Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottwax
Just the other day, Obama told Joe the Plumber "I think when you spread the wealth around, it is good for everybody".
Sure sounds a lot like Karl Marx's axiom "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs".
|
You know Scott, with all due respect, we've had a progressive income tax for what, 50 years? Or for as long as we've had federal income tax? When Bush made his tax cuts (predominantly for the upper brackets), I didn't hear anyone complaining about that "redistribution of income"...well, yes I did, but I don't think it was you.
I understand your concern that a tax increase on the upper brackets might effect your business, but Joe the Plumber apparently makes $40K and he will get a bigger tax cut under Obama's plan than McCain's. He also is not a business owner, nor does he have any plans to be, from what has been reported in his 15 minutes, not to mention the fact that his business would have to
net, not
gross, more than $250K to be affected. All personal income is subject to income tax, only business
profits (income) are suject to income tax, hence the statistic used in the last debate that 98% of small businesses make less than $250K.
I think I posted a more comprehensive version of this another time
Obama and McCain Tax Proposals - washingtonpost.com , which shows Obama not increasing taxes until an income of $603K (he does however intend to adjust the FICA caps, which currently stop at $102K, he will apparently maintain the current cap, but begin to collect FICA again at $250K).
Would you care to guess what percentage of your clientele makes more than $250K, and, to estimate whether your possible lost business would be more or less than the approximately $1000 less in tax you would pay under Obama's plan?
I know you have a lot of customers, but I find it hard to believe that you have more than one or 2 who make more than $603K. It's not up to me who you like or who you vote for, I just don't understand the "Marxist" argument. The new tax rates will still be lower than they were for most of the Reagan presidency (
The Tax Foundation - U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1913-2008 ), and even at the lowest point ('88-'90), it was still a progressive tax. I would think that any progressive tax (vs. a flat tax) would verge on "Marxist" by your definition, and the rates right now are more progressive than they were in '88-90 (10-35% vs 15-28%).
As I said, you're welcome to vote for whoever you want to, based on whatever criteria you'd like, I just don't understand the general middle-class argument for the party that cuts the taxes for the other guy. If party preference has more to do with social issues, that's fine, at least I understand that, because the tax argument doesn't really make sense to me. I think if the income of that top .1% hadn't exploded in the last decade, they might not be targeted for a tax increase as much as they are.
FWIW, I've voted for about twice as many Republican presidential candidates as I have Democrats, so it's not like I don't look at both sides of the coin.