March 29, 2024, 01:02:01 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: NEW CHILD BOARD CREATED IN THE POLITICAL SECTION FOR THE 2016 ELECTION
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: "It's not that I want to punish your success"  (Read 3964 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
WhiskeyGirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7754



« on: October 14, 2008, 10:46:27 AM »

Quote
Obama to Plumber: My Plan Will 'Spread the Wealth Around'

Barack Obama tells a plumber in Ohio he wants to "spread the wealth around," eliciting criticism that his economic recovery plan is socialist in nature.
 

FOXNews.com

Monday, October 13, 2008

Barack Obama told a tax-burdened plumber over the weekend that his economic philosophy is to "spread the wealth around" -- a comment that may only draw fire from riled-up John McCain supporters who have taken to calling Obama a "socialist" at the Republican's rallies.

Obama made the remark, caught on camera, after fielding some tough questions from the plumber Sunday in Ohio, where the Democratic candidate canvassed neighborhoods and encouraged residents to vote early.

"Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" the plumber asked, complaining that he was being taxed "more and more for fulfilling the American dream."

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too," Obama responded. "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."


Obama's remarks drew fresh criticism on the blogosphere that the Illinois senator favors a breed of wealth redistribution -- as well as a rebuke from the McCain campaign.

"If Barack Obama's goal as President is to 'spread the wealth around,' perhaps his unconditional meetings with Hugo Chavez, Raul Castro, and Kim Jong-Il aren't so crazy -- if nothing else they can advise an Obama administration on economic policy," McCain spokesman Michael Goldfarb said in a written statement to FOXNews.com. "In contrast, John McCain's goal as president will be to let the American people prosper unburdened by government and ever higher taxes."

Obama frequently rails against what he calls a Republican concept that tax breaks for the wealthy will somehow "trickle down" to middle-class Americans.

Obama says he will not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.

(snip)


http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/13/obama-plumber-plan-spread-wealth/comments/

video snip -

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=77949

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=195153

=======

How will this plumber be able to afford raises for any employees?  I wonder why he feels the Obama plan will raise his taxes?
Logged

All my posts are just my humble opinions.  Please take with a grain of salt.  Smile

It doesn't do any good to hate anyone,
they'll end up in your family anyway...
WhiskeyGirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7754



« Reply #1 on: October 14, 2008, 11:01:16 AM »

Why not encourage students to go to smaller or less expensive colleges?  Perhaps not being able to get a loan is also the blessing of working to pay for your tuition as you go, and NOT going into debt?

Explore other opportunities to pay for an education?
Logged

All my posts are just my humble opinions.  Please take with a grain of salt.  Smile

It doesn't do any good to hate anyone,
they'll end up in your family anyway...
WhiskeyGirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7754



« Reply #2 on: October 14, 2008, 11:35:47 AM »

Text of Obama speech -

US election: Full text of Barack Obama's speech on the economy
Barack Obama guardian.co.uk, Monday October 13 2008 19.13 BST
Article history

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/13/uselections2008-barackobama

Quote
I'll bring down the cost of health care for families and businesses by investing in preventative care, new technology, and giving every American the chance to get the same kind of health insurance that members of Congress give themselves.

Why not roll everyone in the same plan?  If the national plan fails, it fails for everyone.  If the national plan is underfunded, it affects everyone.  Why not secure a healthcare plan for everyone?  Eliminate the duplication of services?  Updates?  Administrative costs?

Everyone stand in the same line?

Quote
I've already proposed a mortgage tax credit for struggling homeowners worth 10% of the interest you pay on your mortgage and we should move quickly to pass it. We should also change the unfair bankruptcy laws that allow judges to write down your mortgage if you own six or seven homes, but not if you have only one.

I'd like some detail on the 10% tax credit.  How much could this possibly be for the average homeowner?  How is 'struggling' defined?  Shell game?

I'd like an example of how this currently works.  How does a judge 'write down' a mortage for six or seven homes (it would seem that the person does not really 'own' them or perhaps it is a business)? 

What is the cost/adverse action to conservative/responsible people who have just one home mortgage?  Will these people have to pay more for the mortgages to cover those that are written down?

A simple example -

If two people buy homes worth $400,000 each, they could finance them differently.

