Obama's New Attack on Those Who Don't Want Higher Taxes: ‘Selfishness’

There have been some insightful comments on this blog and some downright ignorant ones. I just want to point out a couple of the more obviously ignorant ones. First of all regarding dividends being taxed at 15%. One must bear in mind that before that dividend makes it's way to the shareholder the earnings of the corporation have most likely been taxed at corporate level of 36% fed and 5% state ( more in some cases ) and then 15% federal at the personal level before one thin dime can be spent. That amounts to 56% and doesn't even include all the other loads that are placed on corporations. If you are a shareholder, this is YOUR retirement...YOUR countries productivity being drained...YOUR only chance of keeping this country competitive in the global marketplace. The left wants to kill it. WHO DO YOU THINK IS THE LARGEST TAXPAYER IN THE US? EXXON MOBILE ( I am not defending CEO pay that is a separate issue that probably should be addressed. )

My point is that it is always easy for the left wing agitators to attack those who cannot defend themselves, a faceless entity like a corporation is a good target. Like a dog trained to salivate on cue, many mindlessly pile right on.

Keep this in mind; houses do not pay property taxes; homeowners do... corporations do not pay income taxes; shareholders do.

Enough of that, I am not rich and would not be effected by the Obaminator's tax hikes except in the sense that everyone around me will be less well off which will make the lefties happy.

My pet theory is that the super rich democrats have an agenda. They are afraid the common man will figure out what they know. This includes Obama, his left wing elitist buddies and the myriad of millionaire crooks who support him. This truth is this; Even a 50% tax rate on the rich will not dent their holdings whatsoever, Why? They could never ever even spend one years interest on their money, much of which has fled offshore because of the high tax rates here compared to overseas. What they are really afraid of is that you will find out how to get their trust funds and their hidden offshore accounts form them and tax them or take them. So they "support" higher taxes. why? To keep you pacified. This kind of policy appeases the masses and builds their political power. Fact is, the bigger the government gets; the more power and more money they will have and the less you will have. Just like the old Soviet Union. Serfs have nothing, leaders have it all.

I for one pity the plight of few in this country and mostly what ails it is the constant creep of socialism/communism and whining, brought on by the decreasing standards of work, moral ethics and independence of the people. Much of this has been fostered by the idiotic concept of political correctness fostered by the media.

We live in a county where people around the world will risk their very lives just to live here and yet the left agitators find so much to whine about. I would venture a guess that none of the left wing posters on this board have lived in a far left socialist or communist country. Because if they had, and lived there like a native, they would be singing a different tune about all this tax and spend baloney. It has been proven over and over and over that it does not work because it is not efficient and the people in the government eventually find a way to steal all the money. I could argue all day long with these knuckleheads and never ever convince them of anything. They have somehow convinced themselves that they deserve something they have not earned, and it is certainly someone else's fault. I suggest we allow them to immigrate to North Korea for a few years and then let them report back to us on the virtues of socialism!

Obama literally makes me so upset. My family falls into his "rich" category, which is now 150K according to Joe Biden. Right now we pay a total of 48% in taxes, 35% federal tax. We give to various charities and to our church every week. We're selfish?

Obama's aunt and brother are living in poverty. Biden only gave $3,600 to charity within the past 9 years. And we're selfish?

Obama's fiscal policy will have us paying over 50% in taxes. How much more of our money does he want?

The top 10% of taxpayers pay 60-70% of this nation's taxes. 44% of Americans who file will pay NO federal income taxes under Senator Obama’s plan. So his "95% tax cut" will give a check to those people. Let's call it for what it is... welfare. Plus, he's only talking about giving the middle class $500 more per year. Buy a house, a new car with that... is he serious?

Why would ANYONE raise taxes during a recession?

But people swoon every time Obama opens his mouth. What is his experience? All I hear is that he's "inspirational and well-articulate".Try reading between the lines and then figure what he's about.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill
for all Ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our
taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the
bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one
day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good
customers, he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer
by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our
taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink
for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers?
How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his
'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if
they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and
the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the
bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill
by roughly the same amount, and he

proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100%
savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).

The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before And the first four
continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men
began to compare their savings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $20', declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'

'Yeah, that's right', exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a
dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!'

'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get
$10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We
didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next
night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down
and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill they
discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between
all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors,
is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get
the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them
for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact,
they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat
friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.

For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

Obama - no noe in this campaign will point out that selfishness is a virtue; if only they would !

