U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary

[Don Corleone]

Don, we can't even BEGIN to compare Obama's connection to the "ruling class" after people like the Rodhams and McCains and Bushes either have, or attempted, to run the country for the last what 20 some years. To even pretend that Obama is as integrated into the so called "ruling class" as anyone else running for high office is really a huge stretch of revisionism about his background and how he made his money.

I have MUCH more in common with Obama, as a middle income person, being just a generation away from poverty, than I do with any of the rich white faces that have run for office.

There's just no pleasing some people. You don't read people's posts, you skim for the one line you can make the biggest strawman out of, then scream bloody outrage. Did you miss the part when I said I was starting to lean Obama's way after last night?

Christ man, take a freaking chill pill. When somebody agrees with you on an issue, you don't start screaming at them about "but you're not agreeing the way I want you to".

And for the record, "I" didn't put Obama in the ruling class, he put himself there. He said "people like me who can afford to pay more taxes". Well, read those tax returns you just pulled up. He knows all about squirreling his nuts away.

[Koga No Goshi]

And I ask again; what measure are you using to declare the laws of supply and demand unfair?

Those "trillion variables" you complain about are part of supply and demand, and its why command economies and socialism fail, because the government cannot account for them all.

Tincow correctly points out that people with wealth in banks is essential for the world economy.

CR

And taxing a group that actually has some money to pay tax with is essential for the domestic economy.

So, your point?

[Koga No Goshi]

There's just no pleasing some people. You don't read people's posts, you skim for the one line you can make the biggest strawman out of, then scream bloody outrage. Did you miss the part when I said I was starting to lean Obama's way after last night?

Christ man, take a freaking chill pill. When somebody agrees with you on an issue, you don't start screaming at them about "but you're not agreeing the way I want you to".

And for the record, "I" didn't put Obama in the ruling class, he put himself there. He said "people like me who can afford to pay more taxes". Well, read those tax returns you just pulled up. He knows all about squirreling his nuts away.

Well...

My only point is, as much as they like to be 'one of us', the ruling class never is, and only a naive fool believes for one minute that anybody in Washington aspires to be 'just like the people'.

Don't make inaccurate comments and pull a persecution complex when called on it. If this wasn't a "qualification" on Obama then be more specific about who you mean. We'd been discussing Obama and his tax returns.

[Crazed Rabbit]

My point is your arguments that "supply and demand isn't fair" are bunk. I've asked again and again what would be fair and what we should hold as a standard of fairness and you've offered no answers.

So kindly don't argue that supply and demand, the paragon of fairness in determining wages, is anything but that if you're going to repeatedly ignore questions about what is fair or why supply and demand isn't fair.

CR

[Don Corleone]

Well...



Don't make inaccurate comments and pull a persecution complex when called on it. If this wasn't a "qualification" on Obama then be more specific about who you mean. We'd been discussing Obama and his tax returns.

Okay, Koga. I surrender. You're right. You're always right. You're the most brilliant mind the world has ever produced..... and I'm just a bitchy whiny crybaby who screams 'persecution'....

Where's the ignore button?

[Koga No Goshi]

My point is your arguments that "supply and demand isn't fair" are bunk. I've asked again and again what would be fair and what we should hold as a standard of fairness and you've offered no answers.

So kindly don't argue that supply and demand, the paragon of fairness in determining wages, is anything but that if you're going to repeatedly ignore questions about what is fair or why supply and demand isn't fair.

CR

What the hell did any of this little rant of yours have to do with taxes, exactly?

Okay, Koga. I surrender. You're right. You're always right. You're the most brilliant mind the world has ever produced..... and I'm just a bitchy whiny crybaby who screams 'persecution'....

Where's the ignore button?

Don't make incorrect claims about Obama and then act like anyone who calls them out has an attitude problem.

[Crazed Rabbit]

What the hell did any of this little rant of yours have to do with taxes, exactly?

You made noise about how the "income distribution system is unfair", and that excused any unfairness in the tax system.

There is no "income distribution system", though. Wages are earned, and determined by supply and demand. I asked if by "income distribution system" you meant supply and demand, and you said that was unfair.

I've asked you, repeatedly, how supply and demand is unfair.

You've come up with absolutely no answer. You haven't even tried to formulate an argument. And when you dismiss someone who questions who preposterous claims as 'ranting' I can only assume that you can't formulate an argument that supply and demand is unfair. Indeed, you substitute ad hominem attacks in place of trying to defend your feeble claims.

