Barack Obama as a modern Robin Hood

You might be a liberal if...

You know that 86% of all income taxes are paid by the top 25% of income earners and you still feel that the rich "aren't paying their fair share of the taxes."

You get infuriated when you hear about the CEO of a Fortune 500 company making tens of millions of dollars, but don't see a problem with an actor, basketball player, or trial lawyer making the same amount.

He steals from those who have? Sounds more like Ali Baba and the 40 thieves.

To bad the above posters can't quite grasp the conception that there are more ways for the wealthy to shelter their money, there by paying less in %.

Yup, if you want corporations to pay taxes, which many of them don't, you must be liberal.
If you believe that Capitalism needs oversight, you must be liberal!
If you believe that Congress needs an ethics office, you must be liberal!
If you believe the least among us deserve consideration, you must be liberal!
If, however, you believe only in Mammon, NOT in God, then you must write for the Wall Street Journal.

Duh! The U.S. has had a progressive income tax (meaning that the rich are taxed at higher rates than the poor) for more than sixty years. Nothing new here.

Glad this guy is a pollster and not an economist. Hey, try reading a book occasionally.

I just listened to an entire Obama stump speech delivered at Revo, NV over XM radio. Although he made his normal remarks about NLRB appointment and the Dept. of Labor, he didn't mention the anti-democratic Employee-free Choice Act. Maybe his handlers are finally listening to George McGovern. Removing the secret-ballot protection against intimidation and retaliation provided by the 1935 Wagner Act is not Democratic and voters know that.

The fact is that the rich are not being harmed by our tax structure in the least. The percentage of national wealth controlled by the richest and the gap between what the richest make and what everyone else makes both continue to grow. Their economic situation continues to improve at the detriment to every other american. I weep not at all for the tax burden on the wealthy.

Thanks Athena. My goodness who writes these headlines.

There's also the fact that trying to soak the rich with exorbitant taxes won't work because they can always move to Monaco or use other sheltering methods to protect their wealth. Although that Robin Hood Obama's policies would do is wreck the economy by encouraging wealthy and middle class americans to take their money out of the stock market, out of 401ks and other market-based investment vehicles and sink those same investments into untaxable shelters.

The US tax system is as follows:
10%: from $0 to $8,025
15%: from $8,026 to $32,550
25%: from $32,551 to $78,850
28%: from $78,851 to $164,550
33%: from $164,551 to $357,700
35%: $357,701 and above

35% for those who make gazillions and hardly pay any corporate tax etc is hardly a rip off! These people make so much money and only invest into their own protfolios and not back into the economy ie "Trickle Down"
The tax breaks they recieved through the Bush administration did nothing for our economy. For all the tax breaks the rich get its time to put an end the free ridw to Corporate America! And since the religious right is pushing their agenda into our faces perhaps its time to end the tax free ride they have enjoyed for decades as well!!

We mjust do what ever the rich wnat. They are the true power in this country. No one matters but them. Surrender the notion that every man is equal, the rich are our speriors in every way. Give up on the American dream. You must sacrifice so as not to upset the rich. You must accepot less so that the rich nevcer have to. You must wok harder for less so the rich can get richer. I kneel before our plutocratic masters. I acknowledge that I am not worthy to question them in any way. Please, rich people, accept our apologies for taxing you.

Yes, the nominal highest tax bracket is 35%, but who pays that much? Anyone in that bracket knows how to avoid taxes.
And why are salaries and wages taxed, but not investments? Why is the capital gains tax so low? THAT is what keeps the very wealthy out of the 35% bracket.
Who benefits most in this country? The 30,000 a year teacher or the 300,000,000 a year heiress?

Certain kinds of equality have been a cherished value in America. Equality under the law and, within reason, equality of opportunity is consistent with a free society. Equality of results is an anathema to a free society and within it lie the seeds of tyranny.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." James Madison

What is the top income of middle-class?

