Obama and the younger generation

SupraWes wrote: I guess my counter question is "How much do you need to live a happy healthy life?"

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" - Karl Marx.

DILYSI Dave wrote:

SupraWes wrote: I guess my counter question is "How much do you need to live a happy healthy life?"

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" - Karl Marx.

Owned.

alfadriver wrote: SVreX- I think what you see is the people who think that Obama is the worst thing that can happen to country- as opposed to many of us who, for one reason or another, like the direction he appears to be taking us.... ...But it's easier to throw mud. Eric

How in the world did you glean any point of view whatsoever from me on this? Especially one that is SO FAR OFF BASE??? I only mentioned his age. I thought it was kinda funny.

And I certainly DID NOT throw mud.

Methinks the man doth protest too much.

You are reading into my statements, and coming up with woefully incorrect conclusions.

SVreX wrote: How in the world did you glean any point of view whatsoever from me on this? Especially one that is SO FAR OFF BASE??? I only mentioned his age. I thought it was kinda funny.

I don't think you were accused of thinking "that Obama is the worst thing that can happen to country". I think it was being commented that you were noticing people on this board who were being accused of thinking that.

Salanis wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote: You might not have said it, but that is SOP these days. The bottom 50% of income earners pay something like 3% of taxes. Of course these folks are going to vote for the shiny happy persons promising them more stuff - they don't have to pay for it!

I'm not buying that figure. That's a weird statistic that sounds like it could have been spun any number of ways. I'm pretty sure I'm below the median income level (I am for my state), and I certainly pay my share of taxes. I'd happily raise my tax level to help pay off the national debt if the increase occurred across the board, and my taxes dropped off again once we were rid of our current massive debt.

Check these links and get back to us regarding your skepticism on the numbers:

http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/whopaysmost.htm

Even Wikipedia gets in on the action:

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

Okay. That makes some sense. But keep in mind that, even if everyone was taxed at the same rate, the wealthiest people would still pay the majority of taxes. If taxed at a flat rate, assuming a perfect bell-curve distribution of wages, the top 50% would pay roughly 75% of taxes, and the bottom 50% would pay only 25%.

Let's look at the raw numbers provided in your first link. I'm going to look at the numbers for 1995 (because those are the latest firm numbers in there).

For the lowest Quintile, the average yearly pre-tax income was $8,100. For the Middle Quintile, the average income was $33,300. For the Upper Quintile, the average was $120,000. The lowest and middle incomes are far closer than the middle and highest. This indicates that the bell curve is not so even.

Factoring in the other two quintiles and crunching some numbers (I'll skip the tedious math), I'm going to estimate that, if there was a flat tax, the highest quintile of earners would pay roughly 70% of all taxes. That's with a flat tax. Given that the same link states that that top quartile actually paid 77% under our current tax system... not such a huge difference between tax plans.

Now, I'm not saying that the current system is good and equitable. But given the vast disparity in incomes, perhaps the numbers aren't quite as shocking as they initially sound.

its like rich people have more taxable income

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't think anyone is suggesting a FLAT TAX, and no one has even made mention of the fairtax. And I don't think anyone ever suggested that the founding fathers had an anarchist society in mind. Obviously, there needs to be taxation on some level to pay for certain things. In case you've never sat down and read the Constitution, I suggest you at least look at Article 1, Section 8. Go ahead and read the Preamble while you're at it. Memorize it if you can. And, if you're one of those socialized healthcare folks, and go "AAAAHHHAAAAAA!!!!" when you stumble upon the words "Promote the General Welfare," take a few moments to look up the meaning of these words according to Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison.

While we're on the subject, I know the New Deal was mentioned earlier, but you guys know we haven't always had federal income tax, right!? You know that the Supreme Court actually decided that the Federal Income Tax was unconstitutional in 1895...right?

I didn't say people were suggesting a flat tax. But that's the easiest one for me to do quick and dirty math for. I presume that no one is suggesting a reverse graduated tax (where the poorest people pay a greater percentage of their income), but you do appear to be decrying how unfair the current graduated tax system is.

I was pointing out that, if we removed the graduation from the tax system, the richest people wouldn't be shouldering much less of the total tax burden.

According to the figures you provided, the wealth distribution in this country is exponential, not linear. The people in the upper-most quintile make 2.5x what the people in the second highest quintile make. The fact that the wealthiest people pay so much of the national income tax owes more to their taxable income than to the tax system.

I'm going to go ahead and disagree with that a little. You didn't share your math, but purely as a gut reaction, I challenge the 70% to 77% ratio that you came up with. Don't forget how many MORE of us there are down here in the middle-to-lower class than there are in the upper reaches.