CR

[Koga No Goshi]

You made noise about how the "income distribution system is unfair", and that excused any unfairness in the tax system.

There is no "income distribution system", though. Wages are earned, and determined by supply and demand. I asked if by "income distribution system" you meant supply and demand, and you said that was unfair.

I've asked you, repeatedly, how supply and demand is unfair.

You've come up with absolutely no answer. You haven't even tried to formulate an argument. And when you dismiss someone who questions who preposterous claims as 'ranting' I can only assume that you can't formulate an argument that supply and demand is unfair. Indeed, you substitute ad hominem attacks in place of trying to defend your feeble claims.

CR

Everything I needed to say was in my previous longer post. All gains in household income in the past 30 years h ave gone to the top 20% of households. Therefore, it stands to reason, a purely equal tax system would not only result in a net tax loss but would push many working families further down the quality of living bar than they already are. Keeping a uniform tax system in an economy which is only growing for the top 10-20% is regressive and penalizes all the people already struggling who are unable to break into the top fifth of jobs and careers.

If you're just here to rant and not listen to points, there is no need to respond to you, nor any point.

[Xiahou]

Everything I needed to say was in my previous longer post. All gains in household income in the past 30 years h ave gone to the top 20% of households. Therefore, it stands to reason, a purely equal tax system would not only result in a net tax loss but would push many working families further down the quality of living bar than they already are. Keeping a uniform tax system in an economy which is only growing for the top 10-20% is regressive and penalizes all the people already struggling who are unable to break into the top fifth of jobs and careers.

That makes no sense. Under a single, common tax rate, those whose income increases the most would also see their taxes increased the most. People who saw no income growth (80% of all households according to you), would be paying no more in taxes. That sounds eminently fair to me.

If you're just here to rant and not listen to points, there is no need to respond to you, nor any point.

[Koga No Goshi]

That makes no sense. Under a single, common tax rate, those whose income increases the most would also see their taxes increased the most. People who saw no income growth (80% of all households according to you), would be paying no more in taxes. That sounds eminently fair to me.

I have never seen a single flat tax rate proposal which did not propose vastly decreasing taxes. This is why the people who propose it tend to be the very same people calling to disband everything from Social Security to public education. And as we saw when Bush made the attempt, the big majority are not in favor of the kinds of program cuts necessary to create a flat 10 or 15 or 17% tax rate for everybody, or a flat sales tax with no income tax.

Americans in general pay quite low taxes proportionately speaking compared to the rest of the industrialized world. I honestly think this "the rich are hurt too much" argument is pure selfinterested greed with no regard for the general well being of the country, built on a contempt for all other Americans who are lower income, a villifying them as vaccuum cleaners of social services and free money handed out after being stolen from the poor rich people.

[Xiahou]

I have never seen a single flat tax rate proposal which did not propose vastly decreasing taxes. This is why the people who propose it tend to be the very same people calling to disband everything from Social Security to public education. And as we saw when Bush made the attempt, the big majority are not in favor of the kinds of program cuts necessary to create a flat 10 or 15 or 17% tax rate for everybody, or a flat sales tax with no income tax.

I agree... kinda.

I like the idea of a flat tax, but our bloated federal budget is dependent on disproportionately soaking those who make the most income. That makes a purely flat tax impractical. But I'd still like to see a fairer, flatter tax system even while acknowledging that it's impractical for it to be completely flat in the foreseeable future. At the very least, I'm sure we'd need at least one bracket to take more from the rich to fund our programs. Additionally, I think we could make such a tax system fairer (and more practical) by cleaning up most (or all) exemptions and loopholes. You pay a percentage of your income to the Federal government, and that's it. No bizarre deductions, or arcane credits ect.- just pay your percentage and done.

[Don Corleone]

Don't make incorrect claims about Obama and then act like anyone who calls them out has an attitude problem.

What did I say, specifically, that was incorrect? The man and his wife have amassed a small fortune, and they're not paying their complete unsheltered share. NONE of them ever do. Republican, Democrat, Green Party, Communist, Libertarian... they ALL exempt themselves from the rules they put on us. If you need for everyone to acknowledge Obama's perfection, you're in for a lifetime of disappointments.

[Koga No Goshi]

I agree... kinda.

