You Can Not Help the Poor by Destroying the Rich

[dvcgirl]

Thanks for your opinion.

First of all, I completely feel justified in lowering our charitable contributions. If our tax increase was for something noble like the war effort, I would feel more "patriotic" about the giving.

And as for the 4% increase, we can absorb that easily by taking advantage of some shelters that we've never used before plus decreasing our charitable contributions, but we will not grow the business and may choose to decrease it depending on what else the Obamamessiah (should he be elected) manages to get through.

So you don't want to make an extra $1,000 over what you make now because you'll have to send the government an extra $40? Is this the new "Rich man just can't get ahead" syndrome?

I'd like my tax increase to go to something noble as well.....of course the war isn't a noble effort, but that's another matter. Did you read that the Iraquis want us out completely by 2011? Guess they've had enough of our nobility as well. Oh, and did Senator McCain get that memo? If not, someone should really tell him.

 

[Mamu]

I don't think more taxes will hurt the rich at all, they have their tax lawyers to get around the tax increases. The people who make the magic figure of $250.000 and up to a certain point are the people the tax increase will hurt. As far as spreading the wealth around it depends on how it spread.

I'm against giving government money out to anyone. I'm not saying we shouldn't help the poor, help them to get a better education, help them to have affordable and decent housing, provide affordable medical coverage. Always remember there's only so much you can do for the poor, they also need to help themselves too. So many take and take and take and do nothing to help themselves.

The rich need to look deep inside them selves. So many of them have become self absorbed in everything they have. They are a society immersed in high priced items for themselves. They throw a few crumbs to the poor and think they have done our share. They pay low wages, reap the benefits for themselves. Until the greed and self indulgence of the rich changes the way they look at other nothing going to change. You and I will pay more then our share because we do care.

 

[momto2girls]

It is an interesting thought and one I agree with. Does anyone know what percentage of our taxes gets allocated towards outreach, assistance, and such? I definitely can see momto2girls' point that folks aiming to give a certain percentage of their income as charity should indeed feel justified in including that portion of their taxes paid as part of that percentage.

However, that's not the case. Even at the highest tax rate, each additional dollar is still a significant amount of extra money in your pocket, and therefore there is no justification for "giving up" because you don't like the tax policy. You don't need that as justification, though: If you want to give up, you can just give up. There is no requirement to have a good reason.

Perhaps I'm not making myself clear. As I said, we can easily offset the 4% increase by decreasing our charitable contributions. (And I appreciate you saying that you understand why this particular tax increase can be easily justified as charitable giving.) My bigger concern is some of the other tax changes that have been bandied about. If the SS cap is raised or the 401k deductibility removes or if a higher tax increase is passed if Obama wins, etc., we are dealing with a much bigger tax increase that we are discussing here. So, for now, we will be in a holding pattern. No new employee hires, etc. Our business is highly recession-proof so we could grow. But it is conceivable that changes could be made that we would be sending more to the government than we would be able to keep at the highest tax rate. We aren't in the business of funding the government. Plus, we live very conservatively, so deciding that the additional time we would have due to scaling back the business vs. working hard for a bit of additional money in our pocket can be made without regard to expenses.

I guess the bottom line is that you trust Obama to do what he says. I don't. It wouldn't surprise me at all if once in office, he proposes tax increases much higher than he is admitting now.

 

[just4today]

I guess the bottom line is that you trust Obama to do what he says. I don't. It wouldn't surprise me at all if once in office, he proposes tax increases much higher than he is admitting now.

Here's an interesting article I read this morning about Obama's campaign promises.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5051118.ece

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Perhaps I'm not making myself clear. As I said, we can easily offset the 4% increase by decreasing our charitable contributions. (And I appreciate you saying that you understand why this particular tax increase can be easily justified as charitable giving.) My bigger concern is some of the other tax changes that have been bandied about. If the SS cap is raised or the 401k deductibility removes or if a higher tax increase is passed if Obama wins, etc., we are dealing with a much bigger tax increase that we are discussing here. So, for now, we will be in a holding pattern. No new employee hires, etc. Our business is highly recession-proof so we could grow. But it is conceivable that changes could be made that we would be sending more to the government than we would be able to keep at the highest tax rate. We aren't in the business of funding the government. Plus, we live very conservatively, so deciding that the additional time we would have due to scaling back the business vs. working hard for a bit of additional money in our pocket can be made without regard to expenses.

I guess the bottom line is that you trust Obama to do what he says. I don't. It wouldn't surprise me at all if once in office, he proposes tax increases much higher than he is admitting now.

Thing is, if you decrease you charitable contributions, you increase your profits by that same amount and in the end, would have to pay taxes on that money. Why would you do that? I'd like to say that my company gives (approx $50,000 annually) to the charity of my choice solely because it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside, but a lot of it has to do with tax reduction. With all due respect, it sounds like you're willing to cut your nose off to spite your face. I'd hope you'd reconsider before you cut off a charity that, due to the poor economy, is probably struggling a bit right now.

 

[TLSnell1981]

I dont suppose that anyone cares that Lincoln never said the quote in the OP? That list was writen by William J. H. Boetcker in 1942.