The fact that rich people pay more in raw dollars bothers me not in the slightest, even though it could be argued that their share of infrastructure costs is no higher than a poor person's is.

The fact that they pay more - dramatically more - in percentage of income bothers me quite a bit.

The following is long and will involve boring math. Please excuse.

Okay, I got my sources from Oldsaw's first link. The raw numbers can be found at: http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=1545&type=0

I used the numbers for 1995, since that is the latest it has actual data for.

That data is divided into Quintiles. It ignores the people who have zero or negative income. That means that the top earners are the top 20% of the total earning population.

About halfway down, there is a table labeled "Share of Total Individual Income Taxes". For 1995, the top quintile paid 77% of the total individual income taxes.

My 70% was a fairly rough estimate... and was not the best one, since I missed the bottom set of numbers. I'll revise it. Let's imagine we all paid a flat tax, then I don't need to crunch percentages. Hey look, there's a "Share of Total Family Income" section. So the top 20% earned 52% of all income and would pay 52% of the income tax burden (okay, my 70% was way off, but it was late). The top 1% earned 14% of total earnings.

If we take the top 40% of the population (top two quintiles), that is 74% of total earnings for the populating.

As for you "drastically more" in percentages. I'll draw these numbers directly from "Effective Total Federal Tax Rate (In percent)" from that same link:

Lowest Quintile - 6%; Second Quintile - 14.6%; Middle Quintile - 19.7%; Fourth Quintile - 22.5%; Highest Quintile 29.6%. The top 10%, 5%, and 1% of the population (who are lumped into that highest quintile) paid: Top 10 - 31.3%; Top 5 - 33.0%; Top 1 - 36.5%.

Superimpose that against the Pre-Tax income for those percents: Top 10 - $168k; Top 5 - $244k; Top 1 - $660k!

Oh look, it shows share of total family income. The top 1% had 14% of the total income. They paid 20% of the total taxes.

I will leave it to everyone to judge whether that's an unfair burden or not. That's a tougher argument, I'm just trying to pick apart the numbers that people throw around for knee-jerk reaction. You'd probably be almost as shocked if someone were to say, "In 1995 1% of the population shouldered 15% of the tax burden!" Even though that's what it would have been if we had a flat tax rate.

Edit: On a further note. If you look at the pre-tax family income (in 1995 dollars) shown on that table. The poorest quintile has gotten poorer, and the richest quintile has gotten richer. The middle three have fluctuated, but generally not done as well. The top 1% is twice as rich as they were in 77.

Wow, my head hurts....

How about them Bucs!

:)

Since about 10% of the people in this country have about 90% of the wealth, it kind of makes sense that they would pay more in actual dollars in taxes and that their tax burden affects their lifestyle less than it does someone making $40K or less.

GlennS wrote: its like rich people have more taxable income

doitover wrote: :) Since about 10% of the people in this country have about 90% of the wealth, it kind of makes sense that they would pay more in actual dollars in taxes and that their tax burden affects their lifestyle less than it does someone making $40K or less.

GlennS wrote: its like rich people have more taxable income

They had 45% of the earnings in 1995.

Hmm... actually the wealthiest people shoulder a lesser burden of Total Federal Taxes than they do if you look only at Income Tax. Argh! There are so many ways to interpret these statistics!

It's easy to get worked up when you only look at a small portion of the picture.

GameboyRMH wrote: ATTENTION EVERYONE WHO THINKS THE OUTSIDE WORLD WANTS SOMETHING FROM THE USA. We do not want anything from you, most never did. We want you to stop berkeleying with us, nothing more. You could say we literally want NOTHING from you.

Colin Powell: "One of the fondest expressions around is that we can't be the world's policeman. But guess who gets called when somebody needs a cop..."

but you do appear to be decrying how unfair the current graduated tax system is.

The graduated part doesn't bother me. I'm strongly in favor of a national sales tax. Similar concept, better execution IMO. We've gotten into this discussion multiple times, and I'm really not interested in going over it again, but if you've got a few minutes, check out www.fairtax.org.

Back OT: What DOES bother me, to the point where I'm simultaneously terrified, disgusted, and angry, are statements like:

GameboyRMH said:That's true, but lower corporate taxes for your employers means more money for them and usually no benefit to anyone else. It's one of those cases (like companies losing lawsuits) where if money is lost, it's passed on to the little guy, and if money is saved, the fat cats soak it up.

And...