Person A spent years paying on and later sold a 'starter' home and made say $200,000 after expenses.  Person A then invested that $200,000 as a downpayment on the new home.   They then financed the balance of $200,000.

Person B had no down payment on the $400,000 home.  They financed the $400,000.

In the current economy, maybe that $400,000 home is worth just $300,000. 

It seems that person A would lose money if they sold their home.  $100,000 gone forever.  Or, they may choose to wait patiently for the market to recover in maybe two to five years.

What of person B?  Did they lose money?  What if they filed bankruptcy?  Should the judge write down that mortage to say $300,000?   If the house increases in value over the next two to five years, should person B they collect the increase?  Why not expect that person to pay for the full $400,000?  Maybe the judge could help them walk away?

The $100,000 lowering of the mortgage for person B has to go somewhere.  Someone is going to miss that money.  Maybe the taxpayers?  Somehow, I think the taxpayers are going to cover that $100,000.

Should taxpayers be entitled to the $100,000 increase from person B?  Does person B get a free ride?


What is to discourage people with just one home from engaging in real estate speculation, knowing that bankruptcy will lower their mortgages?  What will protect lenders from this new generation of predators?  Or is predation O.K. because the person may own just 'one' house?

Something just isn't right about this idea.  I think it will end up as another taxpayer rip-off.  imho
Logged

All my posts are just my humble opinions.  Please take with a grain of salt.  Smile

It doesn't do any good to hate anyone,
they'll end up in your family anyway...
crazybabyborg
Guest
« Reply #3 on: October 14, 2008, 07:20:14 PM »

WSJ Blasts Obama Plan (5:35am)
Reported by: Austin Kellerman
Tuesday, Oct 14, 2008 @05:29am CST

Barack Obama's tax cuts for the middle class are "95 percent illusion," says the "Wall Street Journal."
An editorial published yesterday crunches the numbers on the Democratic presidential candidate's economic proposals and finds they're really just handouts by another name. Even worse, the "Journal" says, they might make it less attractive for people to work harder if they know that going up a tax bracket will make them lose all the tax credits Obama's dangling.

The Illinois senator has been hitting hard on economic issues and trying to dodge the tax-and-spend label traditionally pinned on Dems.

Obama says he would offer a number of tax teasers such as a four-thousand-dollar credit on college tuition or a tripling of the earned-income tax credit for single people. The government would offer a credit for half of a family's child-care costs up to six-thousand dollars. There is also a proposed credit tied to mortgage interest on top of existing mortgage deductions and housing subsidies.

What the "Journal's" editors found most objectionable is that even people who owe no income taxes at all would still get the credits in the form of a refund from the IRS. Total annual expenditures on these refunds would rise over the next decade by $647 billion, bringing to over $1 trillion, the amount refunded on income taxes.

The "Journal's" analysis also says there's a catch to Obama's plan. Unlike the middle-class tax cut he's proposing for people who make less than $250,000, the tax credits start to phase out as a couple's income inches over $40,000 a year. So people who work overtime or take an extra job to make ends meet may face a sudden and disproportionate spike in their taxes as they lose credits offered for such things as child care or college tuition. http://bigcountryhomepage.com/content/fulltext/?cid=53321



READY, SET . . . SPEND!

Posted: 1:35 am
October 14, 2008

You'd think having to engineer a $700 billion Wall Street rescue would've taught Washington the importance of a sound bottom line.

Apparently not - especially if Democrats take full control of the nation next year.


That much was made plain yesterday, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi kicked off her push for an emergency "economic stimulus" package.

Though what, exactly, she plans to "stimulate" - besides government debt and long-term taxpayer obligations, of course - remains unclear.

Pelosi said last week that her plan's price tag could reach $150 billion - largely to expand government unemployment benefits and food-stamp programs.

That alone should give the lie to Barack Obama's pledge that everything in his vaunted economic plan is "paid for" - either in revenue savings or new taxes.

Not with free-spending allies like Pelosi on the Hill, it won't be.

Actually, Obama was up to many of the same tricks himself yesterday, calling for massive new government spending as part of a new "middle-class rescue plan."

Among his proposed goodies: cash payouts to states for infrastructure-rebuilding projects, expanded unemployment benefits and fast-tracked loans to the US auto industry.

"How will we pay for it?" he asked rhetorically. "You can't ask that when we're paying $10 billion a month to rebuild Iraq."