Very good. I "checked" this quote in the wee hours of the morning. (long night) Thank you for correcting this. I should have put the word "quote" in my check...came back exactly as you said.

Nevertheless....they are wise words. Their purpose is still the same...to provoke (I hope) thoughtful conversation.

 

[Chicago526]

Very good. I "checked" this quote in the wee hours of the morning. (long night) Thank you for correcting this. I should have put the word "quote" in my check...came back exactly as you said.

Nevertheless....they are wise words. Their purpose is still the same...to provoke (I hope) thoughtful conversation.

No problem, it's still a perfectly valid debate!

 

[Charade]

Here's an interesting article I read this morning about Obama's campaign promises.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5051118.ece

Reality hits the road...

 

[bicker]

If the SS cap is raised

The SS cap makes SS tax a regressive tax, more of an imposition on those with modest incomes than on those with higher incomes.

or the 401k deductibility removes

I don't see this passing, but even if it does, I don't think its impact, again, even at the highest tax rate, would reduce each additional dollar earned to less than a significant amount of extra money in your pocket.

I guess the bottom line is that you trust Obama to do what he says. I don't. It wouldn't surprise me at all if once in office, he proposes tax increases much higher than he is admitting now.

I don't trust either of them on money issues; they're both going to raise taxes more than they're saying. There is no reason to support McCain over Obama, in that regard, unless you really are making more than $250K per year.

 

[momto2girls]

The SS cap makes SS tax a regressive tax, more of an imposition on those with modest incomes than on those with higher incomes.

I don't see this passing, but even if it does, I don't think its impact, again, even at the highest tax rate, would reduce each additional dollar earned to less than a significant amount of extra money in your pocket.

I don't trust either of them on money issues; they're both going to raise taxes more than they're saying. There is no reason to support McCain over Obama, in that regard, unless you really are making more than $250K per year.

Well, I hope that you are right and these tax changes won't go into affect. Of course you don't have the inside track so we will just have to see what the structure of the Congress looks like after this election and whether or not Obama tries to tame himself and govern from the middle (if elected). I'm just glad that we have the ability to downsize our business and flex our income if necessary. It is nice to know that we have options. I'm sure that the truly wealthy have even more options that we have.

Well, we do make more than 250K, but that isn't the only reason that I'm voting McCain. The reasons are endless truly. I disagree with Obama on virtually everything so he definitely isn't the candidate for me. I'm truly not a one-issue voter. Also, I have always believed that it is a huge mistake to place too much tax burden on the "rich", even when I didn't have two nickels to rub together. It is only within the last few years that we have made the money that we now do and I've always proudly voted Republican.

 

[whjoyjr]

Very good. I "checked" this quote in the wee hours of the morning. (long night) Thank you for correcting this. I should have put the word "quote" in my check...came back exactly as you said.

Nevertheless....they are wise words. Their purpose is still the same...to provoke (I hope) thoughtful conversation.

Ok then, I will apologize for the "DittoMail" comment...

 

[TLSnell1981]

Ok then, I will apologize for the "DittoMail" comment...

Apology accepted.

 

[Green Tea]

If the SS cap is raised ...... we are dealing with a much bigger tax increase that we are discussing here. .

That is true. The first time we maxed out, I was shocked. Couldn't understand why we didn't have to pay Fica past a specific amount. To this day it still confounds me. (of course I don't mind the period of the increased check-who would) It is a tax break I honestly never really understood. And I benefit from it.

Maybe I am the only person in America who isn't against tax increases. Virginia had a governor who ran on a No Car Tax pledge. And he tried his best to fulfill his pledge. Of course it bankrupted the state, hurt local schools and everything else. The man is now running for senate and even in conservative Virginia, I will be surprised if he get 30% of the vote. I have actually gone to local meetings and said "Raise our Taxes"(in terms of school funding.) I guess I just don't understand how we can expect to get something for nothing.

 

[TLSnell1981]

I don't think more taxes will hurt the rich at all, they have their tax lawyers to get around the tax increases. The people who make the magic figure of $250.000 and up to a certain point are the people the tax increase will hurt. As far as spreading the wealth around it depends on how it spread.

The rich need to look deep inside them selves. So many of them have become self absorbed in everything they have. They are a society immersed in high priced items for themselves. They throw a few crumbs to the poor and think they have done our share. They pay low wages, reap the benefits for themselves. Until the greed and self indulgence of the rich changes the way they look at other nothing going to change. You and I will pay more then our share because we do care.

The biggest problem.....is what people think "rich" is. What tax deductions are you speaking of? Many small business owner are going to be hurt.

We live in a free country. People are able to spend their paychecks as they see fit. Why should the government tell them how to do so? Many people work those extra hours to be able to buy their luxuries.

You have a poor opinion of business owners....the ones that "pay low wages and reap the benefits"? You neglect to say...they are also the ones who borrow the money and put everything they have at risk.... to own their business. If they business goes bankrupt....do the employees share the owner's financial burden? They will have to find another job....things aren't that simple for the owner. They still have the loans to pay back and possibly lose their home....and will still need to seek other employment.