SupraWes said:I guess my counter question is "How much do you need to live a happy healthy life?"

The latter left me absolutely speechless. But both reaffirm my belief that there are 3 different types of people who will vote for Obama, all of which scare the living crap out of me. I don't mean any offense here, just calling it as I see it:

1. The naive (think: 4-year-old;) people who don't understand how and why we're taxed, will always revert to "But taxes pay for roads and roads are good!" - "I didn't pay taxes last year! The government paid ME! I got a big check after I went to H&R block!" In my guestimation, these folks represent the smallest chunk of D-voters, and are generally comprised of people who've just graduated high-school/college. HEY LOOK - BACK ON TOPIC! While I'm at it, in this particular election, I'll lump the "I'm voting for him because he's for 'change'/I want to say I voted for the first black president" folks.

2. Next up are the uber-wealthy with an overwhelming sense of guilt (think: every actor turned activist;) They have been made to feel that it's unfair that they should have so much money while there's so much suffering in the world. Rather than volunteering their time, wanting to keep more money in their own pockets; money that could be donated to a legitimate charity where the money would actually get to the people it was intended for, they'd rather put a sticker on their car showing the world that they're not one of those EVIL, uncompassionate, racist rich people. Again, I'm guestimating, but these folks represent a significantly greater, and more influential group, though not as large as the next.

3. This is the scary group: The subconsciously socialist avengers.

They attended government schools. Their parents, unwittingly, ingrained them with a sense of entitlement. Perhaps they went to college and had an anti-war turned pro-soviet turned "environmentalist" professor or 10. Said professor was really smart, and probably still smoked pot. The avenger does just enough to get by. He's pretty sure that his boss, or at least the owner of the company, must have done something illegal or immoral to afford such a nice car. 40 hours a week behind a computer, where a significant amount of his time is spent on message boards, ebay, etc., is the most he should ever be expected to work. He says things like "This country is a Democracy!" and "If George Bush doesn't do something about these gas prices, I don't know what I'm going to do." He won't bat an eye when someone charges him $4 for a cup of E36 M3ty coffee.

No matter how much money the avenger makes, he generally considers himself relatively poor. After all, a television, satellite, cell phone, car, air conditioning, McDonald's, a computer, high-speed internet access (he needs it for work,) prescription drugs, and ESPECIALLY gas are all necessities which NO ONE should ever be expected to live without. When a politician says what he or she will "do" for him, he gets all tingly. When Obama says he'll "Bridge the gap between the Winners and Losers," he immediately thinks of his boss, who "Won life's lottery," and how his boss/the "people at corporate," board of directors, CEO, etc are getting rich off of his efforts. He can't wait until Obama punishes them. Those stinking "FAT CATS" all owe him something. After all, they don't really NEED all that money! Though the avenger is unwilling to make concessions in his own life to balance the rising cost of gas, he gets a kick out of thinking about his boss having to sell off some of his assets, especially since Obama will punish him good with hefty capital gains taxes. When Obama says he wants to "REQUIRE small businesses to start retirement accounts for their employees," he grins. "That'll teach 'em!!!" He doesn't open those Social Security statements he gets in the mail, because he's pretty sure the government is taking good car of his money.

When the avenger gets laid off, he doesn't take any responsiblility for being the guy who just did enough to collect a check. After all, he's pretty sure so-and-so spent more time screwing around at work than he did, and he only took 3 of his 5 sick days last year! When his car that he couldn't afford in the first place gets repossesed, he screams at the tow truck driver "I lost my job! I shouldn't be expected to make a payment this month!"

Sorry for the rant. That's my personal experience with Democrats. A few of them are my friends, and generally fall into group #3. I'm not ashamed to be a person who stereotypes. Statistics explain a lot of things, and are the basis for most Comedian's acts. I'm sure a lot of stereotypes about white folks/married people/"Conservatives" apply to me (I'm a Libertarian, by the way.)

Anyway, I finished lunch 15 minutes ago, and I'm turning into one of those guys who's dicking around on the 1nt4rw3b while he's supposed to be working. My boss/(wife) has officially smacked me on the head 3 times and told me to get back to work. I should know better than to even glance at these threads. Lemme go make some money so your poor grandma can get that knee replacement!

I think you're painting with too broad a brush, but obviously you realized someone would say that. I would say that you should not confuse Obama supporters with hardline democrats. Hardline Republicans are equally stupid.

I consider myself a left-leaning libertarian (small 'l'). I'm very unhappy with the Republican management of our foreign policy. Obama seems to me like he would do a better job guiding foreign policy than McCain would. I say this without complete conviction, because I'm waiting for debates to occur.