The higher you push the capital gains tax, the more you move money away from the U.S. to countries with lower capital gains taxes. Same with corporate taxes. As for who benefits the country the most, the teacher or the heiress, each benefits the country in his or her own way. How many people do you think the heiress employs? "only invest into their own portfolios" - what does that even mean? Investment puts people to work. Less investment means less jobs.

And if you think everyone in the highest bracket "knows how to avoid taxes" you're dreaming - who do you think pays the vast majority of taxes in this country? The "rich" do.

Moreover, increasing taxes actually decreases the overall revenue after about a year. Cutting taxes leads to an increase in revenue because it leads to an increase in GDP. Look it up, it's a fact. There must be a balance - you cannot increase taxes forever, now, can you, just as you can't decrease them to zero either.

Obama's policies would do is wreck the economy by encouraging wealthy and middle class americans to take their money out of the stock market, out of 401ks and other market-based investment vehicles and sink those same investments into untaxable shelters.

Posted by: Jeff | August 18, 2008 12:34 PM
Of course, you would do this if you hated America more than you love money. We are at war. Why would I want to deny the soldiers supplies and ammo?

"Cutting taxes leads to an increase in revenue because it leads to an increase in GDP."
Not a fact. Show me the money, er evidence. Twenty years of trickle down economics has given us our current miserable economic climate.
What IS a fact is that the middle class does better, ie earns more, under democrats.

The only way for government to increase revenues a lot
is to cut the tax rates. Hauser's Law.

So what is the goal here, fairness (a la robinhood/communism) or to maximize government revenue?

Good luck if any of the Oil Companies remain here if Obama is president. Remember, Shell (Dutch owned) and BP/British Patroleum left the countries they were in because of taxes being to high. If you think our gas prices are high now, wait until they leave.

He's very selective about who he plans to steal from. There are other companies who make more than Oil. So why go after just OIL....because he wants to destroy companies who, in his FAR LEFT MIND, do damage to our environment. He wants to take this money from them to do away with their need by buying electric cars. Name a President in history who decided to tax someone like that and make them pay for products from the competition so they can end someones business/existance. That my friends, is scary!

This man is a MILLIONAIRE, and he talks of all the fine works he can do with your tax dollars as well, and I'm sure he's just as selective with who he takes from. Remember his plan to make kids going to college have to do manditory community service for those dollars.....ever hear his idea on making the people living off Welfare doing some work for THEIR DOLLARS, nope, he talks of expanding WELFARE, after we just got people back into jobs and to stop relying on it. This man WILL NOT BE PRESIDENT ! ! !

We can only hope Peter A. Brown's distorted view of our economy does not reflect broader perceptual problems that would affect his work at the Quinnipiac Polling Institute.

Anyone who has seen the advantages built into our tax system for those whose income derives from the manipulation and enhancement of accumulated wealth should be able to see that wealth is already being distributed away from those who perform actual work to those who already have and manipulate wealth.

In my heart, I'm an old fashioned Republican. I favor free, fair markets and market solutions. But that presupposes that the system is fair and balanced. In reality, the system favors those who already have wealth. I've seen the process from both sides and as much as I enjoyed the free ride afforded to me by advantageous tax laws -- I found it utterly disgraceful.

And I find those who try to maintain that black is white, in terms of who has the advantage over whom, as Mr Brown seemingly has, are particularly disgraceful in their willful and quite possibly self-serving reinterpretation of economic/tax system reality.

Here is the brakedown on who pays the income taxes in this country:

http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

Top 1% of income earns (not necessarily the wealthy) pays alomst 40% of the income tax in this country.

Scottie - 33% tax bracket plus alomst 15% for FICA taxes, plus your local state taxes, plus real estate taxes, plus gas taxes, plus sales taxes, etc... The American public is overtaxed.

The economy has been expanding for the past 6.5 years - those Bush tax cuts did nothing for the economy.

