Scared of Obama and Clinton Tax Brackets!

[Tetris]

I'm pretty sure the Democratic position is that tax cuts for those above $200,000 should be repealed. So I wouldn't worry until your 2nd or 3rd promotion at BIGLAW. And even then I hardly think you'll be scraping by licking out used cans in a dumpster. 

Completely true Tetris, but the older I get, and the more bad decisions I avoid, I find myself just disagreeing with the principle of hugely disproportionate taxes for the people who have worked their asses off.  (and I'm not saying the current candidates' proposals are unfair)  I think this now, and I'm definitely not wealthy and probably never will be.

I can see where you're coming from, and there are definitely anecdotes to highlight this unfairness. Lazy poor people might game the system at the expense of someone who works hard. But that's not who I focus on.

What about the children? Is it fair that a child of a single, unemployed mother be denied food, health care, and a warm house? And its not like all poor people are lazy-- some of them were just born unlucky, into neglectful or abusive homes that they (for whatever reason) were unable to mature past, disabled, or intellectually "below average." Should these people-- the children and the disadvantaged-- be screwed over so that someone making $200,000 a year can buy a second car? To me the answer is obvious.

That said, I would agree that lower tax rates and less welfare programs would encourage people to work harder. But there would still be people who were left way behind though little or no fault of their own. And that is unjust.

[upwithmontana]

I'm pretty sure the Democratic position is that tax cuts for those above $200,000 should be repealed. So I wouldn't worry until your 2nd or 3rd promotion at BIGLAW. And even then I hardly think you'll be scraping by licking out used cans in a dumpster. 

Completely true Tetris, but the older I get, and the more bad decisions I avoid, I find myself just disagreeing with the principle of hugely disproportionate taxes for the people who have worked their asses off.  (and I'm not saying the current candidates' proposals are unfair)  I think this now, and I'm definitely not wealthy and probably never will be.

I can see where you're coming from, and there are definitely anecdotes to highlight this unfairness. Lazy poor people might game the system at the expense of someone who works hard. But that's not who I focus on.

What about the children? Is it fair that a child of a single, unemployed mother be denied food, health care, and a warm house? And its not like all poor people are lazy-- some of them were just born unlucky, into neglectful or abusive homes that they (for whatever reason) were unable to mature past, disabled, or intellectually "below average." Should these people-- the children and the disadvantaged-- be screwed over so that someone making $200,000 a year can buy a second car? To me the answer is obvious.

That said, I would agree that lower tax rates and less welfare programs would encourage people to work harder. But there would still be people who were left way behind though little or no fault of their own. And that is unjust.

And I see where you are coming from.  I don't think all poor people are lazy (I don't think my parents were lazy).  I'm not saying we should eliminate welfare or anything.  Like I said, I don't think restoring taxes to the 1999 structure would be a horrible thing, but if the trend is toward higher and higher taxes, I would have a problem with that redistribution system for the aforementioned reasons.

Just to point out the obvious, there will always be people left way behind due to no fault of their own, always.  I know, the trick is to minimize that number.  The long term solution would undoubtedly make people suffer in the short term.  I still think we can improve without raising taxes on the upper middle class to extreme levels.  Give some better incentives to get off of welfare.  As it sits, if I'm on welfare, and I want a raise, all I have to do is have another kid.  That's not just either. 

I think we almost agree.  I'm just saying I don't taxes to go WAY up (unless everything I buy is proportionately cheaper because of it).

EDIT:  just curious, did you happen to grow up in a "disadvantaged" community?  I did.  And I think that, more than anything, contributes to my attitude on this subject.  Anecdotal definitely.  Unrepresentative, probabaly.  But 26 years of seeing it is hard to reverse...

[LSATisEVIL]

Shrink the government, stop taking and spending my money on crap, stop inventing new rights that the government is responsible for providing, and stop comparing Obama to JFK.  JFK said "ask not what your country can do for you."  Obama's whole campaign can be summed up with "ask what your country can do for you that we you used to do for yourselves."

Can you back this up with any of Obama's policy proposals, or even with his rhetoric?  Actually, Obama is the first politician I've known in my lifetime to invoke ideals of shared sacrifice.  Do any Republicans do this?

[/quote]

Have you followed his campaign at all?  One of his key topics is "universal healthcare", which most definitely coincides with the quote above--"ask what your country can do for you that you used to do for yourselves."

The notion that everyone has the right to free healthcare is dangerous.  Remember that Socialism looks good on paper, but has no practical merit. 

[LSATisEVIL]

Shrink the government, stop taking and spending my money on crap, stop inventing new rights that the government is responsible for providing, and stop comparing Obama to JFK.  JFK said "ask not what your country can do for you."  Obama's whole campaign can be summed up with "ask what your country can do for you that we you used to do for yourselves."

Can you back this up with any of Obama's policy proposals, or even with his rhetoric?  Actually, Obama is the first politician I've known in my lifetime to invoke ideals of shared sacrifice.  Do any Republicans do this?

Have you followed his campaign at all?  One of his key topics is "universal healthcare", which most definitely coincides with the quote above--"ask what your country can do for you that you used to do for yourselves."

The notion that everyone has the right to free healthcare is dangerous.  Remember that Socialism looks good on paper, but has no practical merit. 

I know you're not suggesting that people used to diagnose and treat their own medical conditions, so how is health care something "people used to do for themselves"?

