30% of $400K is the difference between buying a swimming pool or not.  30% of $15K is the difference between eating or not.

Paying equal taxes for everyone is regresive.  Fair is a tax system which taxes everyone based on an ability to pay.

A household earning the average US income of $50,000 cannot be expected to pay the same taxes as a household which earns $250,000.  Not if you still expect them to be able to buy food, shelter, transporation, clothing, etc.

The idea of a flat tax sounds simple at first glance but when you follow through on the idea you can see that it quickley becomes unworkable.

Yes, proving my point that the bottom 90% couldn't run the government.  It is necessary that wealthier pay a higher proportion of taxes, but certaintly not at Obama's level.

I'm not arguing for a flat tax which is idealistic though clearly illogical. I'm saying that the rich are made out as villians unfairly and that the government runs because of their hard work.

That's irrelevant to the point (I think) you're trying to make about Obama's taxes being too high.  Because with your admission (whether true or not) that the government runs on the money of the wealthy, the question is to what extent can the wealthy be taxed; and that question has a far from simplistic answer.

Besides, I reject your premise.  Obama will cut taxes for 95% of Americans.  So where do you draw the line at who is wealthy or not?

And further, your assumption about whose money runs the government is wrong.  I think something like the top 10% of wealthiest people own 42% of the wealth.  If they pay 30% of that and the government gets 10% of the other 58% that's still no small amount.

That other 95 percent is about to get hammered by Obama.  Anywhere close to the 50 percent line sounds pretty socialist to me. 

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114126217049687080-0vVW58oMsBFezg9M9FlXzWQCBbI_20070302.html?mod=blogs

According the article the top 10 percent account for 70% of the wealth

Not sure what you were referring to about socialism... or where you get your ideas about Obama's taxing...

Either way, the only time in American history when the rich-poor gap hasn't been growing (or at least been staggeringly enormous) was during WWII.  There's a whole economic theory (with a significant following) that says that the rich-poor gap is necessary - even inevitable - for an economic system to be sustained.  I don't happen to agree, but again, that's irrelevant.

The point is - a point supported by the link you gave - rich Americans can afford to pay more.  And should.  And can do so while maintaining their lifestyles in most cases.

Yes the but part of what I want to bring up where do you define what rich Americans can "afford" to pay.  They could move the cheapest housing, sell of their possesions that aren't helpful for survival, and eat only the necesary amount to survive. Just about everyone can afford to do that. Should they?

I got my ideas from socialism from one of socialisms key tenets that includes very high taxing which theoretically the government returns back to you in goods and services.

I got Obama's taxing plan from Obama. I meant to say other 5 percent.  Obama will lower the 95 percent at the same time as crushing the top 5.

I should add that though I'm a sociopolitical liberal, I'm an economic conservative - I'm arguing the other side as much because I think it should be said for perspective as because I have any real belief in it.  I think the trickle-down (conservative) theory is partially valid; because if I don't buy my swimming pool, who's going to pay the dozen people involved in building it?  And if they don't get paid, they won't pay for other things...

The problem is that too much wealth ends up staying at the top, causing the divide to grow.  So there needs to be regulation--something that Republicans have fought for decades.  (FWIW, deregulation is largely blamed by both sides for the recent market/credit collapses.)  Taxing is one method of regulation, and it is the only one that is acceptable in strict capitalism.  When we move towards socialism, we can do things like cap salaries and limit what companies can buy and sell.  Most of Europe already does this, and that is in large part why their economies are somewhat more stable than ours.

In sum, I'm no happier about being taxed than you are, but there are legitimate reasons for doing so, and it is unreasonable to assume that higher taxes will force you to live a drastically different lifestyle.

(By the way, I know what you were talking about with socialism... I just don't understand why you brought it up, or what your point was supposed to be there.)

How old are you?  Have you ever worked hard in your life? Alot of people are poor because of socialized conditions they can't help.  If we are going to spend $11 billion a month in Iraq we need to get money for issues at home.  With the economy as it is now its even harder to get a stable job and afford the things you need food, shelter, gas to get you to your job.  I know executives, working behind a desk, taking long lunches, that isn't hard work, try being a laborer.

I'm 17 and have never held a paying job.  You know why? Because my father works extremely hard so I can focus on school during the year and relax and take advantagte of other learning opportunities during the summer.  My parents lived in an apartment in New York for a long time, budgeting their food and every purchase. They worked hard so my brother and I won't have to go through the same troubles. And yes, laniredinger I have tried being a laborer.  I did a Habitat for Humanity program where my friends and I were bused out to West Virginia and we sweated all day building houses.  Your right, it was hard. My father's job is hard to, in different ways.  The wealthy aren't rich because they sit around and do nothing.

While most people in the top 5% class are not executives who lounge around every day - at least, not any more than people with extremely low-paying jobs - it is arguments like Sunshine's that I think should be avoided.  I'm sure your dad does work hard; but consider what would happen if your family had to pay an extra $10,000 a year to the government.  Could you still go to a private school?  You you still take trips during the summer?  Probably.  Possibly you might choose a less-expensive vacation; what a tragedy that seems in the grander scheme of things, eh?

you'll never learn the value of those dollars if they are always handed to you, your parents are doing you a disservice by denyng you the chance to learn how to balance work and school like they had to do to make their own way. i am highly educated with a genius iq, and very hard working in office work and as a laborer and i still have to hold down three jobs just to make ends meet-in pittsburgh with a very low cost of living. as an entrepeneur i have started my own company to make my dreams come true but it's still not enough.  and i don't take vacations ( in at least 5 years) or buy new clothes or eat out or even buy a cup of coffee.  I have to  pay student loans, pay for rent, utilities, food, gas, car payment, and trying to put away savings so i don't need a sub prime morgage.  and i am happy to let my hard earned taxes go to those in need.  the laws of the universe say what you give you get back. 

To Ice: Yeah obviously whatver happens (within reason) won't make a huge difference on my family.  I say that in my blog post.  I just wanted to bring up a point on where do you draw the line for "fair taxes" 40%? 50%? 60%?

To Laniredinger: First of all, congratulations on your IQ. Congratulations on working hard. Your living the American dream and I bet that in a decade you'll be living much easier.  But as for me personsally? It would be impossible for me to hold down a job.  I go to water polo practice before school, then after school, then work pretty consistently from 5:30-10:00.  As to the value of money? Perhaps I am a little sheltered. I'm also very frugal.  I lived in a smalll town in Spain for five weeks last summer ago, and returned with 200 euros from my orginial budget.  Most other kids had to get their parents to send more money or simply ran out of money.  I'm getting a job next summer, like my brother did at my age. He is now a sophomore in college and paying for about half of his own stuff.  By the time he graduates he'll be independantly.  Thankfully we are fortunate enough to have our parents pay for our education. So I appreciate your concern, but I think I'll turn out alright.

Also do you honestly think that every one of the tax dollars comes back and helps each tax payer?

It obviously depends on your income level.  Currently I think the highest income taxes for Americans are something like 35%; I can see that being raised to maybe 45% without open rebellion.  Not that I advocate that, and nor do I think Obama will raise taxes that high.

I mostly agree with you there.

i'll admit i have a grudge against the rich.

my mother is STILL dependant on my grandparents to help her every month because she refuses to live within her means or work harder.  my grandfather came from below the tracks barely passed highschool with immigrent parents, then worked his [expletive] off and went to school for 12 years to eventually become the senior vice president of an international manufacturing company.  but all that work gave him heart diesease, a heart attack at 30 and left very little time for his family.  my poor stepdad works 14 hr days never had a chance at an education never made it past 8th grade.  my mom had me at 16 years old. but i was blessed with my grandparents who taught me how to be a responsible adult and value every thing i was given.  my mom's sister married rich and hasn't worked a day since.

to the point yes i know my corupt government doesn't give enough of my taxes to those in need.  but i can share my concerns with them and in an actual democracy my voice could be heard. but just figured i would share where i'm coming from.

see i am much more spiritual than political.  i believe we are all one. one living organism.  and when we hurt others we hurt ourselves. when we deny others we deny apart of ourselves. i study buddhism and i believe in karma. i believe if we are positive and idealistic our thoughts can become reality.  so i try to be the change i wish to see in the world. i know everyone has their own path and needs to make their own mistakes.

Ghandi makes for great quotes...

So what system of government do you favor most, laniredinger?  There are many forms of democracy... even many forms of representative democracy... and along the same lines, do you have a proposed solution for the rich-poor gap?

My preferred system of government is what we currently have - a Democratic Republic - because I believe that the problem with it is a problem that will persist in any form of government: people act in their own best interests.  But Democracy gives voice to the largest number of people, and the Rousseauian General Will has less chance of being wrong; but a direct democracy is impractical, and so a representative one is the second-best thing.

I favor socialist ideals as part of the government, but restricted mainly to regulation and aid; that is, with few exceptions (the USPS is one) I believe the government should not own businesses, as its primary purpose should be to protect its citizens' interests and raising revenue through external means is not included.  So it's more humanitarian and regulatory than socialist I guess, although I do still support free-market capitalism.

And, uh, sorry for being so

Not off topic, I was about to ask the same question. I agree with a lot of what you are saying although it's been a while since my awful 9th grade history teacher taught roussaeu so I am going to have to brush up.

i agree with your sentiments, and i don't just throw that quote around, i live it. everyday.  i spend 50-60 hours a week working and at least 20 hours a month volunteering or working for good causes.

my concerns with capitalism is the lack of restraint in controling corporations and their greed.  i understand that the rich need monetary incentives to continue building the market but i hate elitist, luxery brands, those that think their money makes them better than others, those not willing to share their abundance, those that believe possessions define their worth.  and the poor need incentives or to be taught how to make a better life for themselves. i certainly don't have  all of the answers or i would have gone into politics to fix it.  i just have a strong sense of what is wrong and hate to sit back and watch it happen.

and i have a hard time staying on topic, ever. sorry

and i am not question our democratic republic system, i am just saying that system is corrupt, like when we voted gore president and it was stolen from him.

