reg. employees will not be eliminated. can you imagine what it is like to send two children to college. well, if you get the big obama picture this means you will not be paying for two children’s college…you will be paying for your neighbors kids on your left and right, down the street, the next block, the entire city, all the cities in the state and all the states within the us. can you even comprehend how expensive health care and education will cost the tax payer. the money is not there and must be generated since tax dollars have already been spent by corrupt port spending.
    hopefully you can now see reality and not what the government will do for you.

    compton  ·  Jan 4, 2009 at 7:35 pm  ·  Permalink
  23. GO BRIAN!

    Joy  ·  Jan 14, 2009 at 2:56 pm  ·  Permalink