Notice how that's not an answer.


True, some of Obama's proposals came in the form of temporary "tax cuts" - but that rings about as hollow as his oft-repeated pledge to cut taxes for "95 percent of working families."

In truth, as The Wall Street Journal detailed yesterday, nearly all of those "cuts" actually come in the form of "refundable tax credits," by which the government in effect writes a check to those who meet certain criteria - even if they don't pay taxes in the first place.
 
In other words, Obama's "tax cuts" really amount to a sizable expansion of welfare.

That leaves American taxpayers to foot the bill - both directly, and through the lost economic opportunity that's sure to follow Obama's promised tax hikes on income, dividends and capital gains.

And with Speaker Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid & Co. controlling Congress, those hikes would surely be the first of many to come.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10142008/postopinion/editorials/ready__set_______spend__133479.htm
Logged
crazybabyborg
Guest
« Reply #4 on: October 15, 2008, 01:32:42 AM »

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbWWHFLYHm0

Um-hm. Obama's tax plan in action. This is a plumber who will be "spreading his wealth and redistributing his earned dollars to "those behind him".

I thought only the mega rich were scheduled to be tapped for Obama's new welfare state?
Logged
caesu
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 2001



« Reply #5 on: October 15, 2008, 05:11:48 AM »

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbWWHFLYHm0

Um-hm. Obama's tax plan in action. This is a plumber who will be "spreading his wealth and redistributing his earned dollars to "those behind him".

I thought only the mega rich were scheduled to be tapped for Obama's new welfare state?

you did hear the plumber says he is going to make 250k to 280k a year?

Quote
Obama says he will not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.
Logged

WhiskeyGirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7754



« Reply #6 on: October 15, 2008, 07:08:23 AM »

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbWWHFLYHm0

Um-hm. Obama's tax plan in action. This is a plumber who will be "spreading his wealth and redistributing his earned dollars to "those behind him".

I thought only the mega rich were scheduled to be tapped for Obama's new welfare state?

you did hear the plumber says he is going to make 250k to 280k a year?

Quote
Obama says he will not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.

Is that $250,000 in gross income?  Or, $250,000 in net income, after expenses for things like materials, labor for employees, healthcare for employees? 

The word 'gross' and 'net' make a big difference.  I don't think a plumber grossing $250,000 is a big thing.  He still has expenses like pipes, transportation, union dues, etc. 

It is shocking that people who do not pay taxes would benefit.

It looks like the Obama plan is still sticking it to taxpayers who actually pay taxes.  Not just the rich who can afford accountants and lawyers to reduce the tax burden. 

Just those of us squeezed in the middle.  Above the "something for nothing" group that seems to get more than they put in, and not in the group that Obama feels can afford to pay more.

The real losers are the generations that follow.  How many hundreds of years will it take for this country to recover?
Logged

All my posts are just my humble opinions.  Please take with a grain of salt.  Smile

It doesn't do any good to hate anyone,
they'll end up in your family anyway...
Slogger
Monkey Junky Jr.
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 736



« Reply #7 on: October 15, 2008, 07:46:56 AM »

According to Republicans . . . 40% of Americans don't pay Income Tax.

According to Democrats . . . top 5% will pay heavier taxes (95% will see no increase)

That leaves most of us:  55% of Americans.

If 40% get a check, when they don't pay; and the top 5% have high powered tax lawyers shaving their taxes, who's left . . .

that's us, the 55%.  We're the guys who lost equity in our houses, lost grossly in the Stock Market, lost deeply in our pension plans.

They can't give us a break because there were too many of us; and yet, we would vote to do ourselves in.

Obama shifts his past; Obama shifts his facts; Obama will shift his promises; Obama will shift anything and everything that suits his purpose, and we cannot trust that purpose.

Shifting economy; shifting wealth; shifting purpose; shifting values; it's all looking very, very SHIFTY.
Logged

Constitution101    hillsdale.edu/constitution/
Courtesy is requested; Respect is Earned.
Pace Yourself, for the LongHaul.  MOs
crazybabyborg
Guest
« Reply #8 on: October 15, 2008, 11:48:35 AM »

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbWWHFLYHm0

Um-hm. Obama's tax plan in action. This is a plumber who will be "spreading his wealth and redistributing his earned dollars to "those behind him".