Many of the issues that you have problems with Democrats' handling of are more legislative ones. The President is the Commander in Chief and head of the Executive branch. I think it's more important to elect someone to that position based on his executive plans than on his legislative desires.

Forget the math and consider this:

There are approximately 115 million individual taxpayers in the US. Half of those individuals (approx 57 million), along with their corporate/small business contemporaries, pay 97 percent of a "budget" that benefits approx 300 million individuals.

Since when is 57>300?

The progressive tax code penalizes achievers by taking more when they earn more. Under-achievers are rewarded more, even though they have contributed little-to-nothing to earn the largesse of federal spending.

Election-year rhetoric exploits ignorance. Increasing tax levels has historically resulted in lower tax revenues. So what happens when the "Bush tax cuts" are rescinded and then combined with the re-definition of who's "rich" (as proposed)? Every tax payer then has to pay more and more individuals are classified as "rich" so they end up paying even more in taxes.

There are nearly 60 million individuals who are completely fed-up with a tainted system that promises much, takes more and delivers less.

Oldsaw, Look at that first link you posted. Take a good look at the numbers. No, really. Actually spend a few minutes analyzing them. Compare the total tax burden placed on each group compared to the total percentage of earnings they had.

Sure, the top 1% pays 20% of total federal taxes... but they make 14% of all earnings. If we had a completely flat tax system, the top 1% of the population would be paying 14% of the total taxes.

Yes, they pay more, but their not getting robbed as much as the knee-jerk "1% of people pay 20% of all taxes!" makes things appear.

Now, if you want to argue "all that money goes to poor people, and the rich don't see the benefit of their tax dollars," that's a different debate. Then we'd have to look at apportioning of the federal budget. Since the bulk of that goes to defense, and wealthy people benefit as much, or more from that, maybe they're getting more of their money's worth than one would initial believe. Maybe they're not.

Or you can argue that everyone is over taxed. That's another debate again, and I've already stated that I think the government needs to take in sufficient revenue to cover its expenses. We're in debt, therefore we should rein in spending to stop building debt, take in more taxes to pay the debt off, and then lower taxes again when the budget has balanced.

Hey, I didn't want this war. Seems to me the wealthiest segment of the population was more in favor than I was. Why should I have to pay good money to pay for the war of people who are more financial stable than I am?

Number 3 doesn't describe me at all poopshovel...in fact paragraphs 2 and 3 are nearly the polar opposite of me. Obviously #1 and #2 are definitely not me either.

Also please don't chop the context out of my quote like that. The original was:

GameboyRMH wrote:

poopshovel wrote: Google: "Corporate income tax rates for small businesses," read, and agree with me on one more thing, thinking to yourself "Wow, that's f*&^ed up." Then when Bush or any other Republican proposes a cut in CORPORATE tax rates (as he did last summer,) and Democrats go "SEE, BUSH IS JUST "FOR" THOSE EVIL RICH FOLKS," punch them in the throat and say it's from me. While they're curled up in the fetal position gasping for air, explain to them that higher tax rates for their employers means less money and more "downsizing" for them. Then kick them in the balls. thx.

That's true, but lower corporate taxes for your employers means more money for them and usually no benefit to anyone else. It's one of those cases (like companies losing lawsuits) where if money is lost, it's passed on to the little guy, and if money is saved, the fat cats soak it up.

I'll be voting for Obama, the reason can be fairly well summed up by his remarks in this passage from him book Dream from My Father.

"The answers I find in law books don't always satisfy me--for every Brown v. Board of Education I find a score of cases where conscience is sacrificed to expedience and greed. And yet, in the conversation itself, in the joining of voices, I find myself modestly encouraged, believing that so long as the questions are still being asked, what binds us together might somehow, ultimately, prevail."

I like that not only because he can apparently write longer run on sentences than even I can, but because he shows that he understands the process but hasn't lost hope in it, or last sight of his belief in a greater good.

I took offense at your list for a number of reasons. Mostly because it is also a sense of entitlement to believe that you should reap the benefit of our society without contributing anything to it. The other is that it is incorrect to believe that social programs are just handouts to those that won't work to get themselves out of poverty. The obvious example is that the children of the poor, no matter why it is that they are poor, don't deserve to suffer because of the parents lack of success. Beyond that though there are many more reasons for why the poor are poor beyond their being lazy. If those issues aren't addressed the problems become worse every generation until it brings the entire society down.

