You Can Not Help the Poor by Destroying the Rich

[dvcgirl]

I wonder this too. My family is far from wealthy, but we do own a small business and will be affected by the Obama's tax plan. We, of course, will be sheltering our money as much as possible. We can't shelter everything so my husband will not be adding an employee that he planned to add next year and will cease growing the business any further (luckily the size of our business can be easily flexed). Depending on how bad the tax changes are, we will lay off 1-2 people as well. And in the short run, any additional taxes will simply be deducted from the amount of our charitable contributions for the year. One way or another, we will remain whole and none of these things will be beneficial for the economy.

This is just ludicrous. Your husband is going to stop trying as hard because his taxes will go up by 4%? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Oh, and you're going to give less to charity too. I guess this is the "that'll show em!" strategy.

We'll also be taxed more heavily under the Obama plan. Guess I'll have to start turning business away so I don't have to pay more in taxes. I mean, why would I bother doing my absolute best when Obama is going to take a whole 4% over the 200K mark. Guess I should see if my husband can refuse raises in the future too. We're having a really tough time getting by on our hundreds of thousands in salaries a year.

Sigh....most of my better-off friends are voting for Obama, and I haven't heard a single one of them complain about losing that 4%. I doubt most of them will even notice.

Oh, and we'll stop our charitable contributions too. Because if we can't keep it *all*, then we won't give at all.

 

[Took]

I wonder this too. My family is far from wealthy, but we do own a small business and will be affected by the Obama's tax plan. We, of course, will be sheltering our money as much as possible. We can't shelter everything so my husband will not be adding an employee that he planned to add next year and will cease growing the business any further (luckily the size of our business can be easily flexed). Depending on how bad the tax changes are, we will lay off 1-2 people as well. And in the short run, any additional taxes will simply be deducted from the amount of our charitable contributions for the year. One way or another, we will remain whole and none of these things will be beneficial for the economy.

My point is that the "wealthy" will find a way to decrease their taxes. So, the tax amount raised won't be nearly as big as expected. Where is the government going to get the additional funding then? Hmmm.... I expect that those with lower incomes (say $150K or maybe even $42K ) will be called upon to do their "patriotic duty".

Well, I suppose the next phase could be to LIMIT those shelters....Don't know why they should exist anyway except to benefit the very rich.

 

[MossMan]

I find it remarkable that nobody has ever thought to go over the federal budget with a scalpel before.

So do I.

For years the Republicans were promising to do exactly that. Republicans sold themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility. The moment Republicans wrested control away from the "fiscally irresponsible" Democrats, spending would be cut and we would all reap the rewards in the form of tax cuts.

Then after years the Republicans finally did it. They completely controlled the government - a Republican President and a Republican Congress. And what did these Republicans do?

Well, these so called "fiscally responsible" Republicans began to spend. They spent and spent and spent. They grew the government ever larger. They turned surpluses into deficits. However, even though they were spending at record levels, they still gave out the tax break they promised. But most of that tax break went to the wealthy. But to pay for this tax break they had to borrow billions from the Chinese - on top of the billions they were borrowing to pointlessly bloat the federal government.

But didn't the tax breaks grow the economy so we could pay back the billions we borrowed and pay for this massive increase in the size of government? Nope. Instead of returning to Clinton-era budget surpluses we are instead in the middle of a vast economic melt down.

So the Republicans gave us irresponsible spending and a tax break plan that seems to not have helped the economy at all.

But many Republicans are worried about the Democratic plan. Well I might be worried too if the Republicans hadn't already blown it. The Republicans had their chance and they couldn't have done a worse job. Seriously.

Independents aren't buying these anti-Obama scare tactics. They already know what a train wreck Republican policies have been. The deficit is huge and the economy is in shambles. Republicans have delivered the exact opposite of what they promised. How could Obama be worse?

Americans don't necessarily want the Democrats in control, but they are smart enough to know they can't trust the Republicans.

 

[Chicago526]

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.

 

[Charade]

To help low-income families in particular, Mr. Obama would give a “Making Work Pay Credit” equal to 6.2 percent of a worker’s first $8,100 in wages. That would yield a tax credit of $500 for a single person, and $1,000 for a couple in which both adults work. As a result, a low-income couple now paying no income taxes might receive a $1,000 refund.

But Mr. McCain has told audiences that Mr. Obama’s “plan gives away your tax dollars to those who don’t pay taxes. That’s not a tax cut, that’s welfare.”

How would you describe it when someone is not obligated to pay any income tax but gets a "refund". IMHO, it's disingenuous to call it a refund because that implies you're getting back some (or all) of what you actually paid in.

Mr. Obama responded last week in Kansas City, Mo.: “McCain is so out of touch with the struggles you are facing that he must be the first politician in history to call a tax cut for working people welfare.”

It's not a tax cut. It's not even a tax credit. In fact, it's a direct handout and it comes from someone who actually did pay taxes. McCain is right. It's welfare on the order of WIC or food stamps.

 

[Island_Lauri]

I wonder this too. My family is far from wealthy, but we do own a small business and will be affected by the Obama's tax plan. We, of course, will be sheltering our money as much as possible. We can't shelter everything so my husband will not be adding an employee that he planned to add next year and will cease growing the business any further (luckily the size of our business can be easily flexed). Depending on how bad the tax changes are, we will lay off 1-2 people as well. And in the short run, any additional taxes will simply be deducted from the amount of our charitable contributions for the year. One way or another, we will remain whole and none of these things will be beneficial for the economy.

My point is that the "wealthy" will find a way to decrease their taxes. So, the tax amount raised won't be nearly as big as expected. Where is the government going to get the additional funding then? Hmmm.... I expect that those with lower incomes (say $150K or maybe even $42K ) will be called upon to do their "patriotic duty".

You and your husband might want to rethink your plans - you just might be interested in Sen. Obama's incentive for hiring new employees....


Tax Cuts – Obama’s tax cuts are aimed specifically for those persons who make less than $250,000 a year. For small businesses, and people who are planning on starting one, this could seem rather disconcerting. However, according to Obama’s economic plan, people who want to start small businesses will have many options available for tax credits. Essentially, Obama doesn’t want to discourage entrepreneurship. He’d rather tax CEOs of large corporations. The fact remains though, that if you are making more than $250,000 a year, you will most likely see tax increases. Barack Obama also plans on removing all capital gains taxes for start-up businesses. Also, if Obama’s tax cuts help the middle class as much as he claims they will, then consumers should have more money to invest in luxury items and services. For Joe the Plumber, it might mean people taking care of the plumbing issues sooner, because they won’t be as financially strapped.

2. Hiring Incentives – Obama’s plan involves significant focus on creating new American jobs. Employers will be receiving tax credits, and perhaps other benefits, for hiring new employees, thereby creating new jobs. However, if you plan on starting a small business that will employ workers outside of the US, be prepared for some extra taxes. Obama’s plan is specific in trying to create incentives for US jobs. Additionally, Obama plans on being tough on fair trade, so that Americans won’t be shortchanged on goods and services.

4. Environmental Policies – It’s no secret that Obama believes that Global Warming is a real issue that needs to be addressed by the next President of the United States. As a result, Obama has come up with an extensive plan for energy and the environment. In addition to an emphasis on researching new energy producing technologies, Obama plans to put many environmentally friendly incentives for businesses into law. Businesses that engage in energy conservation will receive tax credits. Additionally, Obama will attempt to institute stricter emissions policies. What this amounts to, is that small businesses will have to pay attention to their environmental impact more so than they do now, if Obama becomes president. The idea is that the Tax Credit will help to offset any costs associated with “going green.” If you own a small business, and Obama becomes president, it’s in your best interests to become environmentally conscious.

4. Military Policies – It’s no secret that Iraq costs billions of US dollars every month. Obama’s plan for withdraw should provide a much needed decrease in military spending. However, it should be noted that Obama also plans on increasing the effort to track down the Taliban in Afghanistan. Small Businesses won’t feel this impact directly (unless they deal in military goods), but the far-reaching economic impacts could certainly affect small business loans, and other business areas.

5. The Bailout – Obama supports the government’s financial bailout just like McCain does. Obama has stated that he will review government budgets, and carry out the current bailout plan. This bailout plan affects small businesses in a variety of ways. However, the most important affect is the ability for entrepreneurs to obtain loans that are traditionally more high-risk. The government is currently coming down hard on financial institutions for giving out loans too eagerly. So, in the future, it seems like no matter who is candidate, it may be harder to get loans. In order to combat this, Obama has also considered a plan to help entrepreneurs have low-interest loans available to them in order to cover start up costs.

6. Healthcare – Obama has been immovable on his healthcare plan. The effect on small businesses could be of concern to some. Essentially, Obama’s goal is to make healthcare more accessible and affordable for everyone. How he plans to do this is by lowering the cost that consumer’s pay by an amount over $1,000 on average. It gets muddy as to where this discount will come from. Obama will place pressure on insurance companies themselves to provide lower-cost insurance to persons. However, if the insurance companies cannot, or will not, cooperate, then the discounts may have to be picked up by the employer. Again, Obama defends this by stating that only large corporations which can afford to pay more for their employee benefits will be affected. Obama plans on making healthcare affordable for everyone, and that includes small business owners.

