low_delta | Obama's tax plan

You're viewing

low_delta's journal
Create a Dreamwidth Account Learn More

Reload page in style: site light

Obama said that taxes would go up for any small businesses earing more than $250,000 a year. Someone said that number has been going down. Is that true? They said the latest number is $120K.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

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.