I thought only the mega rich were scheduled to be tapped for Obama's new welfare state?

you did hear the plumber says he is going to make 250k to 280k a year?

Quote
Obama says he will not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.

No, I didn't hear that at all. I heard him say the business he wants to buy makes 250K-280K a year. I also heard the plumber say he'd like to add more trucks, etc. This guy wants to expand and grow the business. This guy wants to create JOBS! THAT'S the problem!

caesu, my business makes well over a million a year, and I pay employees and expenses out of that money. I make well under 100K annually, and for the first 2 years, I had the pleasure of putting my own money into the business. The BUSINESS will, under Obama's plan, be taxed at a much higher rate than it is now...............which BTW is right now among the highest in the world for businesses. Do you think the new rate will help me hire more employees? Do you think the added expense will cause me to expand the business so more jobs will be created? Do you think the higher rate will encourage entrepreneurs to start a business and hire employees to work? Do you think it will enable employers to give raises or provide more extensive healthcare?

Obama's plan is a killer for the economy, a killer for jobs, and a killer for working toward the American dream to both employers and employees!

It's also a killer for a "hard work pays off" ethic. The new Obama welfare state gives negative incentives for families earning under 40k a year to earn a raise in income. Once they do, they loose the hand outs, ie: daycare, college tuition, etc. and become one of the "rich" folk whose backs are breaking.


I'm sorry, but I just had to add this:
I have 15 employees, 4 make more than I do, and 2 make double my income. That's a good thing. I pay them based on the services they provide and they work hard and are licensed medical professionals. I have 5 employees who never saw the inside of a college, but their pay is equal to a college graduate...............they've earned it. I provide healthcare to every full time employee I have, and 50% of the dental and vision coverage. The first year, I couldn't provide any benefits at all, and if I had been mandated to do it, the business couldn't have survived. I cannot, right now, economically provide coverage to their families, but they have the option of paying for that coverage at the group rate. My goal for next year is to try to pick that up for them. Now, make no mistake, when I hire new employees, I always give a 90 day trial period, because by then I know if they have a good work ethic. I've released 3 persons under that trial period this year, and virtually every employee I started with that made it through that trial period, is still with me and have enjoyed an increase in salary. They are as loyal to me and the business as I am to them. My own personal experience is only relevent because it is repeated countless times throughout this country. I have never given myself a raise without first giving the employees the same percentage. I have never, ever, failed to meet payroll, but have personally gone as long as 3 months without a paycheck. I only depended on credit (my personal credit that I was liable for) to meet payroll for the first 6 months, and have not used it since. That's what I am SUPPOSED to do. I own the company, and I take the risks. I also stand to gain if I can steer the company successfully, and that's just right. I have earned that. There is opportunity for growth, there is opportunity to expand, but when I look at the budget and projections, I look at the taxes, and know how it suppresses the ability to pursue those opportunities.

I pay payroll taxes for the business, IT'S ALMOST A THIRD OF EACH PAYROLL! Each employee pays income taxes, social security, we all pay property taxes, and state taxes, and sales taxes. WE DO NOT NEED MORE TAXES!! WE WORK. WE NEED GOVERNMENT TO STOP GIVING BAILOUTS TO WALL STREET FROM WHAT WE EARN AND STOP CREATING DISINCENTIVES FOR US TO WORK! 
« Last Edit: October 15, 2008, 12:34:53 PM by crazybabyborg » Logged
caesu
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 2001



« Reply #9 on: October 15, 2008, 03:43:30 PM »

thanks! i really appreciate the insights

here is the full clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFC9jv9jfoA

i've one short somewhat unrelated question.

yesterday i heard someone on a newschannel say the 37% of Americans households DO NOT pay income taxes at all.
and this percentage will increase with a Obama presidency to 48%.

they are working right, the jobless rate is not that high...

maybe i understood this wrong. or it is just not true.
i am trying to look up more information about it, but i am not getting it.
Logged

Slogger
Monkey Junky Jr.
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 736



« Reply #10 on: October 15, 2008, 03:58:06 PM »

imo, 37% would include the poor, the unemployed, and the working poor.  It should include the retirees, too.

The Republican edu-guess was around 40%.

