ceebeegee | Busted!

Doesn't change the fact that Obama's comment to "Joe the Plumber," that he intends to "spread the wealth around," was very revealing of Obama's true ideals. And it's very frightening, given a House of Representatives that is already inclined to tax us to death.

I can't vote for Robin Hood. We pay far too much already.

Well, I'm mot wealthy so I don't have to worry about it :)

That phrase is pretty vague--it could mean anything. Public schooling is spreading the wealth around, as is progressive taxation, as is any kind of socialized medicine. Trickle-down economics is also predicated on the diffusion of wealth. Heck, corporate welfare is spreading around the wealth, in more ways than one!

As little as I like paying taxes, I think we're all on this planet to help each other out. Maybe he meant non-monetary wealth :)

We're far from wealthy, too, but as a two-income family we get slaughtered on April 15th. Marriage penalty, thank you very much.

Obama used the phrase in an answer about taxes, so there's nothing vague about it: he means to redistribute wealth. His tax plan is clear on this. You can't give a "tax cut" to someone who does not pay taxes. Some 33% of all tax returns, per IRS figures, show a zero tax liability after deductions and credits. Nothing to cut. Obama's plan involves refundable tax credits, which are pure and simple a transfer of money from one person to another.

That's mandatory charity upon pain of imprisonment.

Now, I'm all for being charitable, and you know that's not just talk -- both

hollywd and I give both cash and time to causes we choose. But that last word is the key. I will choose when, how, and to what extent I give away that which I have earned. It's not the government's money.

Actually, Sami and I knew all about the marriage penalty when we got slammed a few years back. We ended up having to make a payment plan with the IRS and it took us most of the year to pay down what the government thought we owed them.
The irony is when Sam and I got married we thought we'd get a break on taxes. LOL. Isn't that fucked? It's like a tax on committed monogamy.

Anyways, you can spin Obama's tax ideas many ways. And some times it sounds a bit like socialism. But if the last 8 years has shown us what happens when you give the capitalists the keys to the kingdom, then I'm all for some socialist reform. It's all gone one way for too long. The natural balance requires some yang to all this yin.
My two cents anyways.

Oh, and I totally forgot the point as to why I was originally responding...
Clara, as a representative of the Kinky Bastard ASSociation (sic), I have to appeal to you not to use the tantalizing word "fetishize" and then link me to the a story about a plumber. :-(
Is juss nawt rite..

He fetishized Sarah Palin in the same way (without checking first), if that's any consolation.

I am still, personally, fetishizing Sarah Palin in torrid ways that I will NOT get into on LJ....

...but that doesn't mean she gets my vote, John.

There's a tax advantage to marriage if there's only one wage-earner, a far more common arrangement when the laws were written.

So, you and I will vote for different candidates. Not a surprise. I firmly believe a tax hike is coming my way no matter who wins -- the Pelosi/Rangel House will shove one down McCain's throat just as surely as an earlier one did to Bush 41 -- but I can't endorse Obama's stated plan with my vote.

It's not just my wallet I'm thinking of, either. Raising taxes during an economic downturn is poison for the economy. One of the great mistakes made in the early days of the Great Depression. It would be tragic to make the same mistake now.

It's funny you should mention that, because even though I only make a tiny bit of money doing theatre, because we are married and filing together and I work in NYC and live in NJ, we almost pay out more than I make. Financially I'm not certain if that's the marriage penalty...I'm still new to this whole "married thing" maybe I'll have our crap figured out by the time we have kids...Our tax guy told me I should get a job in NJ or not work to save us money. (!!) That's just crazy, and a solid bummer for someone who makes so little, like 95% of all actors.

Yeah, since we were married in October...the tax part of it ended up sucking for us, too.

Lest I forget the cruelest part of the marriage penalty for us: we were married on November 3rd, but the IRS considers that being married for the entire tax year, even though we couldn't enjoy any of the legal benefits of marriage for 5/6 of the year.

Moral of the story: get married in January. The weather may be lousy, but at least then you get your money's worth.

We were married in November too. Same sad story.

Moral of the story: get married in January.

And have a baby in December.

Ah, clever plan indeed!

See, I followed proper WASP protocol and saved my parents all that money! As did Benjamin and Tesse...we'll make WASPs of you yet!

Me too! Though I don't remember if they had income tax yet when I was born. :)

Seth and I got married in November as well (and we did the payment plan thing with the IRS also) but we are having a baby in November so I guess we win on that one.

I think my biggest problem with imposing a tax hike based on an income level is that based on where you live, the $ you earn can go really far or not far at all. Every family that makes $250,000 a year is not rich by any means. In the NYC area, although that sum is certainly not going to leave you starving, it absolutely does not go as far as it would in Boise or even DC. In the NYC area, you may not be able to afford the mortgage on a small house making that much money while in other places, you could have your McMansion pick. I understand that many of us "choose" to live in more expensive areas, but our choices do help contribute to the GNP. So, what I wish for is a way to tax based more upon standard of living and geography than upon a given amount of money earned per year.

Edited 2008-10-17 18:22 (UTC)

Excellent point on the definition of wealthy. My family in MN has no concept of east coast salaries. To them, we're rich (not that we divulge actual numbers, but my mother knows the ballpark figure). Her amazement is considerably tempered when I explain what houses sell for out here.

Interesting, the idea of adjusting tax brackets based on local cost of living, but isn't the tax code complicated enough already?

I'll take a flat tax. Take gross income, subtract a significant exemption (maybe $30-40K?), multiply by some percentage (.17?) and there's your bill. No deductions, no credits, no social engineering through the tax code. Simple.

Busted!

no subject

no subject

no subject

VIVA LA REVOLUTION!!!

FETISHIZE

Re: FETISHIZE

Re: FETISHIZE

Re: VIVA LA REVOLUTION!!!

Re: VIVA LA REVOLUTION!!!

Re: VIVA LA REVOLUTION!!!

Re: VIVA LA REVOLUTION!!!

Re: VIVA LA REVOLUTION!!!

Re: VIVA LA REVOLUTION!!!

Re: VIVA LA REVOLUTION!!!

Re: VIVA LA REVOLUTION!!!

Re: VIVA LA REVOLUTION!!!

no subject

no subject