7. Equality – Barack Obama is a staunch supporter of equality within the work place. Essentially, this means that he will not support any company which pays a woman less than a man for the exact same job. In fact, Obama plans to take steps to help eliminate this, and other similar salary discrepancies from occurring. For many companies, this would mean a sometimes significant wage increase for their female workers. You can bet that will make a financial dent. However, for a small business owner, any new legislation concerning equal pay for women would have a nominal effect. The largest descrepencies between male and female pay occurs in large corporations, not in private businesses. In any event, Obama is a stalwart when it comes to equal pay for equal work.

Obama’s economic plan is very aggressive. It has the potential to either help the economy, or just cause more problems. According to Obama, his plan won’t hurt small business owners, but is rather designed to make large corporations pay more taxes, while dealing with greater accountability when it comes to employee benefits. Under Obama’s plan, there will be incentives, via tax credits, for companies to hire more US workers, be environmentally conscious, and provide their employees with affordable healthcare. It remains to be seen if Obama can really accomplish all he hopes to. In any case, if you’re a small business owner, don’t panic if Obama is elected. However, that doesn’t mean you can’t try to be prepared for new challenges that will face the small business owner of tomorrow.


http://www.bschool.com/blog/2008/how-obamas-economic-plan-will-affect-your-small-business/

 

[bicker]

I'm not sure rich people will "barely miss" any extra amount they're taxed, but surely the difference between the two perspectives is that Obama's perspective takes into consideration how much taxing someone drives them closer to poverty. We all know that there is a it costs money to have a place to live, food to eat, clothing to wear, to get to work -- essentially, to live life. The less money you have to spend on these things, the more you suffer. The higher your personal "misery". Of course, people can suffer or be miserable for other reasons, but poverty, itself, is a cause of suffering and misery. 10% of $30,000 is $3,000. 10% of 300,000 is $30,000. Having your income drop from $30,000 to $27,000 has a clear and readily accessible negative impact on your life; it very substantially increases the aforementioned suffering and misery. Having your income drop from $300,000 to $270,000 has insignificant impact on suffering and misery.

 

[dvcgirl]

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.

LOL! Did Rush say that Lincoln said it? Then he said it.

Seriously Chicago....let's not bring in the ability to think for ourselves at this point.

 

[Island_Lauri]

How would you describe it when someone is not obligated to pay any income tax but gets a "refund". IMHO, it's disingenuous to call it a refund because that implies you're getting back some (or all) of what you actually paid in.

It's not a tax cut. It's not even a tax credit. In fact, it's a direct handout and it comes from someone who actually did pay taxes. McCain is right. It's welfare on the order of WIC or food stamps.

Simply because I happen to believe that low income people pay plenty of taxes in other ways. They pay sales tax on the things they buy, excise tax on various items, they contribute to social security fund, etc.....

 

[Uncle Remus]

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.

 

[whjoyjr]

LOL! Did Rush say that Lincoln said it? Then he said it.

Seriously Chicago....let's not bring in the ability to think for ourselves at this point.

I guess the OP got it from his DittoMail or his FreepMail...

Again, Desperate times mean Desperate measures...

 

[wvjules]

Simply because I happen to believe that low income people pay plenty of taxes in other ways. They pay sales tax on the things they buy, excise tax on various items, they contribute to social security fund, etc.....

Ummm, EVERYONE pays those taxes. If no income taxes are paid then no refund should be given. And I'm saying this as someone who up until the past few years got back more than I paid.

 

[dvcgirl]

I'm not sure they'll "barely miss" it, but surely the difference between the two perspectives is that Obama's perspective takes into consideration how much taxing someone drives them closer to poverty. We all know that there is a it costs money to have a place to live, food to eat, clothing to wear, to get to work -- essentially, to live life. The less money you have to spend on these things, the more you suffer. The higher your personal "misery". Of course, people can suffer or be miserable for other reasons, but poverty, itself, is a cause of suffering and misery. 1% of $30,000 is $3,000. 1% of 300,000 is $30,000. Having your income drop from $30,000 to $27,000 has a clear and readily accessible negative impact on your life; it very substantially increases the aforementioned suffering and misery. Having your income drop from $300,000 to $270,000 has insignificant impact on suffering and misery.

Well, not to pick on you Bicker, but your math is a little off 1% of 30K is 300, 1% of 300K is 3,000.....but I understand your point.

I have to disagree though.....we have some friends who really do make a lot of money, and I don't think they'll miss it all that much. They will possibly save less....but I don't see their spending or giving being impacted all that much.