It strikes me that the biggest problem facing this country is total ignorance when it comes to understanding economics and the ill effects of taxation and collectivism. Ironically this can be credited to government ownership of the school system...so we have people who base their fiscal policy beliefs on terms like "moral" and "right" and who believe that you can squeeze more and more out of fewer and fewer. As good an idea as this might sound, there is no example of it ever working - money flows like water; if it doesn't provide sufficient return in this country, it leaves. If you think that is good for the country, or your collective, or YOU, then vote for either of the two major candidates.

I actually think Obama has this one correct. The ethics of egoism and it's virtue of selfishness laid out in Ayn Rand's book titled "The Virtue of Selfishness" does lead to capitalism and the politics of freedom and individual rights. The ethical system of altruism (other-ism) and it's so-called virtue of sacrifice does lead to the socialism and the politics of slavery. That really does cut to the chase. It's clear now that the choice is egoism/selfishness and capitalism or altruism and socialism. I love my life so I choose the system based on my nature as a human being. I choose egoism and capitalism. Too bad I don't have a presidential candidate that supports this.

Andrew Jackson talking about AFTER he KILLED the banking cartel

The bold efforts the present banks has made to control the government are but premonitions of the fate that awaits the American people should they be DELUDED into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it.

you can talk about taxes all you want but the fact is YOU ARE OWN BY THE BANKS

so when 1% of all humans on this earth OWN 40% of all the money you can see the truth

Whats really sad in this day of AGE YOU think we NEED someone to TELL US what to DO

In my eyes this whole plan is to take out the middle class with no middle class the rich can take care of the poor and make them there slaves

Once you understand THE RICH HATE the middle class you can see we all are doom to die

have a nice day sheep

CommonCents wrote:
" Your observations about tax rates really go nowhere, because it makes some assumptions that aren’t real. That is, fat cats who sit around and live off “dividends” are favored over workers in our society. Well, that ignores the fact that most “dividends” accrue to ordinary individuals through retirement plans and the like; people who also work for a living.
"

As I said previously, and I stand by it because I can back it up by an official reference (see bellow), it is true that at almost any income level you will find people that will have some stock investments and some dividends, so all these people did benefit from 15% low dividend and capital gain tax. However, if you look at how much each income group actually benefits, here are the facts (SOURCE: Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, 2006)

Average Capital and Dividend Gains in dollars for the 99% of the tax payers was between $579 for the $46K-$77K bracket, and $12K for the $154K-$396K income group.

Contrast this with the fact that the average income from Dividends and Capital gains for the top 1% income group ($396K and up) was $233K.

These data speaks for itself as far as who benefited disproportionately from the Bush "tax cut", and who is to loose more then peanuts if the tax is back to 20%.

If so, and talking about our tax code reflecting our values and giving a proper incentives to people to work, I would claim that taxing a real work (income and payroll tax) should not be a priority over taxing the gains that does not come from real work - stock market investments and dividends.

As the actual data from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, referenced above, the dividends are small percentage of income for all but people in the above 396K bracket.

In fact, suppose you are fairly well to do senior, have a portfolio worth about 2 million. If carefully selected such a portfolio may be able to generate about 50K of dividends annually without taking an undue risk. If you are senior in this fairly cozy situation, and the dividends are your only source of income, under Obama plan you will pay 0% income tax. I think people like that. I don't think this is a "socialism".

On the other hand, if you are young and can do a real work but you prefer to live off your 2 million investment portfolio, then you should be taxed, as if this where your ordinary income. Now, don't go for the gun, this is just me speaking. Obama plan is much less "radical" - flat 20% tax rate -, still much lower then the income tax rate for most who will ever know what a dividend is.

Oh don’t worry about Obama’s aunt living illegally in this country while receiving welfare. I will take care of her with the money I work hard to make, so my tax money can go to pay for welfare and to provide free housing and free money to illegal immigrants like Obama’s aunt. His aunt who does not have to pay taxes. Oh, and she will get even more of my money some way or another if Obama gets into office. I mean shouldn’t we all work our butts off so people like Obama’s aunt do not have to. It will be a give and take, take money from the people doing the right things and obeying the laws to give it to the people who chose to do the wrong things and break laws.

Oh, and how nice it is that Obama’s aunt is able to get away with being an illegal immigrant, receiving state welfare benefits plus and a free ride in a state run by Obama’s buddy Deval Patrick. Coincidence or more Obama politics.

Funny, because its Obama its brushed under the rug and its not announced all over the news, and she is still getting away with this even though it has been exposed. More Obama politics and an example of things to come if we are under Obama’s leadership.