No one is naive enough to believe those issues can be addressed without the corruption that exists in any society that consists of more than one person, or that the problems can be solved in a generation, or that the problems can ever be solved. What is known is that if we don't do something about it, it will bring all of us down. This isn't a moral issue, it isn't a socialist issue, it's a self preservation issue.

I also don't think any of your points have anything to do with Senator Obama. Regardless of what most people think he is politically a centrist. Things aren't going to drastically change with him, other than that he will approach governing with more intelligence than we have seen in a while.

Some sort of universal health care is going to happen no matter what. The reason is that large companies in America want it to happen. They are tired of footing the bill and would like to see the taxpayer pick it up. The only ones opposed to it are the drug companies and the insurance companies. Even my doctor supports changing the system, they are tired of dealing with insurance companies.

One last comment, GameboyRMH is correct. Trickle down economics has so fallen out of favor that no one seriously talks about it anymore.

poopshovel wrote: The latter left me absolutely speechless. But both reaffirm my belief that there are 3 different types of people who will vote for Obama, all of which scare the living crap out of me. I don't mean any offense here, just calling it as I see it:

skappes, you'll be voting for BHO because you are the Democratic Party and you wouldn't vote for a R under any circumstances whatsoever. That's just an observation based on the past couple years of your posts. Oh, you might say "I'm independant and I always look at both candidates and choose who I think is best" but somehow, that's always a D. When was the last time you voted for a Republican? Honestly. I'm not trying to attack you here, just get you in touch with your inner self. BHO is about as centrist as Stalin. Look at his voting record. Look at his advisors. SDS, terrorists of 60's, people who regret not killing more "back in the day," racists that hate white people, outright Communists dedicated to eliminating our form of government and economic system. What about his book where he says (paraphrasing) that the way to fake out whitey is to smile a lot and move slow? Does that bother you?

GameboyRMH won't be voting in our election. His opinion is interesting, but irrelevant in this discussion. I also don't care what people in what used to be called Rhodesia, or France, think about our political system or who should be our next President. But, remember that if the company you work for doesn't make any money, there is no reason for them to continue to pay you. I see this a lot in the consul-tick business. The consul-ticks forget that if the victim, err, client, doesn't make money, there's no reason to keep paying the consul-ticks.

i wish to read the chapter of his book on "fakeing out whitey". Is there an ebook?

I voted for Reagan but you are free to think ( and I loosely use the term ) for your self. Just curious, how many Democrats have you voted for?

Your other comments, I'm guessing you have actually read his book? Sure he went through some of the same experiences a lot of college kids went through in the 60's. He pretty well describes his progression through his life. I think it's a positive thing that he is honest about his past, unlike the current president.

Seriously, if you read his book and still took it the way you have, you would have to be grasping at straws to justify your own racism.

Do look at Obama's voting record. By objective analysis he is the 40th most liberal Senator. I have a socialist friend that thinks Obama is nearly as right wing as Senator Clinton, someone that is really nearly a neocon.

Business does not say, oooo, I have money to hire people so I will. Their goal is to hire as few people as they can to maximize profit. No doubt that excessive taxation can impact hiring but there is no reason that reducing taxation increases it. There is a reason companies like Cisco and Microsoft are sitting on billions of dollars.

Dr. Hess wrote: skappes, you'll be voting for BHO because you are the Democratic Party and you wouldn't vote for a R under any circumstances whatsoever. That's just an observation based on the past couple years of your posts. Oh, you might say "I'm independant and I always look at both candidates and choose who I think is best" but somehow, that's always a D. When was the last time you voted for a Republican? Honestly. I'm not trying to attack you here, just get you in touch with your inner self. BHO is about as centrist as Stalin. Look at his voting record. Look at his advisors. SDS, terrorists of 60's, people who regret not killing more "back in the day," racists that hate white people, outright Communists dedicated to eliminating our form of government and economic system. What about his book where he says (paraphrasing) that the way to fake out whitey is to smile a lot and move slow? Does that bother you? GameboyRMH won't be voting in our election. His opinion is interesting, but irrelevant in this discussion. I also don't care what people in what used to be called Rhodesia, or France, think about our political system or who should be our next President. But, remember that if the company you work for doesn't make any money, there is no reason for them to continue to pay you. I see this a lot in the consul-tick business. The consul-ticks forget that if the victim, err, client, doesn't make money, there's no reason to keep paying the consul-ticks.

Jon Stewert asked him directly if he had a secret plan to enslave whitey. He said no. phew. :)

GlennS wrote: i wish to read the chapter of his book on "fakeing out whitey". Is there an ebook?