The gov't takes alomost 20% of teh country's GDP to run this country. We are overtaxed. It's like trying to drive a car with the emergency break on.

Athena - those $30K per year teachers must be in the Catholic school system becuase they aren't in the Illinois public school system - especially mear Chicago.

http://www.championnews.net/salaries.php

For Athena
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121124460502305693.html

KS2 Problema, if the haves have an advantage over the have-nots, what will the haves do with their money if tax rates go up? Will they (a) keep putting that money to use where it will get taxed more, or will they (b) do something different with it, something where it is taxed less? Which is located here in the U.S., (a) or (b)? In other words, you may be able to get some taxes out of it with a reasonably low tax rate, or if the tax rates go up you can get no taxes from it as it moves off-shore and employs people from other countries. Under option (b), what happens to the have-nots - fewer jobs and less revenue for the government.

If you want the haves and have-nots to all have the same amount, that's communism.

How can it be that a system favors the wealthy if the wealthy already pay far, far, far more in taxes than the non-wealthy?

Sheila, the piece you link to is identified as "opinion." That is not evidence.

Terry, the top 1% also controls 39% of the wealth. (The percentage they control is growing not shinking.) The wealthy are simply not being harmed by their tax burden any more than any other group in the US. They are economically benefiting under the current tax structure more than any other group.

Every time the capital gains tax has been increased over the last 25 years revenue from the tax has gone down because people simply take their money out of the market when they find out it will be taxed at 20% or higher. Charlie Gibson PROVED this point at the Philadelphia debate while Obama prattled on about what might or might now happen (there's no might not, every time it's been raised revenue has gone down). Amazing that some people in this discussion group still don't get that.

Terry,
I love it when you copy & paste that championnews link. You realize the figures shown in there include TRS pay. That stands for Teachers Retirment System. When it gives a figure of $60K salary, you need to keep that in mind. IL teachers are required to contribute to the TRS. So the school board may tell a teacher when they are being hired that they will make $60K but a candidate who is savvy will know to ask. Is that TRS pay included or excluded?" The difference in what you can expect to take home is significant.

Athena - Here's you chart

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetchartbook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-R2-Federal-Government-Tax-Revenue.html

Notice the rise in tax revenues after the 2003 tax cuts. It is economic growth that generates higher tax revenues and economic growth is generated by lower tax rates.

MBT - That is why I emphasized income and not wealth. We primarily do not tax wealth in this country (except when you die), we tax income. Even though granma and grandpa may not have hardly any income, they may have a large amount of wealth.

Janet - I know the champion link includes that piece, but its the best reference that is available on the "poor" teachers' salaries. I have heard that the retirement amount is just under 10% of the salary. So these teachers are doing pretty good for nine months of work.

How can it be that a system favors the wealthy if the wealthy already pay far, far, far more in taxes than the non-wealthy?

Posted by: Tony T | August 18, 2008 2:13 PM

It's very simple to say that when the wealthy continue to accumulate a larger share of the total wealth of the nation every year. It's easy to say that when the income of those at the top grows at a much faster rate than those in the middle and bottom. The rich are not being pulled down, they are pulling away.

Terry, the top 1% also controls 39% of the wealth. (The percentage they control is growing not shinking.) The wealthy are simply not being harmed by their tax burden any more than any other group in the US. They are economically benefiting under the current tax structure more than any other group.

Posted by: MBT | August 18, 2008 2:59 PM

Only in socio-liberal land can the fact that someone pays more than a third of the money they gave earned create the logic you make in your statement ...

"They are economically benefiting under the current tax structure more than any other group..."

Talk about Orwellian...Paying more = "economic benefit"
*****
Then your marxism comes out...

"...the top 1% also controls 39% of the wealth..."

What a statement-!