CommonCents wrote:
"Ah, PDSimic… Don’t know if you’re still around to see this...

A. Any tax system is a method for generating revenue for the one doing the taxing (in our discussion, the Federal government). It is *not* redistribution. Government policy may or may not include redistribution. Words matter if you want to have a “rational discussion.”
"

I beg to disagree. Here is why. The main use of the government tax revenue is in providing public goods and serives to the citizens. These services have obviously a market value, let say, 12K per year for security provided by police. So, a person who pays 12K income tax, and a person who pays 120K income tax, all get the same benefit. The first person got exactly what he payed for. The second person got 1/10th of what he payed for. Clearly, money is collected according to some tax rate, progressive or flat does not matter, and is being *redistributed* in the form of public goods that have market value, and present widely different percentages of the recipients incomes. This is why any known tax system is fundamentally redistribution of wealth. And this is why it is pure propaganda to claim that Obama is doing something different just because he wants to cut tax burden to middle class and pay for it (as any good conservatives would do) by cutting somewhere else, in this case, restoring Clinton era tax bracket.
Hope this clears the point 'A'. If not, perhaps we can agree to disagree, and move on to more important areas...

PD Simic:

The first step in solving a problem is to identify the cause of the problem.

I will not repeat the excellent points made on this board and in many financial publications (see Invester Business Daily on line) regarding all the details of the recent financial crash.

Suffice it to say that Fannie and Freddie's collapse lit the fuse, & government regulations in the form of the Community Reinvestment Act's increasingly stringent requirements for banks to lend to those borrowers previously deemed "risky" caused the downfall of Fanny & Freddie.

This is 180 degrees from Obama's stance that lack of government regulation caused the crisis. It was precisely because of government intervention in the free market of bank lending's risk analysis that we got into this mess.

Facts are stubborn things.

Please stop misleading those foolish enough to listen to you as to the cause of the problem.

More regulations will only exacerbate the problem and slow the recovery.

If you can't accept the facts, and revise your analysis, you are not a rational person, you are simply another propagandist for socialism.

Is the war in Iraq expensive? You bet. However, it has acted as a unresistable lure for the islamo facists, and drawn them into the open where they can be killed over there instead of causing another 9/11 over here. Plus, defense is one of the few legitimate functions of government.

Live free or die.

Kristkoff writes:
"Your emotions are blinding you if you are not willing to find out why our economy is the way it is today...
"

- I know, it has nothing to do with 10 billion a month Bush and McCain, where coned by their neo-con man into making us pay for pursuing an ill-advised war in Iraq.

- I know, it has nothing to do with the fact that Bush, McCain, Greenspan and the rest of the wealth-will-trickle-down gang, could not separate their ideological views - any regulation of banking system is bad, except "self-regulation" - from practical reality and their responsibilities to the American people.

- I know, it has nothing to do with banks being allowed by the same by now totally bankrupt extreme-trickle-down economic philosophy to abandon their centuries tested banking models based on lending their own money.

- I know, it has nothing to do with the credit and mortgage derivatives that have been kept unregulated by Bush, McCain, and similar economic ideologs, so banks felt careless in lend to anybody since they where allowed to turn around and sell their loans to the investment pools out of which toxic derivatives have been manufactured, and resold in different package to the global investor (which was a scam, the administration knows it, and this is why they where talking about bailing out even foreign banks with US taxpayer dollars - to prevent huge liabilities for fraud committed under their watch and possibly under their active encouragement).

- I know, it has nothing to do with the credit rating agencies who, under the influence of this administration which needed (and still needs) a huge sums of money to pursue the war, and under the funding structure that is a text-book case of the conflict of interest, where all-too-happy participants in the fraud, slapping a overly generous credit ratings to the toxic derivatives the US investment banks where selling.

- I know, it has nothing to do with the self-regulated banks being so free-wheeling and greedy that while bankers in lending department have been lending the same money over and over again, turning around an instant profit by passing the risk to the global investor, the trading floors of these same banks have been that "global investor", that bought that garbage; which was good while the party lasted, but no regrets, that money is already spent, on private McMansions, yachts, and other life necessities that many people on this blog seem to care so much about...

I know,..., but good try, Kristokoff. And, thanks for the advise of how to vote, but, no thanks.

I agree with Ken on his last note about small businesses. After my first job (where a big company laid me off), I have spent the last 20+ years working in small business. I’ve owned a couple, too, though never made it “big”. Right now, I’m working for another small business where the owners have done well. They’ve probably tripled their staff over the past 10 years, and generally pay above average for the jobs they hire. They also make much more today than 10 years ago, and it’s much more than $250K.

