Yeah, but McCain is talking about this as if it’s a new concept. It ain’t. The tax burden has always been unequal. We’ve always given benefits to some and not others. It’s called America. McCain is a bad American if he doesn’t embrace these basic concepts.
It’s not generosity when the government forces you to do it.
Generosity doesn’t enter the picture if it’s mandatory. I think the word you’re looking for is confiscation.
If you want to be generous with your money, good for you. But when it comes to sharing and being generous with my money, keep your hands out of my pockets. I’ll determine my charitable giving on my own.
In a way, yes. But it is not the same as what Obama wants to do with his 'tax cuts". Now, I fervently disagree with what McCain wants to do, but at least there is an “excuse” involved. He is not advocating a system in which the redistribution of wealth is the new world order. He advocates the idea you outline as a short term emergency fix for a particular crisis.
This was excellent, and needs to be said again.
On a side note, I see that “Obama is a Socialist” meme was not gaining enough traction, so the true believers have moved on to “Obama is a Marxist”. I can’t wait to see where they take this crap next.
No, no, no. The phrase is “Anti-American.”
So you don’t think the United States should have an army?
magellan01, same question for you. Should the United States Armed Services be disbanded?
Because it constitutes spreading the money around. Unless you can figure out a way to get it for free.
You’re kidding, right? It is perfectly consistent to understand that taxes are needed for military and other things and believe that a highly progressive tax system that takes money from the wealthier among us and then doles it out to the less fortunate, many of whom don’t even pay taxes, is a disgusting socialistic idea. I’d say any progressive tax system treads into that territory, but the more it does the more odious it is.
This is why I favor a flat tax or a consumption tax.
So in your opinion it’s okay to spread the wealth around, just as long as it’s spent on what you prefer.
No taxation system you can devise will give precisely the same amount back to every taxpayer; any taxation system is spreading the wealth around. The only question is one of priority and degree, and I’d agree that’s a question for discussion. But let’s not pretend all of it is communism (which, in fairness, was not your word, it was Pharmboy’s.)
Thank you for appreciating the distinction. And, no, it is not Communism. I really think it’s fairly simple. Taxes should be as low as possible, They should take care of that which government is best equipped to handle: military, infrastructure, etc. I agree that that there should be a social safety net, as well. But when the government starts doling cash out to individuals, flags go up. This gets into classic redistribution of wealth territory. The “stimulus” checks Bush sent out were similarly problematic. While a tax rebate would be nice, it needs to be in proportion to the amount of taxes paid. If not, the government is taking money out of your pocket and putting it into someone else’s pocket. The ethical problem gets ratcheted up when the means through which taxes are collected is skewed against the wealthy. It’s simply unfair. Now, that makes some people chuckle, because after all, they’re rich!
Yes, it’s the poor who are the ethically correct source of any moneys extracted from citizens above and beyond the minimum neeeded to repel armed invaders. Imagine that! Once someone has already made a potful of money from the freedoms afforded him by living in a capitalistic society, the gummint decides that maybe he could underwrite the system that allowed him to earn it. It’s an outrage, I tell you!
Obama has said nothing about redistribution of wealth. That’s McCain’s slogan, not Obama’s. The problem with parsing what intelligent people say is that you can’t be sloppy about it. When Obama talks about “spreading the wealth around”, he means restarting the engine of capitalism. When money is hoarded by a select few — especially when some of them got their loot from either force or deception — there is nothing to lubricate the cogs and gears that make capitalism work. Money must move from one source to another in order to generate new wealth. When it stops moving, no new wealth is generated.
I wasn’t quoting Obama or anyone else. I’ve been using the phrase to describe Obama’s tax plan since I first heard it, and to describe a steeply escalated tax rate before that. Even to describe Bush’s “stimulus” tax checks. So, before you try to characterize what intelligent people say (and needlessly dial up the snark), you might want to be less sloppy about it. As far as the movement of money needed to make capitalism work, we agree. The only question is if that the government stepping in the way it did was necessary. I admit to not knowing the answer to that. I wonder how bad things would have gotten if they didn’t, and for how long, and how it would have set the stage for rebound compared to what is being done or McCain proposes be done. It could very well be that the cost of that (and not just financially) would have been less than the cost of this plan. Again, not just financially.
The burden should fall to us all equally, or in a way that embraces equality in some way. A flat tax, for instance collects more money from the wealthy, in direct proportion to the degree of their wealth. But everyone pays the same percentage. A consumption tax arrives at the same end by taxing us based on our spending, which is a good indicator of wealth. Not to mention, it also helps encourage saving.
Why don’t you mow the grass? I mean if it’s putting your daughter’s life at risk and all. Is a couple of hours a week too much of a burden when human life is at stake?
One equal way would be to charge every taxpayer a flat fee, say $10,000 per year, and the guy who makes $12,000 can figure out how to get by on $2000 and the guy making $32,000,000 can figure out how to get by on $31,998,000.
That’s equal. It’s also only a little dumber than what you’re suggesting.
Maybe.
Seems fair to me. Maybe it will inspire the lazy slob who makes only $12,000 a year to pull himself up by his bootstraps, and figure out how to be born into a wealthy family, and inherit millions. What a lazy bum. Probably an elitist liberal bum to boot.
That would be equal, yes. And fair, form one perspective. It is also not practical, and not what I advocated. So you seek to put words in my mouth and exclude the middle—which I provided—all in a few sentences. Well done, champ!!!
Now, since you have deemed a flat tax as dumb (:rolleyes:), perhaps you’d be so useful as to explain why.
Hmm, magellan01 there are quite a few reasons why people don’t like flat taxes, but it can often depend upon the specific proposals. Maybe you should start a thread arguing for a flat tax being implemented in the US?
Some of the issues relate to how you measure income - say 40% of everyone’s salary is enough to cover the current budget, how do you deal with non-salaried income (capital gains tax), property tax, or even the estate tax? Will corporations be taxed at the same rate?
A consumption tax on the other is not as good an indicator of wealth as you seem to think - there’s a specific term for it but in effect a poor person may have to buy a £30 pair of boots every year or two while a rich person can buy a £100 pound pair of boots that will last a decade - so the poorer person pays more because he can’t afford the initial investment.
The simplicity of the system is appealing and in many ex-communist countries it can be effective as it makes it far easier to collect taxes in the first place, which raises tax-revenue. In America’s case I think it would probably be better to simply have a less retarded system.
Whenever I discuss tax with Americans a lot of the bile simply seems to come with how much hassle they are to pay in the first place, it seems the federal government has forgotten one of the first rules of business - make it easy for them to give you their cash 
Sorry for coming across as pre-snarky; that was not my intention. But as far as the candidates go (even the Libertarian Party candidate), they all are statists and recidivists who will redistribute wealth. I do believe fundamentally that government’s role should solely be to suppress any and all unethical economic transactions (like those involving fraud, for example), and that it should spend money on nothing besides national defense (which would include defense of citizens from domestic crime as well as military defense from foreign attack), and a system of jurisprudence to settle disputes and arbitrate criminal charges. This could be accomplished with a constitutional amendment, which I’ve discussed here many times.
All that said, Obama is at heart a free-marketer, but as a Chicagoan (the economic school, not the city) does not rightfully see taxation as a coercion against the sovereign individual. Therefore, whatever he deigns to do with the money is fundamentally no different, ethically speaking, than what anyone else, including McCain, would do with it. As Davey Crocket once said, if they’re authorized to take a dollar, then they’re authorized to take as much as they want. To borrow from Churchill, we’ve already determined the government is a whore; all that remains is to negotiate the price.