Obamanomics Explained

[spek1098]

Taxes should be and can be a simple thing. I would say the reasons for the complication and the paying different percentages of income in taxes are far more political than socioeconomic.

Laser, I see little fairness or ethics in somehow saying income should go from zero to 200% of the average. I also question the model than working Americans make a negative income, even if they are in debt. The only people I can think of are business owners operating at a loss. I also question the number of Americans working for less than minimum wage and the like, particuarly saying the make approximately $1,000 a year. Doctors and Lawyers making at least $250,000 a year...

Also, "billionaire" is a measure of wealth, not income.

The atmosphere in America is not the most friendly place on earth for taxes. There are many places, in the Caribbean for example, that welcome the wealthy as tax havens.

First of all I like the idea of consumptive taxes. 20% sales tax, sure, bring it on. You are only taxed on what you BUY/SPEND. It gets rid of all the BS complications of the tax system. but it will NEVER be this way, the government doesn't want it because it's too easy to hide the money.



2nd I'm taking an ethics/morality class AND a tax class right now.
Americans have only had income tax since 1913. So its a relatively new concept. And tax on the wealthyest americans used to be 91%!!!!!!!!!!!!! Our current tax system is actually set up to REDUCE the amount that the wealthy pay TRUE. As they used to pay the majority of their money to the government.


yes, 7% of working people take a loss as a business owner, you are correct.


The ethics is very clear. In the minds of the VAST MAJORITY of those who are considered the greatest moral thinkers of all time, income should be equally spread as wide and as fairly as possible. In a corner of the ethical world there are "libertarians" who make a strong case that MORALLY we should only expect others not to interfear with us.

The Caribean is a TAX HAVEN, meaning that they are great places to HIDE your money, not MAKE your money. America makes wealthy people richer and richer than any other place in the world. That's why they would never leave.

The bottom line is this: America is set up to benifit the very wealthy. There income is growing by leaps and bounds while everyone esles is flatlining and shrinking. The tax system is set up to somewhat balance what is "fair" and "ethical". While it may not be "fair" to pay more tax, it is "ethical" to use that money to benifit the less advantaged.

+1x10^12

 

[LASERBLUE135]

Diva is a libertarian. That's not a bad thing at all. It's just a different moral/ethical code to live by. Some people believe that the libertarian party will replace the republican party in the near future.

BUT please consider the role that pure LUCK has in society. Consider this...

The national high school graduation rate is about 70%. For white students the rate was 78%, while it was 56% for African-American students and 54% for Latino students.

Now imagine if you were born Latino. By pure luck what are your chances of reaching above the lower 1/2 of society in income, prosperity, etc.

Take into consideration that, like your ethnicity, work ethic, ability, physicality, etc are all pretty much determined by just dumb luck. (read - how those traits are influenced and created)

 

[YSOSLO]

Well said Kyle. Poorly spelled, my man, but well said...lol [this comment was based on the comments about 3 posts up...lol] James the "loophole" of not taxing used goods keeps the government from double-dipping the way they do now. Making a consumer pay sales tax on a traded-in vehicle that a previous owner just paid taxes on it when it was purchased new is double-dipping, I don't care how anyone tries to wrap it up and put a bow on it. If the rich decide they'd rather drive around in a used vehicle, then no big deal...they have that option right now. If they want to buy a used house, drive a used boat, buy used clothing and barter for their services as a way to save money then GREAT!....they can live just like the poor does now.

And the business owners operating at a 7% loss are operating that way on paper, yet somehow they're still making their house payment, filling their mouths and their gas tanks and living their lives. Operating at a TRUE 7% loss means you're out of business. Then you're right back in the job market with the rest of us. Welcome aboard.

And the tariffs would be a necessary evil. Personally I believe that we've been sold a bill of goods with regard to the "necessity" of keeping open trade going with other countries, and this is one of the parts of Obama's platform that I really liked...we're keeping trade open with China, but the amount of money we're spending on their goods is so much higher than what they're spending on ours that we're literally giving our money to them by the billions. This year, so far the U.S. has spent 167.6732 BILLION dollars more on Chinese goods than they've spent on ours, and the total amount in 2007 was 256.2067 Billion dollars more spent by the U.S. Obama talked about working to try to get the trade figures more balanced, so the U.S. markets are able to benefit from trade with China and other countries in a more fair manner. This includes things like requiring Asian countries to allow more U.S. cars into their country and strict oversight of the relationship of the dollar to the other country's currency, to ensure (as we suspect China does) governments aren't manipulating the value of their currency in a way that prices U.S. goods far above the overseas markets.

 

[dmention7]

Good discussion so far. I'm in over my head as far as the technical points go, but thanks everyone for keeping it civil!

 

[ZoomZoom Diva]

A flat tax is a proportional tax, not a regressive tax. By it's very definition it cannot be regressive because it charges everyone the same percentage of income in taxes. A regressive tax by definition would charge the poorest people a higher percentage of income in taxes. Also, the purpose of the flat tax is not so people can evade their responsibility for their government, but to make it so nobody evades their responsibility for government.

A person's responsibilities to society are a completely different topic, as society and government are separate entities. This is where I think a Libertarian point of view differs from some of the others presented here.

While I agree the United States economy has been and continues to be an engine for expansion, I would not say that means our tax system is ideal for that purpose, or that changing the tax system dramatically would not be good for America. I personally think it has immense room to be better both for America and the economy.

I agree that luck plays some role in a person's station in life. However, I believe the choices one makes play a far greater role in the vast majority of people. Just because only a slim majority of blacks and latinos graduate from high school does not mean that as a specific individual that you cannot graduate from high school, and work beyond to advance your education.

I disagree that work ethic is a trait determined by dumb luck. It is a trait one can choose to develop or choose otherwise. Many other attributes may make things easier or more difficult, but the impact they have on a person is largely based on the person's choices.

However, that in no way impacts the design of a tax system, and the requirements that it treat everyone equally regardless of personal choices and demographics.

Pete, I agree there are issues with other nations engaging in free trade, and those should be addressed. However, I see that as a need to require the other nations to remove their tariffs rather than as a need to impose tariffs.