Yes, I believe the rate will go up.
Logged

Constitution101    hillsdale.edu/constitution/
Courtesy is requested; Respect is Earned.
Pace Yourself, for the LongHaul.  MOs
WhiskeyGirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7754



« Reply #11 on: October 15, 2008, 11:24:39 PM »

I have to wonder who will be paying for all the new infrastructure?  Roads?  Schools?

Will local governments pay?  States?  Future generations?

If anyone had the opportunity to vote for a school funding proposal, they probably appreciate how much these buildings cost.

Where is the money coming from to pay for that?  Will it be handled on the local level? 

Why build infrastructure if there are no factories?

Bridges to no where on Obama's watch?
Logged

All my posts are just my humble opinions.  Please take with a grain of salt.  Smile

It doesn't do any good to hate anyone,
they'll end up in your family anyway...
crazybabyborg
Guest
« Reply #12 on: October 16, 2008, 12:47:45 AM »

thanks! i really appreciate the insights

here is the full clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFC9jv9jfoA

i've one short somewhat unrelated question.

yesterday i heard someone on a newschannel say the 37% of Americans households DO NOT pay income taxes at all.
and this percentage will increase with a Obama presidency to 48%.

they are working right, the jobless rate is not that high...

maybe i understood this wrong. or it is just not true.
i am trying to look up more information about it, but i am not getting it.

I had to look for it as well, and the best I could find was based on 2004 figures, but here's what I could dig up. It doesn't exactly answer your question about households; this is based on individuals mostly, but maybe it will help. I think that perhaps the simplest answer to your question is that it isn't just people who don't work, but people who work and because of tax credits, end up getting what they have paid in, back in a refund check when they file their returns.

Income
The 42.5 million non-payers are largely low-income. Indeed, 91 percent of them earned less than $30,000 per year and 96 percent earned less than $40,000. Fewer than 1 percent will earn more than $75,000 per year – a group comprised largely of business owners whose tax liabilities will be erased due to business losses, carry-overs from prior year AMT payments, or foreign tax credits.

Age
Non-payers in 2004 were overwhelmingly young. Looking at the age of the primary breadwinner on these tax returns, only 26 percent are 45 years old or older. More than one-third (35 percent) are younger than age 25, and 54 percent are younger than age 35. Interestingly, there is a significant cluster of households (20.7 percent) where the principal wage earner is between the ages of 35 and 44. Most likely, these are modest-income families who benefited most from the doubling of the value of the child credit to $1,000 and were, thus, pushed into the non-payer status.

Filing Status
The overwhelming majority of tax returns that owe no income taxes are filed by single individuals or heads of household (an unmarried individual with children). Due in large part to their young age, 44.4 percent of these filers are single persons without children, while 26.5 percent are single parents. By contrast, heads of household comprise just 14 percent of all tax returns. Married couples comprise just 27.7 percent of tax returns with no income tax liability.

Work Status
Non-payers tend to be low-income, working part-time or full-time for only part of the work year. Indeed, 45.5 percent will be working part-time or hardly at all, while another 20 percent are working full time but less than 50 weeks out of the year. Indeed, 7.5 million of these individuals who file a tax return earn less than the threshold amount for filing a tax return, but do so just to recover the amount of taxes that were withheld during the course of their part-time employment. Just 34.6 percent of zero-tax filers worked full-time for all of 2004.

Occupation
The occupations of non-paying tax filers are difficult to generalize because of the large number of categories government statistics tend to group them in. However, due again to their young age, 24 percent of these filers are classified as "children" or "students" rather than their occupations. The other leading occupational categories are "other services" (16.6 percent), "administrative support" (11.2 percent), "sales" (11.0 percent), and "precision production" (7 percent).


Caesu? I just watched the clip from the link you provided, which was more complete than the one I had, and just wanted to say that Businesses don't pay Capital Gains taxes. Maybe Obama just misspoke, but honestly, there isn't a provision for Capital Gains on a Business IRS form. There are Capital Gain Taxes for Individuals, and if you sold your business, Capital Gains would be a killer if your business had grown, but I am unaware of any for businesses.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2008, 01:08:06 AM by crazybabyborg » Logged
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Use of this web site in any manner signifies unconditional acceptance, without exception, of our terms of use.
Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC
 
Page created in 2.486 seconds with 19 queries.