I like the idea of a flat tax, but our bloated federal budget is dependent on disproportionately soaking those who make the most income. That makes a purely flat tax impractical. But I'd still like to see a fairer, flatter tax system even while acknowledging that it's impractical for it to be completely flat in the foreseeable future. At the very least, I'm sure we'd need at least one bracket to take more from the rich to fund our programs. Additionally, I think we could make such a tax system fairer (and more practical) by cleaning up most (or all) exemptions and loopholes. You pay a percentage of your income to the Federal government, and that's it. No bizarre deductions, or arcane credits ect.- just pay your percentage and done.

I would agree with you in general sentiment that the tax system is a mess and could use streamlining. However I would be against any Reaganesque "streamlining" like creating bigger tax brackets which hurt the people at the bottom and help the people at the top. I'm also against tax caps. Americans, particularly rich ones, are of the mindset that they should not put a cent into a system beyond what they calculate they will get out of it, so they feel justified in things like SS tax caps and such. We can see this same mindset in public schools. Districts with high home values and higher property taxes locally break off and form their own school districts, leaving average or sub-average income areas to try to pool their money and fund schools with it. And we've seen the results, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer (or better educated and less well educated, as the case may be.) I do not subscribe to the idea that by virtue of someone's parents' wealth they are entitled to a better education or better services or better healthcare. If you do subscribe to those things, then we simply aren't operating off the same value system and must agree to disagree. But I think for as much as many rich people like to bash the system and say it doesn't work, it's ineffectual or wasteful or has poor effects, in some cases (public education being one) that state of affairs is not helped by rich people making sure their money doesn't go into those systems in the first place, or to as great a degree as they can get away with. (They even want to go further and do school vouchers, too.) With social services everyone needs to put into the same pot, because that way everyone has a vested interest. Right now, people pick where to buy a house based on the school district. That is ridiculous. So if you can't afford a school in that neighborhood, your kids 'deserve' underfunded schools with books from the 1950s and not enough desks? The rich have done their best to turn the education system private by defacto, and look at the results.

What did I say, specifically, that was incorrect? The man and his wife have amassed a small fortune, and they're not paying their complete unsheltered share. NONE of them ever do. Republican, Democrat, Green Party, Communist, Libertarian... they ALL exempt themselves from the rules they put on us. If you need for everyone to acknowledge Obama's perfection, you're in for a lifetime of disappointments.

Someone whose tax returns shows that they invested their money the best way the tax structure allows, but proposes higher taxes on the bracket he himself belongs to, is not a hypocrite. If in his tax return he took as few deductions as possible would you not be arguing this is someone financially inept who should not run the country? Even if you didn't, others would. ;)

[Don Corleone]

Someone whose tax returns shows that they invested their money the best way the tax structure allows, but proposes higher taxes on the bracket he himself belongs to, is not a hypocrite. If in his tax return he took as few deductions as possible would you not be arguing this is someone financially inept who should not run the country? Even if you didn't, others would. ;)

I don't think you're connecting the dots in the right order here, chief. The man made an empassioned speech about how it was rich people's PATRIOTIC duty to pay more taxes, but on his own ducked into shelters, and you don't see how I see that as hypocritical?

[Koga No Goshi]

I don't think you're connecting the dots in the right order here, chief. The man made an empassioned speech about how it was rich people's PATRIOTIC duty to pay more taxes, but on his own ducked into shelters, and you don't see how I see that as hypocritical?

No. And I'm not just spinning, I really don't think it's hypocritical. If let's say my tax bracket is 20% of undeductible income, and I have a house, and I put money in my IRA, etc. etc. etc., and get taxed 20% on what's left over, I am not a hypocrite for getting up and saying "But I'm really doing very well. I think people with my income could afford to pay 24% to help the country get out of deficit and pay off the debts on these wars."

In essence it sounds like you're saying he should have voluntarily given 40% instead of 35% to even have the right to propose changes to the tax system. He followed the tax law as it exists, and there is nothing wrong with that, nor do I see anything wrong with him saying there are too many shelters for the highest earners and biggest corporations.

[Don Corleone]

No. And I'm not just spinning, I really don't think it's hypocritical. If let's say my tax bracket is 20% of undeductible income, and I have a house, and I put money in my IRA, etc. etc. etc., and get taxed 20% on what's left over, I am not a hypocrite for getting up and saying "But I'm really doing very well. I think people with my income could afford to pay 24% to help the country get out of deficit and pay off the debts on these wars.".

Stop drinking the kool-aid. If the argument Obama presented is that paying taxes is rich American's patriotic duty, then he ducks his own money into tax shelters, he's a hypocrite. Don't take it so hard. As I said, they ALL are. McCain, Mr. "Get money out of politics", has some pretty unsavory contirbutors. I don't even know where to begin with Bush. Ditto for Clinton.

Sometimes the idea a guy puts forward is correct. Sometimes, despite it being correct, it causes him pain, and he decides not to practice what he's preaching. That doesn't make what he says any less correct. But it does make him guilty of hypocricy. And for you to come in and try to defend him, saying its okay for him personally to pay less taxes, and how that doesn't make him a hypocrite....

Well, let's just say I've seen you make stronger arguments in the past.

In essence it sounds like you're saying he should have voluntarily given 40% instead of 35% to even have the right to propose changes to the tax system. He followed the tax law as it exists, and there is nothing wrong with that, nor do I see anything wrong with him saying there are too many shelters for the highest earners and biggest corporations.

I never said any such thing. Who's putting words in mouths now? I said he cannot duck his current tax burden while calling for all to do their duty and pay more taxes and escape the hypocricy tax.

Dude, I'm all about finanical liberalism. Think Alexander Hamilton. But even I AGREE with Obama, that we have to get more revenue into the system to pay down our debts. And I agree with McCain, that we have to get spending down to pay our debts. I'm leaning towards Obama right now because our government only appears capable of doing one of those two things.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I'm in favor of a national sales tax with prebate (Fair Tax) and consider it the best alternative.

I view a flat tax as preferable to the current progressive tax. The key to making this work would be a large personal deduction (effectively exempting the bottom 10% of wage earners entirely), coupled with ABSOLUTELY NO OTHER EXEMPTIONS, DEDUCTIONS, or the like. You want a house? Fine, but no tax break. You want 37 children? God bless you -- but no tax break. The rate would have to be at or near 20% for revenue purposes.

What we will get is the Obama plan.

This plan is predicated on the notion that high wage earners have benefited more from society than has someone less fortunate and mandates that they pay for the less fortunate person from their own "excess." It is, after all, unfair that Ryan Howard makes millions for playing a child's game while your local mail carrier busts their hump 12 months a year for less than Howard pays in real estate taxes.

It is geared toward shifting the effectively untaxed from about 30% to about 35% of the entire country. This will help ensure that the party pandering to that third of the nation can dominate politically. This will work well, and this segment of voters will be grown further.

Unlike Bush/Rove's efforts to peel off segments of the Democrat support system, Obama's approach is as simple as -- and likely to be as sweepingly effective as -- Reagan's crystalization of the conservative mainstream of America. His party will have significant majorities in both houses of Congress, and little that they promulgate will be unconstitutional by the standards of our far-too-thoroughly extra-constitutional government.

The power of the federal government will be greatly expanded, and it will take a far more pervasive role in health care and social welfare. State government's role will be further diminished, but this trend has continued under a number of administrations from both parties.

Since we are increasingly accepting of the all-encompassing role/responsibility of the federal government, we MUST trend towards socialism. A large involved government has no other effective tool with which to discharge so many responsibilities.

The whole thing makes me want to puke.

[Koga No Goshi]

Stop drinking the kool-aid. If the argument Obama presented is that paying taxes is rich American's patriotic duty, then he ducks his own money into tax shelters, he's a hypocrite. Don't take it so hard. As I said, they ALL are. McCain, Mr. "Get money out of politics", has some pretty unsavory contirbutors. I don't even know where to begin with Bush. Ditto for Clinton.

Sometimes the idea a guy puts forward is correct. Sometimes, despite it being correct, it causes him pain, and he decides not to practice what he's preaching. That doesn't make what he says any less correct. But it does make him guilty of hypocricy. And for you to come in and try to defend him...

Well, let's just say I've seen you make stronger arguments in the past.

Wait, so if I tip my waitress 15%, but say that restaurant workers should be better paid, I'm a hypocrite?

[Koga No Goshi]

It is geared toward shifting the effectively untaxed from about 30% to about 35% of the entire country. This will help ensure that the party pandering to that third of the nation can dominate politically. This will work well, and this segment of voters will be grown further.

As someone who works in accounting, I am quite confident in pointing out that a large number of these "effectively untaxed" people are formerly very rich people who, upon old age, tie up all their assets in trusts, corporations, LLC's or transfers to children, and then apply as poor people for medical assistance and file 0 tax returns. Another issue I have with the idea that "rich people shouldn't have to pay into services", which many of them later use under a pretense of being a poor elderly person on paper.

[Don Corleone]

Wait, so if I tip my waitress 15%, but say that restaurant workers should be better paid, I'm a hypocrite?

Knowing that standard tips are 20% for good service, assuming you got good service, absolutely you would be. What part of "Do as I say, not as I do", are you stumbling on in the definition. By the way, I updated an earlier post. Not trying to stealth answer you, I had further thoughts.

[Koga No Goshi]

Knowing that standard tips are 20% for good service, assuming you got good service, absolutely you would be. What part of "Do as I say, not as I do", are you stumbling on in the definition. By the way, I updated an earlier post. Not trying to stealth answer you, I had further thoughts.

This is a really super graspy straw, Don. Saying that Obama shouldn't put money in his retirement accounts or deduct mortgage payments because he proposes that the rich can afford a higher tax burden is quite weak.

You didn't mention, by the way, that rich-since-birth McCain cashes each and every single Social Security check. A system that the Republicans range between wanting to castrate and wanting to totally eliminate.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

As someone who works in accounting, I am quite confident in pointing out that a large number of these "effectively untaxed" people are formerly very rich people who, upon old age, tie up all their assets in trusts, corporations, LLC's or transfers to children, and then apply as poor people for medical assistance and file 0 tax returns.

Which is why I prefer a sales tax. Those people DO buy things -- sometimes very expensive things -- but they have no apparent INCOME. All a progressive INCOME tax can do is make it harder to GET rich. The wealthy who no longer need to work can continue to laugh at the plebs under such a system.

If you are going to go after wealth, go after wealth. Income is NOT wealth until after expenditures are deducted. I think going after wealth is wrong, but at least a system which did so would be HONESTLY attempting wealth redistribution.

[Don Corleone]

I think everyone in the Backroom would agree I'm no fan of socialism, but my primary mantra is "Those with the responsibility to must also hold the authority. And vice-versa". If free-marketeers like George Bush and John McCain are going to come to the taxpayer for bailouts everytime Wall Street collapses under its own corruption (yet again!), then the taxpayer, or their representative has a right to see to it that the bailout money is spent correctly (aka increased regulation). As much as that's like vinegar on the tongue, the alternative... just give us the money and shut up about how we spend it, is far, far worse.

The right answer, according to me, would have been to let AIG and the rest collapse. Let the mortgage brokers go belly up. But as a society, we have become addicted to avoiding personal responsibility. We pass the buck over to the Capitol. It only makes sense that if they're going to get stuck with the tab, they ought to tell the tycoons which parts of the menu they're allowed to order from.

The power of the federal government will be greatly expanded, and it will take a far more pervasive role in health care and social welfare. State government's role will be further diminished, but this trend has continued under a number of administrations from both parties.

Since we are increasingly accepting of the all-encompassing role/responsibility of the federal government, we MUST trend towards socialism. A large involved government has no other effective tool with which to discharge so many responsibilities.

The whole thing makes me want to puke.

[Koga No Goshi]

Which is why I prefer a sales tax. Those people DO buy things -- sometimes very expensive things -- but they have no apparent INCOME. All a progressive INCOME tax can do is make it harder to GET rich. The wealthy who no longer need to work can continue to laugh at the plebs under such a system.

If you are going to go after wealth, go after wealth. Income is NOT wealth until after expenditures are deducted. I think going after wealth is wrong, but at least a system which did so would be HONESTLY attempting wealth redistribution.

Agreed with all your points. However, I am yet to see a system alternative which will not inordinately burden working and middle class people, as most of their income goes towards everyday sort of expenses which would be hit by a sales tax.

And, I have raised before, the issue that I am unclear as to whether all these people proposing a sales tax want it applied to the purchase of things like STOCKS as well. Seeing as how they're against capital gains taxes, it's hard to imagine them agreeing to a sales tax on investments.

[Ironside]

According to more recent numbers(2005), the people in the top 1% make 18.1% of the total income, but pay 38.8% of the total income taxes. So it's not exactly 40%, but it's close.

Odd about the different total income number (that 21,2% I gave is given by the feds). I guess there's some different way of calculating that somehow.

But is that All Federal Taxes bracket the total tax pressure? Aka the total taxes payed by the top 1% is 27,6%, less than their total wealth?

And if you want to argue that the rich can be taxed 'because they can afford it' you may as well go to the end of that argument and say the government has authority over all the money you don't need to live.

Anyone with enough force behind him have authority over all your money... That's why after a lot of bloodshed we've ended up with a comprimise where the supposed intent is to benefit society and thus indirectly the people as whole aswell. Even the big taxpayers.

Lemur, to me 'redistribution of wealth' means taking money from one group and giving it to programs to help a specific set of people, not to run programs that benefit everybody (the military, highways, etc.)

CR

On a general principle, would you agree that creating a system that keeps crime down, education and public health up is beneficial? That would by it's very nature be focused to help a specific set of people more than others and thus be 'redistribution of wealth', even if privatly funded.

Says what philosophy? I'm not talking about outliers like bad CEOs getting golden parachutes, but the fundamentals of supply and demand.

By what measure do you declare the laws of supply and demand to be unfair?

It seems like the only truly fair system.

CR

It's based on that people will always act rationally and know all information (not only have access to it). Aka it's fundamentally flawed.

I agree that's for most markets it's the best system if properly regulated as of today (it will eventually work itself out of existance interestingly enough though), but I'm sure you agree that the best of the best governing system known as democracy has given you a choise between 2 excellent candidates and given you the feeling that your voice has truly been heard.

While it certainly have it's advantages, it won't work for some markets from the start and even when working it's a system that can be mostly compared to a ball placed on top of the backside of a bowl that has some small edges. Only as long it's kept in the middle it's self-regulating.

Fair? Is it fair that no matter how much work you put down, if your genes aren't right you will earn very little? And even if you're the best you won't earn as much, as your talent was in biathlon and not basketball.

So please, how do you define fair?

The best, most efficient way to redistribute wealth is to encourage spending. An economy is not strong because it has lots of money, it's strong because it has lots of transactions. If rich people can be encouraged to spend their money or invest it within the economy, it works better than taxation and the inevitable waste that ensues. The problem lies in the flow of money out of the country via the trade deficit. If this can be equalized, we will be in much better shape at both ends of the spectrum.

Well, transactions goes faster with loans... So current event shows that you can overdo it.

But as a more general question of wealth, this spending needs to be done properly. Say that the goverment screws up and pays a scamming entrepeneur. He will then spend the money on a pool, that company will pay it's employees, that will buy food, rent etc. So how did this become waste form a societal point of view?
I can get that lack of proper funding of infrastructure and human resources (like school) is detrimental, but as a whole when does generally an investment change into waste that last longer than one transaction cycle?

Edit:

Which is why I prefer a sales tax. Those people DO buy things -- sometimes very expensive things -- but they have no apparent INCOME. All a progressive INCOME tax can do is make it harder to GET rich. The wealthy who no longer need to work can continue to laugh at the plebs under such a system.

Be aware that you then have to tax the companies with VAT aswell with that system, as it's quite easy to have a private firm that just happen to need that expensive gadget to be able to work properly. And if you're rich then you got that big company doing it for you.

[Don Corleone]

This is a really super graspy straw, Don. Saying that Obama shouldn't put money in his retirement accounts or deduct mortgage payments because he proposes that the rich can afford a higher tax burden is quite weak.

You're gonna screw a waitress out of 5% of her tip, and you want me to pat you on the back for being a 'special guy' for bitching that her boss hasn't paid her enough, and you say I'm grasping at straws?

We're not talking about 401K contributions, not by a longshot. He's done some funky returns over the years. Do the math. In 2000, before there was any such thing as a Bush tax cut, the Obamas made 1/4 million and only paid at 26%. And that was their 2nd highest bracket!!! The only year they hit 30% (31%, to be precise), was when they made $1.6M. Isn't the top tax bracket 38%? How are they even pulling that off without paying the AMT, which kicks in at about $125K???? You really don't see any hypocricy here? Please....

You didn't mention, by the way, that rich-since-birth McCain cashes each and every single Social Security check. A system that the Republicans range between wanting to castrate and wanting to totally eliminate.

McCain is not 'rich-since-birth'. I know you're not very fond of the military, but you should at least dig a little into what even admirals make before you make statements like that. McCain is 'rich since marraige'. And since he's not arguing that rich people should have to pay more taxes, that technically doesn't make him a hypocrite. HOWEVER, I DID give you a gold mine where he IS a hypocrite... the guy who wrote a gag rule on who can say what in politics has some pretty shady contirbutors that nobody wants to talk about.

[Koga No Goshi]

You're gonna screw a waitress out of 5% of her tip, and you want me to pat you on the back for being a 'special guy' for bitching that her boss hasn't paid her enough, and you say I'm grasping at straws?

We're not talking about 401K contributions, not by a longshot. He's done some funky returns over the years. Do the math. In 2000, before there was any such thing as a Bush tax cut, the Obamas made 1/4 million and only paid at 26%. And that was their 2nd highest bracket!!! The only year they hit 30% (31%, to be precise), was when they made $1.6M. Isn't the top tax bracket 38%? How are they even pulling that off without paying the AMT, which kicks in at about $125K???? You really don't see any hypocricy here? Please....

I don't, but if I say Obama is a hypocrite, can we move on?

[TinCow]

Despite its direct impact on me, I fully support wealth re-distribution to a certain extent. I draw the line well before full-scale communism, but I have no problems paying higher taxes because I make more money. This is for one simple reason: I believe on a fundamental level that poverty is the root of all evil in the world. With a very few minor exceptions (i.e. psychiatric disorders) I believe that crime and war are the direct result of poverty. People who live comfortable lives and are happy are rarely willing to risk what they have to obtain more, especially if that risk is their own lives. Violence increases as a person values keeping what they already have, including their own life, less. A person who is starving would be very likely to risk their life to earn $100,000. A multi-millionaire would almost never do the same thing.

I therefore believe that I, as an individual, receive a direct benefit by decreasing poverty amongst the rest of society. The fewer people there are in poverty, the less likely I am to have my own happy life interrupted by someone else who is disgruntled. For this reason, I consider it perfectly acceptable for me to pay a higher share of taxes in order to give social assistance to those who are less well-off.

[Koga No Goshi]

Despite its direct impact on me, I fully support wealth re-distribution to a certain extent. I draw the line well before full-scale communism, but I have no problems paying higher taxes because I make more money.

Me too. Well, technically I'll get a tax break, but I don't want or need it. I would support this plan even if it was a 10 or 15% increase for me, and I'm probably low-income by the standards of you or Don or a lot of people around here who talk about portfolios and such. :) I believe in the common good. I got the full $600 tax rebate/stimulus package from Bush but I didn't believe in it because it's debt spending on the deficit that all of your kids are going to pay back. So I gave it all away to a cause I believe in. I considered just not cashing it.

This is for one simple reason: I believe on a fundamental level that poverty is the root of all evil in the world.

Me too.

With a very few minor exceptions (i.e. psychiatric disorders) I believe that crime and war are the direct result of poverty. People who live comfortable lives and are happy are rarely willing to risk what they have to obtain more, especially if that risk is their own lives. Violence increases as a person values keeping what they already have, including their own life, less. A person who is starving would be very likely to risk their life to earn $100,000. A multi-millionaire would almost never do the same thing.

This is not just a belief, it is supported by all kinds of studies and trends in multiple avenues of social science.

I therefore believe that I, as an individual, receive a direct benefit by decreasing poverty amongst the rest of society. The fewer people there are in poverty, the less likely I am to have my own happy life interrupted by someone else who is disgruntled. For this reason, I consider it perfectly acceptable for me to pay a higher share of taxes in order to give social assistance to those who are less well-off.

Exactly. You don't pay tax for the police just because you use them everyday. You pay the tax because them being there may help you directly one day, but even if it doesn't, you benefit indirectly. The same applies to anything that keeps people from being impoverished and homeless or having zero education, or dying of a curable disease on a sidewalk.

[Don Corleone]

By the way, to a limited extent, I do too TinCow. I think everyone does. We're not a nation of Ted Kacinzyskis, looking to return to the good old days of hunting/gathering. Lemur nailed it when he quoted Oliver Wendall Holmes.

The question is, and the line in the sand, is to what extent?

Let's say we have 4 people that need 'wealth redistribution':

-The family of a brave young set of twins that both developed muscular dystrophy
-An 85 year old widow who outlived her husband's financial planning.
-A crackhead
-Somebody who just doesn't feel like working extra hard to get the extra things in life, but wants those extra things.

Which of these 4 people should be helped? I'd totally agree with the first 2, and I do try to help as much as I can. But 3 and 4? Maybe no.