Our health care system is inefficient to the point of utter dysfunction (not to mention extravagantly costly to taxpayers), in large part because ideas like the "lazy poor" stereotype undermine efforts at reform.  A voluntary, health plan sponsored by the government and made available at prices affordable to low-income individuals could help to address these shortcomings.  Obama's proposal, unlike Hillary's, does not mandate the purchase of this plan, by the way (which I agree with politically, though research suggests, rather counterintuitively, that a mandate actually reduces the overall cost per participant).
[/quote]

Firstly, when I related "universal healthcare" to the quote offered in a previous post.  It wasn't to suggest that people used to diagnose and operate on themselves, but rather that people were responsible for acquiring their own healthcare, not having the government (aka taxpayers) provide it free of charge. "There's no such thing as a free lunch."

If you think that socialized healthcare is the answer then know this--For every surgery in Canada, five Canadians receive surgery in the U.S.  For every surgery performed in England, eight Brits receive surgery in the U.S.  Why?  Well, the "universal healthcare" regulates and saturates the market bottlenecking the medical community.  It has been said that if a Brit is diagnosed with cancer in England, it is already too late.  Rule of thumb--"Government is not the solution to the problem.  Government is the problem."

When dealing with the redistribution of wealth/welfare issue discussed previously, I abide by the ancient Chinese proverb--"Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day.  Teach a man to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime."

[Hannibal]

If you're worried about making ends meet on a BigLaw salary, you lack perspective.  Otherwise, no dispute here; I'm talking exclusively about the United States.

No, I am not worried about making ends meet on a BIGLAW salary.  That was the entire point of my post.  The issue is not "feeding my family" as Latrell Spreewell would say; the issue is the purpose and justification of our bracketed tax system.

If you're as smart as you come across (and that's a pretty impressive law school acceptance record, by the way), then you're being fairly disingenuous.  Do you really believe that all poor people are lazy, and that they're poor simply because they're lazy?  Do you really think taxation to support an agenda ratified (admittedly imperfectly) by our democratic process, when it falls outside the scope you personally favor, is morally equivalent to "stealing your leftover fish and chips from Applebees"?

The kinds of people you refer to do exist, but the fact is that they don't make up most or even many of the population who receive government benefits.  Many suffer from physical and/or mental handicaps that preclude them from participating fully in the job market.  Many people fall back on government assistance temporarily in the wake of an unforeseen setback (e.g., illness or loss of employment) before getting back on their feet.  We're not talking about a stable body of so-many-thousand "welfare queens" here.  Broadly stigmatizing recipients of government assistance as "lazy" may help you justify your preferences to yourself and others, but it doesn't necessarily reflect the situation on the ground.

And, on that note: do your views on social spending hinge at all on your characterization of the poor as lazy and therefore undeserving, or would your position follow from your discussion of "constitutionally mandated duties" below, even if *all* recipients were shown to be upstanding, productive members of society who just happened to fall on a spell of hard luck?

I really should take my acceptances off of my profile!  Everyone expects so much more from me.  Really, I'm just a regular old engineer/scientist/business owner.  I'm sure I'm not as smart as I come across if you are basing your opinion on my acceptances.

I do not think all poor people are lazy, and it has nothing to do with my argument.  I shouldn't have thrown it in because it seems to have obscured my point.  However, I would say that in general wealthy people who have earned their money as opposed to inheriting it have worked harder, smarter, and taken more risks over the course of their education and careers than the rest.  I wouldn't claim the poor deserve to be so because they are lazy.  I would claim that if I earn a large salary, I probably deserve it, and it is not the government's place to take more of it based on my success or others' needs.

My argument is based on a minimal government doing what the constitution demands.

I disagree, and this is a fundamental disagreement we'll never get around.  Broadly speaking, I simply don't believe the Constitution precludes taxation in the service of some of these things (agreed, however: punishment is out). 

Here are some facts that should not, but may nonetheless surprise you.  Like most on the economic left, I have no interest in "soaking" the rich.  Furthermore, I prefer a government small in size and limited in scope.  I have no interest in expanding government willy-nilly, or even in enlisting the government in solving social/economic problems, except where these problems are widely acknowledged in the public at large, attempts at non-governmental solutions have failed, and where significant empirical policy research exists and suggests that government spending is likely to be part of an efficacious solution.  And guess what: our economy has some serious problems.

Agree to completely disagree.

Can you back this up with any of Obama's policy proposals, or even with his rhetoric?  Actually, Obama is the first politician I've known in my lifetime to invoke ideals of shared sacrifice.  Do any Republicans do this?

Someone else already covered this.  Nearly every one of his specific proposals (which are sparse amongst all of the soaring rhetoric) follows this line of thinking.

[Majmun]

The issue is not "feeding my family" as Latrell Spreewell would say.

Which is funny because he is now basically bankrupt and his houses and boats are being repo'd.  Maybe he did need more than 7 million a year to feed his family.

[quincym]

See if you can spot the logical fallacy

If you're unlucky, you're poor.
If you're not lazy and not unlucky, you're rich.

All poor are lazy.

[quincym]

Bonus round!

All not lazy are rich.
All rich are not lazy.

[quincym]

Also I'd like to ask the term-dropper that mentioned the laffer curve to describe why he believes we're on the waning side of the curve and to honestly state he isn't now just googling up some articles to back up his preconceived notions about tax policy.

[und3r3stimat3d]

Also I'd like to ask the term-dropper that mentioned the laffer curve to describe why he believes we're on the waning side of the curve and to honestly state he isn't now just googling up some articles to back up his preconceived notions about tax policy.

it's hard to tell. but it does appear that bush's tax cuts increased revenue, indicating that we are on the "correct" side of the laffer curve. where bush went wrong was in spending (sspecially in iraq) not revenue.