Hating the "rich" won't solve the problems of the poor. Depending on the government to take care of them...won't either.

 

[MossMan]

Reality hits the road...

This election isn't about Obama - it was never going to be about the Democratic challenger.

This election is about the Republicans and how badly independents think they have failed these last 8 years in office. Notice I did not say that the Republicans have failed - that's a different contention and one that has been discussed a lot on this board.

I'm pointing out how badly Independents believe Republicans have failed. As long as the Democratic candidate for President wasn't somebody like Palin, the Republican Candidate was never going to win. McCain's campaign team knows this and that's why they have spent the last 2 months frantically looking for something to demonize Obama with.

Traitor, celebrity, terrorist-lover, corrupt and socialist have all been tried. And each attempt to label Obama has failed. Independents want to vote Republican - that's where they are most comfortable. But the sheer incompetence of the Republicans over the last 8 years makes that choice almost impossible.

Say anything you want about Obama. Use any evidence to accuse to speculate how bad a President he will make. But that speculation hardly stands up to the stark facts of the last 8 years. Obama might be incompetent, but it's clear the Republicans are incompetent.

Even if Republicans are right about Obama, nobody is buying what they are selling. Actually that's not true. Republicans are still buying what Republicans are selling. But Independents have given up swallowing this nonsense long ago.

Frantically finding new names to call Obama is only convincing Independent voters they can't trust the name callers.

 

[CowboyCO]

It is a red herring because no one is suggesting anything that would "destroy" the rich.

You may aagree or disagree, but it is not speaking for the entire voting populace now (which seems to be your characterization of anything outside of what you believe).

OK fine -- take the first line out of the OP,

How about the next 5-6 lines?

I see wisdom.

You see red herring?

 

[TLSnell1981]

This election isn't about Obama - it was never going to be about the Democratic challenger.

This election is about the Republicans and how badly independents think they have failed these last 8 years in office. Notice I did not say that the Republicans have failed - that's a different contention and one that has been discussed a lot on this board.

I'm pointing out how badly Independents believe Republicans have failed. As long as the Democratic candidate for President wasn't somebody like Palin, the Republican Candidate was never going to win. McCain's campaign team knows this and that's why they have spent the last 2 months frantically looking for something to demonize Obama with.

Traitor, celebrity, terrorist-lover, corrupt and socialist have all been tried. And each attempt to label Obama has failed. Independents want to vote Republican - that's where they are most comfortable. But the sheer incompetence of the Republicans over the last 8 years makes that choice almost impossible.

Say anything you want about Obama. Use any evidence to accuse to speculate how bad a President he will make. But that speculation hardly stands up to the stark facts of the last 8 years. Obama might be incompetent, but it's clear the Republicans are incompetent.

Even if Republicans are right about Obama, nobody is buying what they are selling. Actually that's not true. Republicans are still buying what Republicans are selling. But Independents have given up swallowing this nonsense long ago.

Frantically finding new names to call Obama is only convincing Independent voters they can't trust the name callers.

People tend to forget....the DEMS have been in charge of Congress for the last two years. They have controlled the committees and the agenda. I know, the President gets the entire blame. This is only because "most" Americans don't understand how the government works. I think the argument that works with most independants...that I know...is balancing the power. They do not want to see one party in complete control.

 

[whjoyjr]

People tend to forget....the DEMS have been in charge of Congress for the last two years. They have controlled the committees and the agenda. I know, the President gets the entire blame. This is only because "most" Americans don't understand how the government works. I think the argument that works with most independants...that I know...is balancing the power. They do not want to see one party in complete control.

Please, the right cannot just run away from the trainwreck that they supported called the GWB administration.

Ok, if you want to blame congress since everything happened since the last election, then will you admit that 9/11 was all Bush's fault and the republican congress since they won the 2000 election?

Well?

 

[corndog]

The power to tax involves the power to destroy.

--Chief Justice John Marshall

 

[MossMan]

That is true. The first time we maxed out, I was shocked. Couldn't understand why we didn't have to pay Fica past a specific amount. To this day it still confounds me. (of course I don't mind the period of the increased check-who would) It is a tax break I honestly never really understood. And I benefit from it.

Maybe I am the only person in America who isn't against tax increases. Virginia had a governor who ran on a No Car Tax pledge. And he tried his best to fulfill his pledge. Of course it bankrupted the state, hurt local schools and everything else. The man is now running for senate and even in conservative Virginia, I will be surprised if he get 30% of the vote. I have actually gone to local meetings and said "Raise our Taxes"(in terms of school funding.) I guess I just don't understand how we can expect to get something for nothing.

Something for nothing? That's easy. We borrow. Then we borrow some more.

When Bush came into power he gave tax breaks to some.

Obama doesn't want to eliminate those tax breaks, but he would like to move the tax breaks to favor somebody else. For that he he a socialist.

Look, it really doesn't matter in the end. Bush, McCain or Obama. All want to borrow money to give tax breaks. In all cases we are re-distributing wealth from the people who will pay the debt (our children) to us.