My point, I think, is that it is less the system that is corrupt and more that the people are corrupt.  Obviously there are plenty of things we can do to reduce the possibility and impact of people's corruption, however.

point taken, it is the people, poor choice of words on my part

Sunshine, the language you use is offensive, but I *think* I agree with what you're trying to get at... to some extent, anyway.

I have a ton of stuff that I want to say, but i'm too lazy to sit here and type it out .  So...i'm just going to respond in quick bullit points.

1.  I am 17 - there that gets the age factor down incase any of you want to flame me for my age

2.  I worked a full time job last summer, about 50 hours a week.

3.  When I got my job, I was 16 and never had any work experience.

4.  I worked at Jason's Deli (a corporate food chain).  I worked the job that most people would work to support a household, not a job teens work.

5.  I saw firsthand how hard people work in this country and I have such great respect for the "laborers".  We work the crap jobs that no one really wants and keep the country go round, even though we don't really get a ton out of it regarding benefits.

6.  Most of the people at my job worked 2 jobs.

7.  Most of the people at my job are illegal immigrants with fake documents.

My point:

Sure, people shouldn't have to work 2-3 jobs to make ends meet but the whole notion of "the government should give me money because I can't find a job" is just absurd.  I do believe that to overly tax the rich and corporations like Obama wants to do would hurt the general worker overall.  Take it into consideration: taxing large corporations would cause wages to fall and jobs to decrease, or inflation of prices of the product they sell (in my case, sandwiches).  The economy overall would suffer.  I only wish there was a less extreme form of the Obama plan, I would back it 100%. 

Please take into account i'm very tired while i'm writing this.

I feel obligated to point out that Obama's proposed tax on corporations is intended to reduce enormous profits (namely from oil companies, who don't even know what to do with their money) - not hurt companies and reduce jobs.  I don't know if that's how it will work out... but let's remember that the powers of the president to make his beliefs into law are very limited.

everyone gets a job at 16 'with no experience' no sure why that was valid, tired i guess.  and i think it;s illegal for someone under 18 to work 50 hrs a week...and yeah some people work at deli's to support their families, very sad, but thats really a student gig...my whole youth was spent at dairy queens, delis and hard rock cafe, not the hardest work i ever had....

Mstriker said some smart stuff. I agree that Obama is too extreme, it's one of my big problems with him. I don't even like McCain that much.

Well, I did

I read the discussion and dont feel the need to comment further

------------

But back to the discussion of Obama's tax policy

He will be giving credits to those who do not pay income taxes... so he takes money from those who have it... and gives it to those who dont (Robin "Obama" Hood )

He is quoted as saying to Joe the plumber that (paraphrase) if you spread the money around its good for everyone...

IS this what we want? Obama argues bottom up economics (trickle up) but I dont think this has practical and sustainable principles.
Big spenders invest in the economy... lots of little spenders (given there money from Robin Hood) would not be able to provide the same support for the economy.

...

...

IDK where I was going with this...

...

But yeah send a rebuttall... but dont be too crazy 

Bottom-up economics is not sustainable without top-down economics, and vice versa.  Both are required for stability.

However, neither philosophy will fix the issue right now.  We need to solve the credit crisis, and when that happens money will start flowing again and the economy will start to revive itself.

That, of course, is the very simplified version.

Agreed....
But I am only saying that Obama seems to be putting too much trust in bottom-up...

(economy in general not just the tad-bit of economic apocalpse we are going through )

Read this first:

His argument is basically "we've been using top-down economics and it's not working because the rich don't recycle all their money in the right places.  Therefore bottom-up is the answer."

I agree with the first part: top-down doesn't work because the rich accumulate wealth rather than redistribute it.  They end up with more than they know what to do with, and people like Steve Jobs give no money to charity.

In bottom-up economics, wealth is forced to be recycled because the people who receive the benefits need to use them.  This is the part I feel Reich skipped.

I think that we have used a terrible concotion of weak capitilism and weak socialism... both have a chance of working... but not in moderation.

We havent truly used trickle down for a long enough consecutive period to see the full view of the markets response (EDIT) in the modern American economy supported by reasonable regulation and governmental interference... I am NOT an anarcho-capitilist

Trickle down was considered the only economic theory for the vast majority of European history.  Sometimes it worked.  When it didn't, it was for the reasons I gave.

Herkon, great another high school kid with no real life experience trying to have opinions you know nothin about.  generosity breeds generosity.  giving breeds giving. laws of attraction and the universe.

most people don't agree with your laws of attraction and other theories. And for someone that preaches that we all have a logos like essential human "one-ness" you seem incredibly dismissive.

i said i study buddhism, not that i'm a monk. this is a site for debate and you can all be quite frustrating. 

just because alot of people don't believe in it doesn't mean it isn't true. but apparently the wall street journal agrees https://www.dalailama.com/news.112.htm

also stating the fact that you are in high school, hence have less life experience isn't judgement, it's fact and doesn't conflict with my views of one-ne