As a guest, Michael wrote
Spreading the wealth around. Socialist? Communist? American? Idealist? Unreasonable? Reasonable? Out of context?
Many individuals who do not support Barack Obama for one reason or another often call him a "socialist." They may do this directly by using the word itself, or indirectly, by claiming, in an inflammatory fashion, that he wants to "spread the wealth around." That implies the government is taking money that rightfully belongs to one person, and distributing it to somebody else– by means of government benefits and the like. (All taxes do this by nature, that's what a tax is.) But is this socialist? Socialism is defined as "an economic system in which the basic means of production are primarily owned and controlled collectively, usually by government." Is that what Barack Obama is proposing? Barack Obama supports taxing those with higher incomes at a higher percentage than those with lower incomes. That's called "progressive taxation." Is progressive taxation socialist? Not by a long shot. In the Tax Act of 1862, Abraham Lincoln, approved progressive taxation. Was President Lincoln a socialist? In fact, recently, in an interview on Meet the Press, Republican presidential candidate John McCain said "there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more in taxes when you reach a certain level of comfort." That's progressive taxation, does that make John McCain a socialist? The fact that people spew this propaganda isn't surprising. It's one of the many scare tactics candidates and pundits are using this election. Words such as "dangerous," "terrorist", and "unstable" have been used throughout the campaign to blind voters from the real issues. So while some may like to ramble on about Joe the plumber, and spreading the wealth; others think it's important to talk about the facts. So the next time you hear somebody talking about spreading the wealth, or socialism in regards to the presidential campaign, ask them if they actually know that that means. Ask them if they're simply regurgitating rhetoric.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
yes it is socialist...or communist! those are exactly when the rich are taxed and the money is given to the poor so that there is no more social ineqaulity!
Bar Stool Economics
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until on day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
Raising taxes for the rich and lowering taxes for the poor is called a redistribution of wealth, which is one of the key factors that make up the basis of Socalism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#Socialism_in_the_21st_century)
"All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly,"
Universal health care is also a socialist policy, Obama supports both of these policies...Not to call Obama a Socialist, that is completely exagerated by the common pissed off redneck conservative. However there is a little radical leftist socialism in Obama, and to not admit that makes you look like another blind narrow minded Obama drone that consumes the majority of most Americans today.
thats not communist at all. communism is when people are forced to receive the same income no matter what their profession is. Someone who works at Wal Mart would make just as much as someone who works as a dentist. That is not what Obama is trying to do, and I'm pretty sure that someone who makes over $300,000 a year can afford a little tiny tax increase. If you think about it, it actually creates more equality.
ALL taxes are a matter of "redistributing the wealth". That is what taxes are. The government takes your money and "redistributes" it where it sees fit.
Post a Comment