Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you call public libraries, universities, police stations, fire departments, interstates, and the military "socialist" than yes, if that is what you're driving at. However, that is much different than the spread-the-wealth variety of true socialism.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel or envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
-Winston Churchill
then please explain the differences between a socialist environment how the taxes of Obamas plan and a socialist economy are different?
On that chart that I linked, look at the far right column. Notice that by year, Obama's top bracket proposed tax rate - 39% - (which people are calling socialism - and is not on this chart) is less than that of earlier presidents, including both democrats and republicans, stretching back for decades. We didn't call any of them socialist.
This all boils dow to an unfortunate phrase taken out of context - to the maximum. He was referring to the tax rate - something many presidents have tweaked, and to much higher rates than he plans to.
He hasn't proposed any new programs intended to "share the wealth", taxwise. He is just doing what many presidents have, and it hasn't even happened yet. Just because he wants to doesn't mean it will pass all necessary referendums, and it could remain at 35% where Bush set it (which is also not reflected on this chart).
Major mountain from a molehill.
Edit to credit ultimate source:
Source: Joint Committee on Taxation, Overview of Present Law and Economic Analysis Relating to Marginal Tax Rates and the President’s Individual Income Tax Rate Proposals (JCX-6-01), March 6, 2001.
Geuro, i asked you to draw a difference in Obamas taxation and a typical socialist tax plan. You did not do this, i expected it to be hard to do, because there is not alot of differences
heres the breakdown:
For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:
- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.
- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.
- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).
- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.
- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.
- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.
- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.
Here’s the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer — a federal check — from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern’s 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama’s genius is to call it a tax cut……
……..The political left defends "refundability" on grounds that these payments help to offset the payroll tax. And that was at least plausible when the only major refundable credit was the earned-income tax credit. Taken together, however, these tax credit payments would exceed payroll levies for most low-income workers.
The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.
The total annual expenditures on refundable “tax credits” would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as “tax credits,” the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.Because Obama’s tax credits are phased out as incomes rise, they impose a huge “marginal” tax rate increase on low-income workers. The marginal tax rate refers to the rate on the next dollar of income earned. the marginal rate for millions of low- and middle-income workers would spike as they earn more income.Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory. The tax credits are sold in the name of “making work pay,” but in practice they can be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you’re a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year
my sources:
Obama/Biden website
The Tax Foundation
TPC
Guero, my question was not cite me some websites to waiste my timew with, but to draw an educated difference between Obamas tax plan and a normal socialist tax plan. You do realise that almost all socialist govornments have universal health care. And the quality of all of them suck. You still have not answered my question.
I did. I think I went to lengths - lengths that weren't even deserved (and provided facts backed up by government charts), given the ridiculous nature of the charge.
There is nothing I can say that will convince you that he is not socialist. You won't even look at a chart to show you why the "socialist" charge is unfounded. He will be a socialist to you no matter what I say...
... so, you have fun in the moonwalk bubble house thingy.
Problem is - you haven't provided me with a definition of a "typical socialist tax plan". Is it SEVENTY percent for the top bracket, like under Nixon? Remember - he was republican, and his upper bracket tax was nearly double Obama's. Was he socialist when his rate was almost double Obama's proposed rate? Answer, don't dodge. Show me your idea of a "non-socialist tax plan".
Where is the precedent?
You show me how Obama returning the top bracket to 39% = "typical socialist tax plan".
You're the one making this nebulous socialist claim. YOU prove it. Facts, tax charts, etc.
I am illustrating that Nixon and Reagan charged MORE than Obama for upper bracket federal taxes, so, if you're going to call Obama a socialist, then so are the republican "socialists" named Reagan and Nixon.
Last edited by Guero; 11-09-2008 at 03:48 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
