You Can Not Help the Poor by Destroying the Rich

[Forevryoung]

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.

My parents are in a similar position (except we live on Long Island where a dollar doesn't go as far and we have crazy other taxes).

My mom has agreed that if taxes are raised much more, my father will work shorter hours.

Currently, for every $1 that my father makes, $0.45 of it goes to taxes. There comes a point in time were working for that dollar doesn't make sense when you factor in overhead (approximately 55% of his business's income).

 

[CowboyCO]

Precisely: After taxes, people should be able to do what they wish with their income. Taxes, therefore, should include the costs of society's responsibilities to its citizens.

I agree completely. If people feel that they're underpaid, then find another job. As long as employers are treating employees fairly and honestly, they are justified in playing them whatever the labor market is willing to take, subject to reasonable minimum wages, which should, of course, reflect the cost of living, so the employer is not, effectively "dumping" the employee's poverty onto society's back.

The wage someone is paid reflects the demand that the market has on that particular skill or profession. For example, when I was in college back in the late 80s, I worked in Grand Teton National Park for a concessionaire. In the town of Jackson, in the 1980's, you could work at McDonald's for $12 and hour. Back in my college town it was $4-5 an hour. Why? Low-skill employees were scarce in Jackson and plentiful in Laramie. $12 was not a living wage in Jackson Hole any more than it is in Aspen or in NYC. So for the federal government to step and try to set some arbitrary "living wage" is not practical and is meddling in the natural marketplace of labor.

 

[Disney Doll]

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).

And conversely bicker, your opinion is that no one is suggesting anything that would destroy the rich.

It is other poster's opinion that people are suggesting things that could destroy the rich.

And if you take a look at the facts, the facts are that some of the policies can very much so adversely affect the rich.

So why is your opinion correct and others incorrect?

 

[Disney Doll]

I sympathize... Having done it once before, myself, I can imagine how wearying it could be supporting the lesser candidate.

For someone who insists on "fact" from your opponents, you throw around an awful lot of opinions bicker.

Frankly, I'm a bit disappointed. You always insist that everyone else's posts be based on fact and reason.

 

[stacyp9]

Call me naive, but I'm pretty certain that returning the rich to the same tax percentage they paid under Clinton won't destroy them. In fact, I'm pretty sure they will barely notice.

 

[Took]

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.

Well, Boetckner certainly is not highly credible or neutral, and I don't see his words as "wise" at all. He was a conservative religious speaker, not a "great man" with any real "words of wisdom." MUCH different than your original source, OP.

 

[clarigirl]

That's 4% more they are getting which is taking away an additional 4% used for providing for my child. Honestly, if they want to put tax money somewhere, put it into education so there are AFFORDABLE programs for people to get training in order to better themselves. Send that tax money to the colleges, universities, trade schools. Have it offset tuition rates. Help people move out of their rut instead of giving them a handout that's temporary...and means nothing in the long run as people fall behind.

Also, that temporary help is actually going to help small businesses. If I were to get more money due to a tax cut, I would then be able to use some of the services that small businesses provide. That is thing about the people who get more back than they put in.....it goes right back into the economy....it is SPENT. Someone on this thread said all it is going to do for them is cause them to not be able to save as much. How exactly does that help the economy? Remember the BUSH rebates after 911? The SPEND ads that were in all of the papers.......that is what gets the economy going and ALL business in business.

 

[CowboyCO]

I for one do not fear Christians as I am one myself.
I do however fear the Fundamentists who are a minority and whom wish to impose their values and believes on all of the US citizens.

Such as those who wish to outlaw abortion once again.

I remember the the heatbreak of the women who took the Thalidomide durg back in the 1960's. Some of those wemon wanted to chose abortions.
Those who went to court were denied the right to an abortion.
Others went to back alley's for abortions and risked infections and complications. Those who were wealthy enough flew overseas to get an abortion.

Others either by choice or circumstance gave birth to deformed babies.



Link:

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=11322

Definition of Thalidomide baby
Thalidomide baby: An infant affected by prenatal exposure to the drug thalidomide. This medication was prescribed to pregnant women for treatment of morning sickness until removal from the market in 1962. It causes a wide variety of serious birth defects, including short, flipper-like limbs. Most thalidomide babies have lived into adulthood. This population is now reaching middle age, and in some cases new health problems are emerging.

You know, somehow I think that those Thalidomide babies that lived and reached adulthood (as most did) may disagree with your entire assertion. Life, even with challenges, is precious. Especially for those who were granted that life.

 

[disney1990]

And irrelevant. No one is suggesting anything that would "destroy" the rich.

Another red herring desperation appeal.

Thank you.

 

[TLSnell1981]

Well, Boetckner certainly is not highly credible or neutral, and I don't see his words as "wise" at all. He was a conservative religious speaker, not a "great man" with any real "words of wisdom." MUCH different than your original source, OP.

So, the words only have meaning if you approve of the source? Kind of like the folks that approved of Sarah Palin as VP, the pro-life agenda and were pro-Iraq.....as long as they thought this was aligned with Obama?

 

[TLSnell1981]

Also, that temporary help is actually going to help small businesses. If I were to get more money due to a tax cut, I would then be able to use some of the services that small businesses provide. That is thing about the people who get more back than they put in.....it goes right back into the economy....it is SPENT. Someone on this thread said all it is going to do for them is cause them to not be able to save as much. How exactly does that help the economy? Remember the BUSH rebates after 911? The SPEND ads that were in all of the papers.......that is what gets the economy going and ALL business in business.

That's not true. There are businesses that will not benefit from additional services. Some businesses are not able to pass their increased costs to the consumer. Most retail business that will benefit are NOT small businesses. BO tax increases will hurt small business owners. It will reduce jobs. The increases will hurt growth.

 

[bicker]

So for the federal government to step and try to set some arbitrary "living wage" is not practical and is meddling in the natural marketplace of labor.

Meddling, yes. However, the point I was making is that employers do not have the right to effectively "dump" the employee poverty onto society's back, by exploiting inequities in society itself in terms of determined pay rates. I would prefer if each case was addressed individually, but that's too costly, so government does need to find a more efficient means to ensure that employers are not committing the type of exploitation I referred to. We taxpayers have a right to protect ourselves from exploitative employers.

 

[bicker]

So why is your opinion correct and others incorrect?

Why would I state something that I don't believe is correct?

I reply to messages in the same tone and mode as the message I'm replying to. So go back and read the message I was replying to and reply to that one saying the same thing you've said to me.

 

[bicker]

Call me naive, but I'm pretty certain that returning the rich to the same tax percentage they paid under Clinton won't destroy them.

Absolutely.