October 16, 2008
Caring and Sharing with Obama
While we're all drinking happy juice in the warm afterglow of Juicy Obamaliciousness, let me throw one more thought out there. We are becoming a more caring and sharing society.
Every day, in every way, America just keeps getting better and better. Since 1980, the share of federal income tax revenue paid by the top 10% of tax payers in the US has increased by over 20%.
Have a listen to this audiovisual guide to understanding Obama's tax plan for sharing the wealth and contemplate your navel to this soothing thought. If The Club for Growth can be believed:
According to the Tax Foundation, a non-partisan, non-profit research organization that has monitored tax policy at the federal, state and local levels since 1937, in 2006 the wealthiest 1% of U.S. taxpayers paid more taxes than ever before:
The basic story that comes from this newly available data for tax year 2006 is that the share of income (as measured by AGI) and the share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent of tax returns are once again at all-time highs.
Kind of undercuts the Obama mantra of harmful tax cuts harshing the national mellow, doesn't it? They also have a handy-dandy summary of the candidate's tax plans that makes it very easy to compare the basic elements of both plans.
Now, in the interests of fairness (and because The Princess has been having An Earnest Conversation for the last few
years weeks via email [don't hit me!!!!] with an old high school friend who is a Democrat and will vote for Obama, the gist of which is that all politicians lie like Big Dogs in order to get elected, but also that each of us secretly thinks Our Dude lies less than The Anti-Christ Other Dude) the Blog Princess will now cite a Balanced Thrashing of Both Candidates on Tax Policeh:
Key graf on the McCainster: (yes, the Editorial staff howled when we heard this too)
Early in the debate, John McCain once again voiced his concern over the rising national debt and claimed that he could balance the budget in his first four years in office. But given that his tax policies contain major tax cuts that will not pay for themselves (especially in 2011 and 2012 after Bush tax cuts expire), it is a pretty safe bet that Sen. McCain is not going to be balancing the budget in 2012. We definitely know that neither Obama nor McCain is going to balance the budget in the first year or two of his administration.
On to the main attraction. The Lightworker gets schooled, old-style:
Throughout the debate, Sen. Obama repeatedly showed an unfortunate ignorance of one of the fundamental principles of taxation: all taxes are paid by people. On multiple occasions, Obama claimed that businesses or corporations "can afford" to pay higher taxes. But such a statement is just ridiculous. Companies have no "ability to pay" taxes. Does the corporation's building pay the tax? How about its fax machine or water cooler? No. People pay the taxes. Here is one such example of why Sen. Obama would get an F in public finance:
Then Exxon Mobil, which made $12 billion, record profits, over the last several quarters, they can afford to pay a little more so that ordinary families who are hurting out there -- they're trying to figure out how they're going to afford food, how they're going to save for their kids' college education, they need a break.
What Sen. Obama doesn't understand or doesn't want to tell the American public is that when Exxon Mobil writes that check to Uncle Sam, some PERSON is paying the price for that. In the short-run, that person could be a shareholder, a worker, or a consumer. But the fact that Exxon Mobil has a lower after-tax profit means that some PERSON is worse off. For example, Exxon Mobil would likely reduce its dividend payment, or its share price could fall, and that hurts every PERSON who was invested in Exxon Mobil at the time the tax was enacted.
As they say, read the whole thing. I laughed until tears were running down my face. And they call econ the dismal science...
Posted by Cassandra at October 16, 2008 08:53 AM
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Niiiiice opening pic.
Posted by: Ymarsakar at October 16, 2008 03:10 PM
Well, when the rich pay most of the taxes that fund the government, don't then the rich own you, the poor and bottom 75%?
Posted by: Ymarsakar at October 16, 2008 03:11 PM
...when Exxon Mobil writes that check to Uncle Sam, some PERSON is paying the price for that.
And that person is you and me and the "ordinary families...trying to figure out how they're going to afford food, how they're going to save for their kids' college education" -- because Exxon Mobil will pass the cost along to all of us.
Corporations exist to make *profits*, not to serve as a government slush fund. At individual state level, tax increases keep driving corporations to neighboring states with less-confiscatory tax rates -- if Obie's policy kicks in at the national level, the Cayman Islands will become the new financial capital of the world...
Posted by: BillT at October 16, 2008 03:34 PM
Don't worry about the corporations, Bill. Nationalization will fix them straight if they start exploiting the weak and downtrodden.
Posted by: Ymarsakar at October 16, 2008 04:03 PM
Key graf on the McCainster...
cant balance the budget and lower taxes?
i know how... he said so... the hatchet remark...
what happens if you start hacking away at the socialist largesses? money to this community org, that community org... and go in and excise socialist programs to remove them from a country not intended to have them?
you could easily shrink the budget to a lot less. over 4 years, how much would that save?
we can only hope.
but on another thing... let me give you what obama is suggesting but people arent getting, nto even the pundits that dislike him.
if obamans plan helps joe's, then the system will appear to work. the system cant be allowed to appear to work unless the working thing is a revolutionary black mail protest.
in other words, reforming is slow, but it works, but they cant let that happen, because this system is not supposed to be workable. (read the afp peace on the communist party in the USA recently out. they are ecstatic as they claim that more and more regulation is needed beacuse of whats happened obviously points to the free market not working - plonk!).
so he will not help the joes, to get another company, and then earn more and provide working salaries and income to a subset of employees. that means the place works.
no... obama owns stock in waht? where is his 4.2 million in last years earnings sit? well, if he is like the others, i would guess that they are in blue chips and large corporations that will not fail...
how can he put money into his own pocket?
well let joe keep it... he gets nothign... (unless he becomes a shareholder in joe).
but give it all over, spreading the wealth, and there will not be enough aggregated in hands to do anything useful with it. they will go out and spend it most likely... and they will spend it where? oh, in the large coporations like walmart, and target, and such, because they have enough to spend a bit, but not enough to make anythig with it.
so they spend, and i will bet that obama and freinds are well psoitions for the dividends checks that will happen the quarter after the checks come...
if ya want to know what stock to by for that, look at the prior givts, and see whose shares went up from that... which retailers.
make better for small companies, you create potential compettion that will rise up economically and threaten your own childrens current postion.
make worse for them, at the same time giving out pittance, and the money will be transfered from the individuals, to the larger protected corporations that they have their monies in.
he is paying himself and his buddies this way...
its another form of theft...
Posted by: artfldgr at October 16, 2008 04:17 PM
ah... corporations exist as a disbursment and tax collecting engine.
if you tax exxon, you are nto taxiong a corporation... thats impossible to do!!!!
your taxing the shareholders and keeping them from getting a share of the dividends in the company they are invested in.
if exxon earns a billion in profit, that gets disburssed to the owners, the share holders.
(yes they can hold on to capital to operate, but its still not the companies, sine the company is owned, not its own entity).
take that billino for taxes believing your socking it to exxon, and what your really doing is socking it to the people who have exon shares. they will eget a billion less in dividends, and they will pay less in taxes since they will earn less...
so by taxing exxon, he drains retirement accounts of their large block large cap safe investments for the future!!!!
take a billion from exon, and you remove a billion from peoples retirement accounts, their hedge bets against themselves, and so on.
you do nothing to exxon... it doesnt exist as a real entity, only as a servant which operates on behalf of the owner, and the state when the state needs it to collect taxes...
how does the state get your tax money up front? thrugh the corporations... they tax employees, fillforms, take revenue from shareholder, and basically serve the states needs to collect taxes.
the failure to realize this is a large indicator how peoploe have no idea of basic business..
even worse, they all believe they do, but its a fantasy.
even worse than worse.. they think the fantasy is real... but never realize that if they really knew it worked that way, they wouldnt be complaining and sitting aroudn not knowing how to make money... they would be working on their own company, and such.
small companies can also skew the tax rols, and cheat more. its harder to police them... like above... so the larger a company can get, the more people in it the easier it is to collect the fruits of their labor to bribe them with their own money!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: artfldgr at October 16, 2008 04:24 PM
My brother just now sent me this (which will be rejected by my San Francisco-based sister who used to be intelligent, but now asks me to stop sending her information about voter fraud on the part of The One). I think it's priceless!
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
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.
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%savi ngs).
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
'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 I!'
'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.
Posted by: MathMom at October 16, 2008 04:38 PM
Very nice... But you know that you could have saved a bunch of keystrokes if you had summarized by saying that under a BO administration, working closely with Nan and Harry 95% of all beer consumers will have a lower bill.
More beer equity for the middle class.
Power to the pilsner, power to the pilsner right on!
Posted by: bt_don't-say-Schlitz-say-bullSchlitz_hun at October 16, 2008 05:51 PM
overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier."
So that's where Mongo is with my beer-gram!!!
Posted by: DL Sly at October 16, 2008 06:33 PM
Great points, bt. Fortunately regarding the excessive typing, I just used cut and paste. :)
POWER TO THE PILSNER!!!
Posted by: MathMom at October 16, 2008 07:12 PM
Power to the pilsner!!!
Pilsner gives us political hops!!!
[the waitress gives us change]
Posted by: Artfldgr at October 16, 2008 08:26 PM
MathMom stole my thunder... :-)
Posted by: camojack at October 17, 2008 03:45 AM
MathMom, I thought of posting that a while back. It is good, no?
Posted by: Cass at October 17, 2008 02:13 PM
Yes, I thought it was also timely. (Sorry, Camo...)
Posted by: MathMom at October 17, 2008 06:32 PM
Yes, I thought it was also timely. (Sorry, Camo...)
Posted by: MathMom at October 17, 2008 06:32 PM
Oh well, as intermittent as my posting here is, I can't expect to be ahead of too many of my peers here...if any. :-)
Posted by: camojack at October 21, 2008 01:19 AM