Am I envious or jealous that they have a nice house and cars, and take better vacations? No. But I am concerned that they are holding off funding new projects (i.e. buying things and/or hiring people) because they’re not sure what will happen if Obama is elected. Basically, Obama thinks he knows better what to do with their money than they do. I disagree.

Ah, PDSimic… Don’t know if you’re still around to see this. I’m sure your arguments sound studied and logical to you, but they aren’t. Your premises are mistaken, and your conclusions are pulled from emotions and generalizations - not facts. First a couple mistakes:

A. Any tax system is a method for generating revenue for the one doing the taxing (in our discussion, the Federal government). It is *not* redistribution. Government policy may or may not include redistribution. Words matter if you want to have a “rational discussion.”

B. The USA is not a democracy. A democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner. We have a set of laws that “should reflect… the dominant civil values of the population”, but that also should conform to a basic set of principles set forth on the country’s founding documents. If you haven’t read them in awhile, you should.

Your observations about tax rates really go nowhere, because it makes some assumptions that aren’t real. That is, fat cats who sit around and live off “dividends” are favored over workers in our society. Well, that ignores the fact that most “dividends” accrue to ordinary individuals through retirement plans and the like; people who also work for a living. There are relatively few people (like Ted Kennedy) who could live off of dividends alone. Hopefully, though, if you live within your means; save during your life; and make reasonably smart decisions; you *can* get to the point where you live off of dividends.

Your conclusions also miss the point, because the real reason for keeping capital gains taxes low is that it reduces barriers to moving capital into productive places. The whole idea of a free market economy is that cash (you need it to start or grow a business) should move to productive use. It’s generally a bad thing when that’s impeded - usually by government policies enacted to favor some constituency over another.

The primary reason for different tax rates on income is because it gives politicians ways to curry favor and buy votes. The fact is that revenues to the Federal government increased after every major tax reduction in the last 50 years; from Kennedy to Reagan to G.W. Bush. It probably causes you pain that all of those reductions probably reduced rates on the highest tax payers the most. But here, a few years after the latest cuts under Bush, the proportion of taxes paid by the highest earners is greater than before the tax cuts. These are facts easily read in the government’s own reporting. So, rate reductions – even for “the rich” – have historically improved revenue to the government. And revenue is supposedly what taxes are for.

If, however, you believe that tax is for controlling peoples’ behaviors, or for rewarding (“helping”) those who can elect you, then I’m sure you like Obama’s rhetoric. So, whether Biden says it’s the “patriotic duty” of some to pay more to the government, or whether Obama calls those “selfish” who would argue against paying more; it all sounds reasonable if you think “those” people need to be punished a little for their success.

There’s one reason, and one reason only that Obama talks about raising taxes on “the rich” – there are relatively few of them, and so it’s a safe way to persuade many people to vote for him. This is a campaign. The goal is to get the most votes from the right people next week. This doesn’t make him “brilliant”, “pragmatic”, or “inclusive” – it just makes him a typical politician.

Remember (though you’re probably too young) that Bill Clinton promised a “middle-class tax cut”, but delivered a tax increase.

For a guy who has been on the public dole all of his career Obama surely has a cavalier way of expecting other people to part with more of what they honestly earn. Most business owners started their own company and worked hard to be successful. What galls me is some politician who has been on the public dole all of his career deciding what that business owner deserves to keep. This is way different from some CEO who runs a company for awhile and then gets a huge payout when he leaves. There should be a stipulation in any payout agreement that the payout cannot result in putting the company in the red and cannot exceed a certain percentage of the profit for the years that the CEO was the head of the company. In years where there is no profit, no payout should be allowed or at least the loss should be averaged in with the profits for the tenure of the CEO. I cant imagine a company being stupid ehough to not have this in their company rules.
Most people go into business with certain goals in mind whether it be expanding the company, making more money for contingenmcy or personal use, providing their employees with better benefits or better salaries or whatever. If you raise the taxes on these people they will cut jobs, benefits or salaries. It doesnt take much sense to figure that out.I worked for several small businesses and thats pretty much the way it works. Obviously the Dear Leader doesnt see it that way. And another thing, if you trust Obama to keep his word on his tax promises you are nuts.

Maybe this election will awaken all Americans to discuss, stand up and demand our government change our tax system into a fair system that will stimulate our economy into incredible growth for all, one that will give everyone the opportunity to move into the “hated’ rich class. This could be the ultimate weapon against those that practice the divisive class warfare and agitate those they oppress just for votes. Perhaps a fair or flat tax will be the outcome. Reform is coming.

This is possible. Don't be discouraged.

Main-stream media would like you to think the election is already over. It is not! They are using the polls to mislead you.

The polls are tightening, the race is very close. McCain/Palin could be ahead in some swing states. There are stats that are being withheld that show this is possible.

People refusing to answer or falsely answering pollsters these may include many Hillary supporters and other democrats that are voting for McCain; an Obama and his campaign, media, hollywood and fraud backlash; all these events and others could come together and surprise all on election day.

These and the seminar campaign bloggers commenting here probably are all campaign tactics to disillusion you and suppress your vote. Stay motivated. This is possible. Turnout will be key. Turnout will also make all the fraud less of an issue. Use all this as motivation to get out and vote. Bring others with you. McCain/Palin!

Which is exactly my point, don’t vote on emotions, looks and feels good/bad. Vote on historical truth.

After advising not to vote on emotions, you go ahead and counsel everyone to vote on emotions.

Your emotions are blinding you if you are not willing to find out why our economy is the way it is today. You are at a high risk of being misled into going along with what you have been told instead of finding out for yourself.

The reasons you give to vote for Obama are all based on emotions and feelings not issues. Those are not the important reasons to choose a leader. If you base your choice on that you are destined to choose someone who will lead you into poverty.

If you really want to help others, if you really want to help the middle-class and below, if you really believe everyone should have a fair chance, if you’re really honest with yourself, than you will at least study history. If you study and understand history and you still want all these things than you cannot vote for Obama. If you still wish to ignore history than you do not want these things for your fellow man and you will vote for Obama. You owe it to yourself and your fellow man to use your mind and find out the truth so you can make an informed vote, not an uninformed vote based on anecdotal, feel-good, one-liners, based on theories that have been proven false over and over again. You are an American, you are blessed and you can still make a difference.

If Obama wins, I think I will just quit, I have a mortgage, plus pay rent for an apartment I am living in because I have changed jobs in the last year trying to improve myself. I make a car payment and am working on paying off 2 student loans. I have been teaching school for 18 years while spending 12 in years in private business. I have learned a thing or two about how tax increases effect the economy. If Obama wins I need to quit and let the government bail me out. I won't be a whole lot worse off than I would be working my backside off to give it to someone else. Taxation is redistribution, the only fair tax is a consumption tax. If you spend more you pay more, therefore people with more who buy more would pay more. In the mean time if Obama wins I will be expecting my check on time and my bailout to come soon.

Any tax system is a redistribution. If we can't acknowledge this, there is no possibility for a rational discussion.
Having acknowledged this, it is just that in democracies, such as ours, the shape of the redistribution curve reflects (or better, *should* reflect) the dominant civil values of the population of a particular country.

During Clinton years the max tax bracket was 39.6%, while capital stock and dividend gains tax at 20%. During GW Bush years, tax bracket is 35%, with dividend income tax at 15%. In terms of values one could say that our tax code imposes a steep penalty on people who work for living, relative to the extremely rich, who may chose to live off their dividends and stock investments. This is not the whole story, of curse, but is something that should be noted if one is talking about incentives to work etc...

The ideological and theoretical argument is that Bush rates are better for economy because while they disproportionately benefit the top 1% of the income earners, the benefit trickles down. That's a theory and ideology, and it is not an established fact, mainly because economy as an academic discipline, unlike natural science, is far from an exact science and is subject of easy ideological manipulation that cover its huge complexity and the relative incompetence of some of its practitioners and their dubious interpretations of "historic facts".

For example, it is probably safe to say that today, at the end of the 8 years of Bush in office and the 35%/15% tax rate, we all are much worst off then we where in Clinton years. As a result of the philosophy and policies that Bush and McCain share - after all, they share the exactly the same group of Neo-Cons as primary advisors -, our country is at its lowest in almost all areas of national interest, the economy being the most visible to a common person.

So what this all means to a common person who works hard, hate taxes, and thinks that government is a burden that should be reduced to a minimum?
First, avoid getting emotional about theoretical and ideological arguments that you are not sure you really understand. Second, do not be a sheep that becomes hysteric when old rich man and his young rich trophy wife press the "socialist", or, "sharing" button. Third, just look at the state of the economy today:

Looks and feels good? - vote for more of the same - John McCain!

Looks and feels terrible - vote for change, give a chance to this young, intellectually brilliant, emotionally stable, pragmatic, inclusive, and by many accounts (Powell etc.) once-in-a-life-time leader.