MBT, It is not "the wealth"
***
Wealth = Personal Property, and belongs to the individual, therefore it is their wealth.- they own it.
***
Phrasing it this way implies some sort of group ownership of "it" and that wealth, by definition, should be equally distributed.

Which of course - would be socialism...and pretty well sums up the messiah's economic views.

Sheila, the piece you link to is identified as "opinion." That is not evidence.

Posted by: athena | August 18, 2008 2:55 PM

Athena- this is absolutely evidence..

The article includes facts and data gathered from sources available to anyone- then an expert economist explains the relationship of the data. GDP, Incoming tax revenues are all independently verifiable data..

This only opinion in this article is the writer's conclusion that there is no good reason why, with this type of data readily available, we continue to have such a top heavy, complex tax code.

You can argue opinions but you can't argue with facts-

heartburn- Hey, if you think that having a very small group controlling that large a portion of the US economy is a good thing, that's your business. I personally thing that having a plutocratic situation like that is unhealthy for the US both economically and politically. I personally think a good economic system would be one that improves the lot of all levels of society, not one that only a very tiny minority see's their economic situation improve. Keep working more and getting less to make some other guy rich heartburn. Smile when your children have less than you do. Because that is exactly the economics you support.

Not buying it. A chart from the Heritage foundation? Get real.

Here's some data based on the CBO (the Congressional Budget Office) from 2000-2005: Note a 4% decrease in overall revenue.
http://www.cbpp.org/1-25-05bud.htm

You can't cut taxes and expect revenue to stay stable. It don't work.

MBT - "Smile when your children have less than you do. Because that is exactly the economics you support." I guess you don't believe in the economic pie growing. Also there is nothing stopping Heartburn or anyone else from becoming his own boss and having other people working for him and making him rich.

HItting big business with all the taxes Robinhood promotes would put and end to job growth. That's the bottom line, and in this economy we need more jobs. Real jobs, not these imaginary green jobs that will probably disappear when we finally drill against the enviro-loons. The recent survey shows that people are realizing that GREEN means environment ABOVE people.

Getting rid of Big Oil before you have a tried and true 100% replacement is stupid thinking. That's Obama's big miss on things....trying so hard to appease the Left Loons (environmentally wise) that he's willing to screw the rest of us in the meanwhile.

Anything new that is produced that is a TRUE hit, will naturally end what was in it's place. We've seen it with many new products etc...The fact that he wants to manually take Big Oil apart and force untried avenues shows he is all Politician and not on the people side at all.

heartburn- Hey, if you think that having a very small group controlling that large a portion of the US economy is a good thing, that's your business. I personally thing that having a plutocratic situation like that is unhealthy for the US both economically and politically. I personally think a good economic system would be one that improves the lot of all levels of society, not one that only a very tiny minority see's their economic situation improve. Keep working more and getting less to make some other guy rich heartburn. Smile when your children have less than you do. Because that is exactly the economics you support.

Posted by: MBT | August 18, 2008 6:10 PM

MBT- you just don't get it..

A good economic system is one that allows people to do what they do well, to create wealth and therby growing the economy. Redistributing wealth does not grow anything other than dependency.

Wealth is not controlled- it is either gained or not gained, created or not created... you are assuming that there is some sort of zero sum dynamic going on here- a finite amount of wealth that is not distributed equitably, or sufficiently controlled by the government levying of taxes.

The reality is that wealth is personal property which has been earned by people making creative decisions, working hard, or sometimes just getting lucky...in any event, the amount of anyones tax burden should be based on a fair equal process, not how much they have.

Athena - would you like the proper statistcis from the CBO. The 4% decrease you site is the 4% decrease in the amount of revenues as compared to GDP (20% to 16%).

Here is the change in revenues. Federal Revenues in 2000 were $2.025 TRILLION and in 2007 revenues were $2.568 TRILLION. Taxes were cut and revenues grew - supply-side economics seem to work. The key to grwoing tax revenues is a grwoing economy, not higher tax rates.

http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf