low_delta | Obama's tax plan

taxes will go up for any individual earning more than $250,000. small businesses will get credits for every new job they create, so chances are their taxes will go down, not up.

Unless the small business is a wholy owned proprietorship, partnership, or LLP/LLC. Those are reported on the owners income tax statement as part of their income, and thus small businesses will get increased taxes as a result of taxing individuals in that income range.

income income income. income. :)

the cutoff is still $250,000, and someone making that much will pay a whopping $750 more so the rest of us can get a tax break.

So, you're advocating theft by government, then?

lol. if you want to argue silly ideas like that, meet me in

politicsforum. freekee knows better and doesn't need to watch me ridicule you.

I'm fine right here. It's not a silly idea. If you want to vote to take money from someone else just to give it to yourself, that's theft. That's what you implied, and I am merely qualifying your comment.

We already pay different amounts of taxes based on our income. The two candidates are arguing over how to change the amounts. Personally, I don't have a problem with that sliding scale. I'm just not sure where to set the levels. It could be too high already. Who knows.

Either way, I fail to see how making me pay more than someone else is handing my money to another person who makes less than me.

If the purpose of raising taxes on one is to give a tax break to another, you are asking the government to act as an intermediary for funds transferal. If I wanted to give my money to someone else, that's my choice. If you make that choice for me (especially without my consent), then it is theft. It's a very simple concept. It doesn't matter if the receiver makes more or less than me -- if somone forces me to forfeit my earnings merely (and, that's the key word) to give it to another person for no good nor service, I find serious fault with the act.

I'm quite the opponent of refundable tax credits for the same reason. Obama's lie of cutting taxes for 95% of the population, when only 45% pay any taxes now, is a problem to me. You should ony ever give a tax credit up to the total amount withheld. Anything over is welfare, and should be acknowledged as such outside the tax schemes.

But, I'm also a fan of smaller government where possible. I'm tired of largese for the defense industry. I hate subsidizing any business too stupid to operate without aid. I want government pruned to essential services, like health care, education, and common utility. Why is this so difficult to achieve? ::sigh::

You should ony ever give a tax credit up to the total amount withheld. Anything over is welfare, and should be acknowledged as such outside the tax schemes.

I agree with you on this.

if someone forces me to forfeit my earnings merely (and, that's the key word) to give it to another person for no good nor service

But it is being given for services. I give my money to the guy who plows my street, and the guy who trains to defend our country from invaders. It just happens that I pay more for these services than some other people do.

But, that's not what we're talking about... we're talking about diverting money for those services to others SIMPLY to change the proportions paid. Why not reduce the costs, and fund tax relief that way?

I might have confused the issue with the wording I chose. Let's try it again. And leave out the tax credit for those who don't pay any.

I pay for services. Someone else pays less (percentagewise) for those same services. How am I giving that guy money?

I suspect your answer is going to be "because he's paying less for those same services than you are."

In that case, we're arguing over an idealogical point of view, and we should probably just stop.

That's not a problem -- if you both pay for services, and recognize that's what you're doing, and agree to prices or proportions (especially in relation to the proportion of benefit you receive), that's fine.

It's saying "I'm going to change taxes for one to give benefit to another". That's not changing the price of the services, which remain unchanged. It's not getting agreement to change the proportion paid for the services, though that's the end result. It's all about handing money from one group to another.

It's the attitude, not the effect.

come on, the last eight years have been a huge redistribution of wealth, from the bottom up. what obama is proposing wont come close to reversing the handouts bush gave to the rich, none of which trickled down, by the way. all he is doing is letting the temporary tax cuts expire, and giving cuts to the people who have seen no income growth under bush.

So? I make no claims about the past. It has no merit in this discussion.

Letting any tax cut expire (made temporary as a matter of expedience) is the same as raising taxes. Letting someone get hurt by inaction is just as bad as actively causing them harm, if your action could have helped. It's not about how the person acting feels -- it's about how the victim feels.

Taking someone's money just to keep it for yourself is theft. It doesn't matter how it is accomplished.

No. theft is an ILLEGAL taking. property rights are defined by the government. If the taking is sanctioned by the gov't then it's not theft, by definition.

It's like how you can kill a person in self-defense and it's not murder.

quibbles.... :)

I don't think the person being killed sees it any differently. Neither does the person who's pocket got raided.

As you've said to me about the constitution -- being legal doesn't make it right. So, theft is not just the legal definition of taking without permission, but ANY taking without permission. That the law may disagree just makes it easier to get away with.

I don't think the person being killed sees it any differently.

Then they're crazy. It's obviously different when you kill someone because they're trying to kill you vs. just plain killing someone. I suspect you'd do the former but not the latter yourself.

So, theft is not just the legal definition of taking without permission, but ANY taking without permission.

No, that's obviously too broad.

for example, let's say I have a bike and you steal it. I see it at your house and take it back. By your definition, I stole the bike, because I took it without permission. Even though it was mine to begin with!

Or let's say I lie to you and trick you into giving me your money. now legally that would be fraud and I would not have the right to that money. But under your rule, if the government tried to get your money back for you it would be theft.