We're in the "few hundred grand a year" category, and we live way beneath our means, and so we won't be greatly impacted.....maybe an extra 5 grand a year in taxes. We already save 60% of our take-home pay and so maybe we'll save slightly less. But as in most years, I'm betting we'll make more and that will off-set the difference.

What I find incredibly interesting is that most Republicans who are going on and on ad nauseum about Joe the Plumber (and I've got them in my family, so I know them)......will not be impacted at all under Obama's tax plan. In fact, in *every* case they'll make out better! Just like Joe himself. And I bet that's the case around here too.

 

[Mackey Mouse]

Please let's try to post nicely without sarcasm.... Clearly we are all passionate about this election, but we can through the posting without being mean to each other..

 

[bicker]

Thanks for the pointer on my math, dvcgirl. I fixed my post.

You're right that most people supporting McCain/Palin either knowingly or through ignorance are supporting a tax plan that is to their own personal detriment. To be fair, you are supporting Obama/Biden, clearly knowingly supporting a tax plan that is to your own personal detriment. So clearly, other issues are at play. For me, money is secondary to personal freedom, civil liberties, and peace, things which, it seems clear to me, that McCain/Palin would work hard to attack, and that Obama/Biden would work hard to protect.

 

[momto2girls]

This is just ludicrous. Your husband is going to stop trying as hard because his taxes will go up by 4%? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Oh, and you're going to give less to charity too. I guess this is the "that'll show em!" strategy.

We'll also be taxed more heavily under the Obama plan. Guess I'll have to start turning business away so I don't have to pay more in taxes. I mean, why would I bother doing my absolute best when Obama is going to take a whole 4% over the 200K mark. Guess I should see if my husband can refuse raises in the future too. We're having a really tough time getting by on our hundreds of thousands in salaries a year.

Sigh....most of my better-off friends are voting for Obama, and I haven't heard a single one of them complain about losing that 4%. I doubt most of them will even notice.

Oh, and we'll stop our charitable contributions too. Because if we can't keep it *all*, then we won't give at all.

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. But seeing as the tax increase is completely a redistribution of income, it certainly counts as charity in my book. Every year when we do our budget, we break our income into categories. If our tax piece of the pie gets bigger, the charitable contribution piece of the pie has to get smaller. It is that simple.

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. With talk of raising the SS cap and changing the 401k deductibility, we are certainly not going to grow our business right now. There comes a point where working for that additional dollar is not worth it.

 

[Charade]

Simply because I happen to believe that low income people pay plenty of taxes in other ways. They pay sales tax on the things they buy, excise tax on various items, they contribute to social security fund, etc.....

Actually, it seems the Obama "tax cut" of 6.2 percent is the same rate for SS taxes. He's just put a bottom floor on it for some people. So why not just call it that? That would be much more "sellable".

Maybe we should eliminate the entire SS tax or the Medicare tax altogether for people making below a certain income level. Anyone making below a certain level shouldn't pay any taxes (such as the one's you mentioned) at all. That be the most fair.

 

[minnie61650]

I guess the OP got it from his DittoMail or his FreepMail...

Again, Desperate times mean Desperate measures...

My thanks to Chicago526 for pointing out who really said the The Ten Cannots.

An outspoken political conservative, Rev. Boetcker is perhaps best remembered for his authorship of a pamphlet entitled The Ten Cannots. Originally published in 1916, it is often misattributed to Abraham Lincoln.

Link to full article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._H._Boetcker

 

[bicker]

First of all, I completely feel justified in lowering our charitable contributions.

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.

There comes a point where working for that additional dollar is not worth it.

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.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

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. But seeing as the tax increase is completely a redistribution of income, it certainly counts as charity in my book. Every year when we do our budget, we break our income into categories. If our tax piece of the pie gets bigger, the charitable contribution piece of the pie has to get smaller. It is that simple.

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. With talk of raising the SS cap and changing the 401k deductibility, we are certainly not going to grow our business right now. There comes a point where working for that additional dollar is not worth it.

What business are you in? If you don't want your customers and we're in the same industry, I'd appreciate you sending them my way...I can even send you a few business cards to hand out, if it makes it easier on you.

FTR, I've owned my business through both Clinton and Bush. If you're looking to reduce profits (taxable business income), why wouldn't you bring on new employees, give to charity, and purchase capital equipment? They all decrease your profits in the short run, help expand your business and reduce your tax burden. I always thought that those kinds of things were something that every responsible business owner looks at close to the end of each fiscal year.

Closing up shop and curling up into a ball for 8 years makes no sense to me, but I sure wish the rest of my industry thought the way you do.