Obama was having a discussion with a plumber and the plumber challenged Obama saying something to the effect "You're going to raise my taxes." Obama didn't deny it, and in fact stated "we are going to spread the wealth around."
I knew this to be true, but I was astounded that he let it slip out so blatantly!
This is getting mighty close to Marxism.
Marx said "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." (And the state determines your need and keeps the rest.)
(I think we have already discussed the difference between Communism and the United Order.)
8 comments:
It's the Robin hood idea. Take from the Rich and give to the poor. Of course the story shows the Rich to be greedy, power hungry and purposely depriving of the poor of basic necessities. I don't see that to be the case in our time...accept for those CEO's walking away with millions while the governement bails their companies out....I don't agree with that.
The difference is that Robin Hood didn't steal from the rich per se. He stole from the government that had excessively taxed the people and he returned the money to the people.
aha. I didn't realize that actually. I think you're right.
I am not going to spend any time discussing Robin Hood. There are different versions of that story including Hollywood films that give weird ideas of who RH was if indeed he was a historical figure at all. I figure he is entirely a made up figure. Because he is a heavily manipulated legendary figure, whether historical or not, he can be interpreted in any way convenient.
Wealth...humm, that word conjures up visions of luxury and opulence. But the word actually means more than that, wealth also means abundance. What is wrong with spreading around the abundance that this nation affords? I read his comment as simply meaning more people will have access to the abundance and not at all that it is about taking from the deserving and giving to the undeserving. Access. Access to jobs, access to the system most of us enjoy. Many Republicans, maybe not you, but many believe that the American Dream is equally accessible to all. It is not. Kick starting that dream has to do with access to the institutions and societal levels that facilitate 'plugging in' to the system. That access is often a financial one. Allowing more poor, lower middle class people more money via less taxation helps in that access issue. If you are rich, your access is already evident and continually facilitated. In essence, consider this capitalist saying, 'it takes money to make money'.
And it takes access to the system to begin making serious enough money to have money make money.
If you are making $250,000 a year, you have access: to better health care, to better education, to better lawyers, to much, much more productive compounding of your money, the spiral is upward.
But, Obama has repeatedly said that if you are making less that a quarter million, your taxes will not increase under his plan. I have read a bunch of interpretations of his plan, many of them in support of Obama's plan and a bunch of them which say we will all pay more. This has been demagogued beyond comprehension. Under Obama's plan and via taxes, it may well be true that the rich will pay more to the government. The Robin Hood idea is that whoever/whatever the Robin Hood character represents, and from whoever or whatever he steals, that he will give it directly to the poor. That is not what we are talking about! Our government is not going to do this, they will simply take less from the poor and more from the rich in order to do government's business. If there is any 'redistribution' to worry about, it is not gifting money, it is simply taxing in a manner that allows more money to stay in the hands of those who need it the most so that they can eventually have better access to the better institutions.
There is a reason why the rich and upper middle class send their kids to the school where I teach. They know that it is not merely a question of a superior secondary education, but access to superior universities which means greater access to a brighter future. That is the game most are playing.
Access, increased access to it all. Not taking it from someone and giving it to others. Let's face it, we are all lower middle class!, at least Nick and I are. When did you last receive any money that the government was redistributing? When did you last receive money from the government that it had taken from the rich and had given to you? This spreading the wealth scare is is a total red herring, don't fall for it!
Actually, taxes on those less than will increase under Obama's plan. No one says it, but Obama intends to lift the limit on FICA taxes, so we will be paying more. Also, I don't consider $250,000 income rich. Sure, it's a nice income, but most people earning above $250,000 don't consider themselves rich. In my opinion, a rich person is one who has enough resources to allow them not to work (though they may anyway).
Also, Obama's claim that 95% of Americans won't see an increase in their taxes is very devious since a large portion of that 95% don't pay taxes in the first place. Now that is populist campaigning!
Lastly, when we say "Obama's plan," that's exactly what it is. It's merely a plan. It will not survive the Democrats in congress, who will jack taxes even higher and spend even more. So here comes socialism (albeit in small or larger increments), which has not been kind to either religion or GLBTers, so I think both sides of our family should not too excited about that possibility.
One last unrelated point.
Reagan was trailing in the polls at about this point in his campaigns, but he won in a landslide, so maybe Obama shouldn't be measuring the drapes just yet.
On socialists and GLBTers, it is a matter of the country. Generally western socialist countries have been very progressive. Full marriage rights, non-discrimination in housing and employment and the right to serve in the military are passé issues in Canada, Belgium, England and more. These are socialist countries if you consider socialized medicine one of the chief barometers.
As for Obama and drapes, I concur. I haven't heard any fat ladies singing. I will not rejoice until late Nov 4 if there is rejoicing from my side to be had.
I don't figure $250,000 rich either, but it does allow access to most anything you want or need.
And Nick and I will never see that in our lifetimes.
As for the FICA increase, do you know what increase in percentage he is talking about? I have heard that from you and from Uncle Dean only.
As for those who pay nothing and there numbers and the percentage of wage earners they represent, something seems fishy to me. I assume Obama is talking uniquely about wage earners and therefor wage earners. Who is in that pool of workers from whom tax payments are not expected? Income taxes are based on income. If you have an modest to low income, maybe with all of the deductions and deductions for children allowed, people don't pay. But every single person I know who works pays income tax. To what pool of people do these numbers refer?
From what I have been able to research the FICA limit is $102,000. The first $102,000 of wages are subject to FICA in 2008. Anything above that is not subject to FICA taxes.
Obama's website states "Obama supports increasing the maximum amount of earnings covered by Social Security and he will work with Congress and the American people to choose a payroll tax reform package that will keep Social Security solvent for at least the next half century."
This is politician speech for "I will raise your FICA taxes, but I am not going to say how much."
I guess that does not necessarily mean that he intends to raise the "FICA rate," but he at least intends to raise the limit. So those between $102,000 and what ever Congress and Obama raise it to will see a tax increase.
Thank for for some nice clarification.
I am not eager to pay more taxes, of course. But I am willing if he will help with the keeping social security for all and if it helps to reduce a debt that will burden us for generations.
Post a Comment