Basically, you're replacing right of ownership with pure possession, which is clearly morally wrong.

once you agree that pure possession isn't the rule of right, the question is what rules there are regarding possession. The vast majority of people accept taxation as a legitimate taking, since otherwise you get into classic externality/tragedy of the commons situations. If you don't like taxation, move to a country that doesn't have it.

No, you assumed that "permission" meant "permission from current holder". Your entire argument follows that, and it's wrong as a result.

Permission, from the owner. So, every example fails. If I steal your bike, and you take it back, you had permission to do so. If you defraud me, and the government recovers my money on my behalf, it had my permission to do so.

Taxation is not 'taking', but 'the cost of society'. That's why adjusting the cost is okay, but not if your stated purpose is to give someone a free ride on the back of another.

And, your last statement is foolish - there are no countries without taxation. It's the cost of civilization, after all.

I think the point is for the sake of argument. If something is wrong, does the government sanctioning it make it okay? Does that mean it's no longer up for discussion? (Is abortion okay, only because it's legal?)

Specifically, if regular old theft is wrong, but the government does it, does that make it okay? Personally, I don't see the two acts as similar, but either way I don't think it's a matter solely of its lawfulness making it okay.

If something is wrong, does the government sanctioning it make it okay?

My point is that technically taxation is not theft because the definition of the word theft is ILLEGAL taking.

I understand your point. My point was that Dwiv's point in bringing it up was to discuss whether one form of taking was right or wrong (regardless of its legality), when the other form was universally seen as wrong.

I know what Dwiv's point is, and it's wrong.

Dwiv is saying that taxation is theft. But legally, taxation is not theft. And the point of saying that taxation is not legally theft is to point out that which takings are wrong and which are not is a moral judgment on which there is no bright line, but only legally agreed-upon limitations. So calling taxation theft simply because it's a nonconsensual taking lumps a lot of other things in with theft that everyone would agree are not theft.

In other words, "theft" is just a legal concept. the parameters of what is and is not theft are entirely outlined by societal agreement. I can say that it's theft for you to steal a look at me. But my saying that does not have any real meaning, because no one would agree with it.

I don't understand this.

If a business is not a specific form of corporation that files independent paperwork, the income derived by that business is declared as part of one or more persons 1040 forms. As such, anything that costs an individual that owns one of those businesses is the same as costing the business.

If I own a store with proceeds of $300,000, and you tax individuals that make over $250,000, then you're taxing my business higher on, at a bare minimum, the $50,000 difference (probably higher, since I surely pay myself a salary which would add as well). In addition, there are AMT calculations to consider, loss of existing exemptions, etc. The total cost is still being debated, but if some suggest that a business in the $500,000 range could see a need to cut personnel costs to offset the tax burden. That means a tax hike will likely cost people their jobs (strangely, the owner never takes much of a salary cut....)

Okay, I get that. Mostly. Thanks.

If this is as severe a tax burden as some suggest, Obama would be thrown out of office in four years.

it's not and he won't

He'll never get the whole plan through unchanged. What makes it through will be different in some ways.

And, yes, he'll get tossed out in four years, but for other reasons. I don't think the economy, no matter who is in charge, will be back where it needs to be before it is a talking point for 2012. And, that means the elected president will get saddled with something not of his making, something he can't fix, that will determine his electability. Sad.

but if some suggest that a business in the $500,000 range could see a need to cut personnel costs to offset the tax burden.

just a note... if they can cut personnel without damage to the business, then capitalism indicates they should already have done so.

Shh! That's bad for jobs! :)

That seems like the classical slippery slope fallacy. According to his website and other independant websites, Obama plans to let the 2001/2003 Bush tax cuts phase out. People affected by this would be those filing jointly, making more than $250,000 a year, and those filing as individuals, making $200,000. So, if you are a filing taxes an individual, and pay your business taxes on your personal 1040, than you would see a tax increase.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/election_issues_matrix.cfm
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Factsheet_Tax_Plan_FINAL.pdf

The person was arguing that Obama had first said you had to be making over $250K to see a tax increase, and later lowered this number several times. She claimed the number was now $120K where you'd see an increase.

what he has consistently said, including in his infomercial last week, is that if you make under 250K, your taxes won't go up, and if you make under 200K, they will go down.

that said, neither his plan nor mccain's will happen unless passed by congress. who do you think has the better chance?

The Democrat's.

as posted in the washington post:

http://arizona.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/08/24/tax_chart_2.gif

I found this:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?DocID=1976

i take it parentheses mean negative.

Yes. The numbers are the change in tax dollars paid and parentheses are lower taxes.

i notice this table is for married couples filing jointly, as well.

Yes. And there's a column for corporate taxation.

The only changes in that number that I heard directly from Obama was from 250K to 200K BUT the statements were different.

From: If you make under 250K, your taxes won't go up.

To: If you make under 200K, you might get a tax break.

The politician (not Obama) who -said- Obama said 120K was also following the format of the second sentence not the first one.

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30	31

Obama's tax plan

Page Summary

Active Entries

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags