« Better Than A Raise | Main | A Conversation With a Disgruntled Reader »
What’s the Definition of “Fair” and “Rich?”
By JLP | August 20, 2008
I read For Obama, Taxes Are About Fairness in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal. The opinion piece by William McGurn mentioned Saturday’s debate that was moderated by Rick Warren. I did not watch the debates as I was on a weekend getaway with my wife and did not dare suggest that we stay in our hotel room and watch a political debate.
Anyway, according to the opinion piece, one of the questions Warren asked both McCain and Obama was:
“OK. Taxes. Define rich. I mean give me a number. Is it $50,000, $100,000, $200,000? Everybody keeps talking about who we’re going to tax. How can you define that?”
According to McGurn, McCain struggled with this question at first but eventually said that someone who makes $5 million a year could be defined as rich.
McGurn then goes on to detail Obama’s response:
Mr. Obama, by contrast, started out much more directly, suggesting that if you make $150,000 or less you may be poor or middle class. A family with an income above $250,000, he went on to say, is “doing well.” And if you find yourself in that category, he’s going to target you for a tax hike — all in the name of creating “a sense of balance, and fairness in our tax code.”
In fact, the idea of fairness is at the heart of his whole economic argument. And he goes back to it in almost every public appearance.
He talks about it as a general theme: “It is time for folks like me who make more than $250,000 to pay our fair share.”
He invokes it as a solution for Social Security: “[W]e will save Social Security for future generations by asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share.”
I just have two questions: What is the definition of the “fair?” What is the definition of “rich?” How do we define “fair?” I was always taught that “fair” meant something like “equitable.” In my mind, “fair” means EVERYONE pays the same percentage (aka “flat tax”). The more money you make, the more you pay in taxes. That’s FAIR!
As far as “rich” goes, it shouldn’t matter. If we were under a FAIR tax system, then there would be no need to define the word “rich.”
As far as his Social Security statement goes: the wealthiest Americans are already paying MORE THAN their fair share because they will NEVER get back what they put into the system. Raising the cap will only make it more unfair.
What’s your definition of “fair?” What’s your definition of “rich?”
Topics: Question of the Day, Taxes |
August 20th, 2008 at 11:58 am
I don’t think this directly answers your question, but it’s strange to me that we always talk about taxes in these conversations as though the only way people make money is by earning W2 income. That’s the impression I got from the Saddleback forum — that McCain was saying a rich person had a salary of $5 million, and Obama was saying he’d raise taxes on someone with a salary of $250,000 or higher. That’s an incomplete picture, to say the least.
The people we usually think of as “rich” make money from a variety of sources, all of which is taxed at different rates and in different ways. Dividend tax, capital gains tax, estate tax, and so on, are not concerns for the vast majority of Americans, whose only income probably is the pay they take home from their job. How can you tax someone who makes millions off of investments, inheritances, trusts, and so forth, as someone who is living on a single, modest salary? It’s really not an apples and oranges comparison, the way it’s been framed here.
I suppose you could tax literally every kind of income at the same percentage. I wonder if that would work.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
I agree that this is exactly fair: “In my mind, “fair” means EVERYONE pays the same percentage (aka “flat tax”). The more money you make, the more you pay in taxes. That’s FAIR!”
I don’t believe in punishing the rich or the poor, because there is nothing fair about that.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
I think the use of the word “fair” in this context is nothing more than an indirect means of pandering for votes using the often invoked Robin Hood principal — steal from the rich and give to the poor.
As far as definitions go, I agree with you . . . fair means everyone carries a proportionately equal share of the load. The FairTax is the best was to accomplish this, though I’m not holding my breath.
On a side note, I recently saw an Obama TV add talking about punishing corporations who send jobs overseas. However, this is treating a symptom and not fixing the problem. The US has the 1st or 2nd highest business tax burden in the world, and people are wondering why US companies are sending jobs and in some cases moving the HQ outside the US.
Great post.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
So absurd…
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121659695380368965.html
That article states that the people who earn $250,000 or more (roughly top 5%) pay 60% of the tax share!!! I’d say they already pay their “fair” share. Talk about penalizing success!
How much more does Obama want them to pay???
I completely agree with the flat tax… makes for an even playing field… however then we’ll get into tax deductions… which will probably be based on “rich or poor”… The arguement over rich and poor will always continue.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
A “rich” person is one that has so much money that he doesn’t really care if the amount of taxes he pays is “fair.” (That’s a lot of money.)
“Fair” is completely subjective. To a politician like Obama, it means finding the income-level sweet spot where his tax increases will buy him the most votes. It’s as simple as that.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Rich = top 25%
Middle Class = Middle 50%
Poor = Bottom 25%
You don’t need solid numbers like 250K. You set your personal exemption for income taxes at the 25% income mark, and have a flat rate after that.
Income gets taxed first, then Interest, Capital Gains, then Dividends. Income is taxed at the income tax rate, interest at 75% of the income tax rate and Capital Gains and Dividends at 50% of your income tax rate.
It’s simple, and it rewards saving and investing. Problems solved, now lets move on to world hunger.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Traciatim said:
“It’s simple, and it rewards saving and investing. Problems solved, now lets move on to world hunger.”
Yeah, that’s tomorrow’s topic!
August 20th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Fair does not mean equal. I’ll use an example from a mom-friend of mine. She has two daughters, ages 2 and 4. She does not spend equal amounts of time assisting/cleaning up/whatever with each one because the 2 year old is simply not able to do as much for herself as the 4 year old. In fact, the 4 year old helps mom more, and helps the 2 year old - simply because she is able to. We would probably consider this to be fair even though it really isn’t equal.
With taxes, the burden to pay a certain percentage of one’s income is much higher for those with less money. Even 10% is a lot when you’re trying to decide if you should pay the electric bill or buy groceries (or even if you’re not rich by McCain and Obama’s standards and you’re just saving for a house in a nicer neighborhood). The thing is, it’s up to all of us to support each other because we’re all in this together. Those who can contribute more should - it’s not a direct investment where you get out what you put in. That’s not equal, but it’s fair.
I do agree that different types of income really muddy the waters here. Richer folks (I would argue that the line may even be closer to $100,000) do tend to have other sources of income and their overall tax level is probably effectively reduced. Lower middle and lower class folks do not have this option and are much more stuck with the tax situation.
August 20th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Well what is boils down to is that if we are going to keep funding expensive wars, a huge military, social security and medicare we need more taxes coming in.
Where do you think people want that new revenue to come from? The middle class or the top 5%? Of course most people feel that the top 5% is able to give more and that is the “fair” solution. Whether that is “fair” or not is up to debate, but I don’t think most people are outraged by the concept.
I would be interested to see a historical look at the tax rate of the top 5-10% of Americans over the last 100 years. I would imagine they are paying a lower rate then in the past, but that’s just a guess.
August 20th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
I agree with what you said.
I also have a problem with Obama’s implication that the rich should pay their “fair share.” Why is their “fair share” a higher percentage than the rest of the people. Democrats would answer, “because he is rich, and that is unfair!” But is it really? Maybe he is rich because he worked harder, and is smarter than you are? I recognize that this is not always the case, and some people become rich by sheer chance. However, it is a gross oversimplification to assume that all rich people became rich by eating poor children and tricking the elderly, and therefore deserve to be punished by taxing them higher. That seems to be the implication, that all rich people are only rich because they are evil.
Obama’s attitude that government should say, “Hey, you’re rich, so it’s time you give me some of that” is ridiculous. Maybe we should encourage people to better themselves, and strive to reach that point on their own merits, rather than coercively taking what other people have worked hard to achieve, kicking them down in the process.
August 20th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Yemen, I’m not sure, but I think these two posts over at Visualizing Economics can help shed light on tax rates by quintile and the top tax rate. Plus it’s a great blog.
http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/2008/03/23/federal-income-tax-rates-by-household-income/
http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/2008/07/13/income-gap-and-marginal-tax-rate-1917-2006/
August 20th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
An interesting point, Heather!
I would also like to add that fair is much more subjective than many people like to think. We’d like to think and act as though there is some objective way for things to be “fair,” but it really isn’t like that. Same goes for “rich.” There is no way to define either of these words objectively (which is the point of the post).
I know plenty of people who make close to $1 million a year but still bemoan their poverty. And know others who make $45,000 a year and consider themselves rich.
August 20th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Why are we always defining “rich” and “poor” in terms of annual income? How about looking at it from an assets and liabilities standpoint?
August 20th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Um-here’s an idea. Want to know what Obama means by “fair?” How about using google and looking up his tax plan?
Because Obama’s plan doesn’t raise your taxes unless you make about 250k. The social security component of the tax raise would have a donut configuration, stopping about where it does now, and then picking up again at 250k. I suspect that many of these comments come from folks whose taxes won’t go up under Obama.
We just barely hit the 250k mark in taxable income this year. I suppose our taxes would go up under Obama, but my husband and I are still happily voting for him. We manage our money well enough that an extra 2k in taxes is somewhat meaningless. That’s the thing about being pretty well off.
And, I like my government to not run a deficit. Just like my household. So, I’m happy to pay taxes for “socialized” roads, military forces, emergency management, cancer research, etc. Competently run, of course, and preferably not staffed by Arabian horse lawyers and graduates of Regent University Law School. I’d rather my taxes go to that than, say, a trillion dollar war.
August 20th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Obama’s tax plan can be summed up in one word… Socialism. The act of governing that punishes the most creative and productive members of society. The ones that make this country the great country that it is, and gives them incentive to be poor so the govt can then bring them completely in to control. Dave Ramsey did a rant on this called Bass Fishing and Butt Scratching. A very interesting piece to listen to, you can find it on his website in audio form OR.. google the title and read the transcript. its been reposted all over the place. Everyone that is going to vote NEEDS to either hear it or read it before voting.
August 20th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
@TJ
The reason we are talking about levels of income is because the topic is INCOME tax.
Would you suggest that we tax people based on their net worth? Because that is a terrible idea that would punish people for saving. Sweden had a “wealth tax”, that was recently abolished because it hurt them so badly.
August 20th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
There’s a cap on social security tax at $102,000/year so the rich aren’t overpaying taxes.
Medicare tax is taxed on all earnings.
August 20th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
I agree with Jill. If you really want to put your country first, Fairness has to be combine with one’s ability to pay after meeting needs and goals we deem desirable(retirement savings, college education for our family, maybe setting up a business,etc.). In the Fifties, the tax rate was as high as 90% yet many of the rich saw this as a badge of honor and the sacrifice they made for living in the greatest country in the world- produce good roads, affordable educational opportunies for the children and veterans, and gap between rich and poor was much smaller. Of course, the world has changed a lot since the fifties but today’s rich seem much more non committed to some of the country’s needs-hopefully we can agree on a middle ground where we do not punish the rich but still create a ladder of opportunities where anyone can move up which has made our country great.
August 20th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
# Traciatim Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
“It’s simple, and it rewards saving and investing.”
No, it rewards living off of investment proceeds. 401ks and Roth IRAs reward saving and investing.
When will I get rewarded for working my arse off with lower income taxes?
August 20th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Ken,
You are correct. However, under Obama’s tax scheme (a word taken from Al Gore), the “rich” will pay Social Security taxes above what they are now.
The entitlements in this country have gotten outrageous.
August 20th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
“In my mind, “fair” means EVERYONE pays the same percentage (aka “flat tax”). The more money you make, the more you pay in taxes. That’s FAIR!”
Agreed!!
August 20th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
I don’t like the idea of basing it on income levels because the cost of living varies so greatly depending on where you live. Someone making $75,000 in rural Montana might be pretty wealthy compared with someone making $250,000 in Boston. Yet the person in Boston has to pay all the taxes.
Also, I’m curious where Jill who earns $250K per year is getting her numbers. She mentions that under Obama her taxes will increase only $2,000. But I’ve seen that Obama’s plan is bumping different tax brackets between 11 and 15 percent. I’ll have to leave it to JLP to figure out actual estimates, but it seems if you estimated 25% of your income is not taxable, then she’d have to pay an additional 11% on the remaining $187,500 taxable income or $22,500. Am I way off here?
Here’s an article that talks about how these rates are derived from Obama’s plans.
http://www.american.com/archive/2008/august-08-08/the-folly-of-obama2019s-tax-plan
August 20th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
@Ken,
Yes, but that limit on Social Security, as is, can only be described as “fair.” It is “fair” to have a cap on what you pay because there is a cap on benefits! If someone pays a hundred thousand dollars per year into Social Security, is it fair that they will only get a fraction of a percent of that back in return? I think not.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
@18 Anonymous
I highly doubt that a significant portion of these people proudly paid 90 percent on the next dollar they earned. That is ridiculous.
You assume that the rich would not use their wealth to better society unless it was coercively taken from them by the government, and yet you claim that people back then were proud to contribute to the IRS. Which is it? Do we have to take money from them, or all they a bunch of proud philanthropists? I would lean more towards the latter, and I would also bet that most of them can spend their money more effectively than the government. After all, in order to become rich, they are more than likely good at investing and managing their assets. US citizens are incredibly generous and donate far more money per capita than any other country in the world.
Furthermore, aside from the fact that most “rich” people willingly donate their money directly, they also indirectly make everyone richer by creating jobs and innovating. That is a good thing, lets encourage more of it rather than treating them like they’ve done something wrong.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
My definition of “rich” is having two great kids, grown, off on their own and doing well; two wonderful grandchildren; a Mom 93 and still living independently in her own home and managing her finances quite well; a loving and stable marriage (going on 40 years this year); enough earned and invested to retire with the same income as while working; finally, a working remote control.
I guess my taxes will go up, as both my wife and I are “rich”.
Yours,
Bozo
August 21st, 2008 at 3:47 am
Ah, what a dilemma: Vote for the tax-and-spend Democrats, who’ll use the money to feed and educate other Americans; or vote for the borrow-from-future-generations-and-spend Republicans, whole pour the lot down the Military-Industrial Complex sinkhole. Hmm, what to do, what to do…
Just FYI for any of you who think President Bush’s famous tax cuts have really lowered taxes: they haven’t. Tax cuts only lower taxes as long as they are acompanied by spending cuts, which these were not. The USA has gone on a credit binge, and the time to pay the piper is coming sooner or later. For the sakes of all your children and grandchildren, you should vote to get shut of this debt ASAP. (The Democrats have had a better record of doing this recently, as this little graphic illustrates.)
August 21st, 2008 at 8:09 am
A fair tax would be a flat one where everyone pays the same rate. Unfortunately this doesn’t always work and the people who are better off making more money can afford to be taxed a little more than the person making minimum wage. I guess the real problem with this type of scenario is that people who are in the upper end of the income spectrum ensure that their money is protected from taxes wherever possible. So by simply increasing the tax rate on the higher income families it just ensures that these people will find better ways to shelter their money and there will be no net gain.
August 21st, 2008 at 8:12 am
@ Heather
“The thing is, it’s up to all of us to support each other because we’re all in this together. Those who can contribute more should - it’s not a direct investment where you get out what you put in. That’s not equal, but it’s fair.”
This defines Socialism, not fair.
@ Yemen
“Well what is boils down to is that if we are going to keep funding expensive wars, a huge military, social security and medicare we need more taxes coming in.”
Historically increased tax revenues occur with tax cuts (imagine that!). Of course–as someone else pointed out above–this needs to be accompanied with spending cuts.
@ rachel
“(The Democrats have had a better record of doing this recently, as this little graphic illustrates.)”
I don’t think that is accurate based on what has been proposed recently by the Democrat controlled Congress. Also, a big part of Clinton’s success was due to Bush’s tax cuts. And don’t forget that the current administration had to deal with the aftermath of Clinton’s tax hikes.
Personally, as fair as a flat tax sounds, someone already pointed out above that a 10% tax for someone making $20,000 per year is more of a burden than it is for someone making $250,000. Since it is a given that those who make more spend more, the Fair Tax is the only real solution.
August 21st, 2008 at 8:19 am
There is no good definition for “fair” or “rich”. People who go around talking about what is not fair have an exaggerated view of their self-importance.
If your “wants” are both greater than your “needs” and your “income”, you are going to walk around saying that you are not “rich” and that the “rich” are not paying their “fair” share.
If your “wants” match your “needs”, you will be happy if you are able to support them with your “income”. If your “income” is greater than that, you are “rich”
August 21st, 2008 at 8:31 am
@David B
I hope your not saying that everyone that pays into the system should get all their money back. You didn’t really just say that did you?
August 21st, 2008 at 8:36 am
@Ken
Not ALL of their money. I’m not against paying taxes entirely, I just believe it should be less progressive than it currently is. That would be more “fair.”
August 21st, 2008 at 9:50 am
“Fair” as a flat percentage is not fair in my opinion for one reason:
Money has a real purpose.
If you make $10,000 a year, and pay, say 15%, you are left with $8,500. $50,000? $42,500. $5,000,000? $4,250,000.
If you make $10,000 a year and you buy a gallon of milk, how much does it cost, $4.00? If you make $50,000? $4.00. If you make $5,000,000? $4.00. Is that a fair percentage?
Money is not an abstract concept. It has a value only in its trade for goods and services. And goods and services do not work as a percentage. You don’t go to a dealership and buy a car for %10 of your yearly income. Why should taxes magically act that way?
The concept of a flat tax, as I understand it, treats money as if it’s fair to take the same percentage from all people, while still allowing money to have an absolute value of its own. This is why I can’t support a flat tax, personally.
August 21st, 2008 at 10:25 am
@Heather who said
“I’ll use an example from a mom-friend of mine. She has two daughters, ages 2 and 4. She does not spend equal amounts of time assisting/cleaning up/whatever with each one because the 2 year old is simply not able to do as much for herself as the 4 year old. In fact, the 4 year old helps mom more, and helps the 2 year old - simply because she is able to. We would probably consider this to be fair even though it really isn’t equal.”
This example, has no meaning. Children’s minds and motor skills aren’t fully developed. The rules of equality don’t apply because the kids aren’t equal.
Here’s an example where the kids are equal. There are two children, Johnny and Susy. Johnny works hard and does all his schoolwork. Susy passes notes during class and doesn’t really understand much. At the end of the year the teacher takes Johnny’s A and gives half to Susy so they both get C’s. Because that’s fair right? Johnny has more so he should share with those less fortunate even though he worked hard to get that A. That’s communism, in case you hadn’t realized.
I guess what you’re proposing makes sense if you believe that the poor are just too stupid to help themselves. How patronizing of you! Adults have free will over what they do with their own lives. They can improve themselves and make more money or they can work at McDonald’s. They can save or they can spend. It’s their choice.
August 21st, 2008 at 11:11 am
All politics and by implication all taxing implies taking something from someone who has produced something of value and giving it to someone who hasn’t. I am not going to attempt to define fair (how about a head tax where everybody pays a fixed amount?) and that is always up to debate.
One issue however is that the tax code is tremendously complex. This means that many people get paid to sit there and redistribute money according to the tax code. This is inefficient and a waste. What if the resources spent on figuring out the tax code could be spent on something else, something “fair” instead?
Hence, I propose a “simple tax”. I don’t care if it’s fair or not. But I do think the idea of being able to fill out your tax return on a post card is a very good one!
August 21st, 2008 at 12:17 pm
wow…lots of emotion building up on both sides. i think there is a distinction between what is ideologically “fair” (as it relates to the relative terms rich and poor) vs. pragmatically “fair”.
ideologically “fair”: JLP appears to be correct. flat tax would fit this definition. the “fair tax” as proposed by Huckabee and others might also suffice since the it is proportional to the amount you consume (as opposed to income you make). problem: we live in a society where not every has the same resources, starting point, access to education/opportunities/etc. and thus truly applying this in the real world would make the current rich, likely richer, and the current poor, likely poorer - which, in the long run, hurts everyone (rich and poor alike - can you imagine more crime, more tax sheltering, etc. etc.?)
pragmatically “fair”: this seems what Obama is trying to accomplish with his proposals (although i question whether they actually work). these are likely based on a set of socially-agreeable needs that the vast majority are in accord on meeting such as 1) balancing the deficit, 2) paying for “essential” entitlements (eg. SS, medicare, welfare, universal healthcare(???). etc.), among many others. the problem is, given our current situation, we cannot take it from the “poor” since, by definition, they are barely making a living. Therefore, there is no one else to take it from except the “rich”. I won’t go into the debate on where to draw that “rich/poor” line, but the way i see it, we are talking about dealing with realities and cannot afford to live in the ideological world alone when it comes to defining “fair”.
Bottom Line: Life is not fair. This world is not fair. But for those of us who can afford it, it’s on us to buckle down and take it on the chin.
August 21st, 2008 at 12:20 pm
I think a flat tax is as close to “fair” as humans can get, but how do we define “taxable income”?
If Joe is paid $45K cash plus $10K tax-exempt fringes, and Bob is paid $50K with no fringes, who should pay more tax, Joe or Bob? In this case, what is fair?
August 21st, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Is Social Security fair? What would Obama say to a single low-wage worker who dies at 62 and has paid into Social Security for decades and gotten back none of the dollars he paid in?
August 21st, 2008 at 12:59 pm
It is my understanding that Kennedy dropped the highest tax rate from 90% to 70. Obviously, there were tax deductions to lower one’s rate. Today, we have lower rates with more tax deductions available. all I am saying is we(the country) are,in a bit of a situation where All sides will have to sacrifice to some degree and to stonewall it is not right either. To me, Obama’s plan seems fairer. A poor economy also hurts the rich . Personally, I am retire and will probably pay more taxes when I will sell stocks or withdraw from my retirement savings plans. I am willing to do that so my children will not have
a higher burden later on.
August 21st, 2008 at 2:37 pm
@Dreamer
What you discuss is exactly what I oppose. You want to use taxes to bring everyone down to the same level. You imply that food, shelter, clothing should be the same percentage of everyone’s expenditures. The wealthy have more expendable income, and the poor have to spend a larger portion of their money on essentials. That is not only obvious, but it is most certainly fair. The reason is because we provide the same opportunities (generally speaking) for lower income people to become wealthy themselves. This country has more class mobility than any country, ever.
People do not all live at the same level, because not all people have equal talents and work ethics. Some are smarter and/or have worked harder than others. Is it fair to reward the lazy and stupid with the fruits of the smart and hard working?
August 21st, 2008 at 3:35 pm
I spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on my eduation, so did my wife, yet Obama wants to take away the rewards we have rightly reaped and give them to someone else. Well then why don’t they also take on the hundred grand in debt I have as well. Isn’t that only “fair”?
August 21st, 2008 at 5:21 pm
David B:
People do not all live at the same level, because not all people have equal talents and work ethics. Some are smarter and/or have worked harder than others. Is it fair to reward the lazy and stupid with the fruits of the smart and hard working?
People also do not all live at the same level because some are luckier than others. People often are smart and work hard yet have little to show for their brains and toil.
Is it fair to reward the lazy lucky with the fruits of the hardworking unlucky?
August 21st, 2008 at 5:45 pm
J said:
I spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on my eduation, so did my wife, yet Obama wants to take away the rewards we have rightly reaped and give them to someone else. Well then why don’t they also take on the hundred grand in debt I have as well. Isn’t that only “fair”?
Did you spend hundreds of dollars of YOUR money or of taxpayer money on your education? If so, did you earn the money? (Pretty hard to earn hundreds of thousands of dollars by the time you finish college.)
August 21st, 2008 at 5:50 pm
@terry
I acknowledged that some people become rich by chance in my post above (#10). No system is perfect, but one that punishes excellence is definitely worse than one that rewards it.
I am not aware of an economic system that could successfully reward the right people and punish the bad. Democrats usually want to address this by giving the government enough power to micromanage every aspect of our lives, and determine it for us. I disagree.
August 21st, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Terry,
Most of it was private loans for advanced degrees, so yeah it is my money. A small portion is lower interest loans. Absolutely none of it was given to me by the government free and clear. So yeah I am spending my money that I earned. Trust me I am paying way more than my fair share back to the government.
August 21st, 2008 at 9:10 pm
First off this is from Heather:
“The thing is, it’s up to all of us to support each other because we’re all in this together. Those who can contribute more should - it’s not a direct investment where you get out what you put in. That’s not equal, but it’s fair.”
No, we’re not all this together and those who make more shouldn’t be forced to give more. If they want to because they wish to then by all means otherwise hands off. Here’s the truth. I don’t care about you, you don’t care about some guy 3000 miles away. It might be callous, it might be cold but it’s the real truth of it. A very wise person once said “the only person that cares about you and your money is YOU.” If I ever get to the point in my career where I’m considered wealthy I will look back and utterly despise the socialist crap I see Obama pushing. I like his policies overall but his financial ideas scare the living hell out of me.
Regardless, I’m not rich, far from it actually. However I cannot stomach any one group, wealthy or not, getting targeted for Obama’s plan. It’s financial rape. Just because they earned more money, through work or circumstance, doesn’t entitle ANYONE to take that away from them on an uneven basis. To me that is not fair. Work harder, make more money and get kicked in the ass for it. That isn’t the American way. Flat tax everyone and there is no more debate. Everyone knows where they stand.
Regarding social security and insane debt this government needs a massive overhaul budgeting wise. We have stupid politicians spending insane amounts of money for wars, for stimulus packages and the like and they just keep spending. We’re paying the bills for their screw ups and now they want to take more. Time to treat these guys like children and say no folks. Time to say no.
/rant
August 21st, 2008 at 10:24 pm
I don’t know what is “fair” or “rich” but I do know that unless you live in California, $150,000 is rich. Good grief.
$5 mil McCain? $5 mil? Are you kidding me?
August 21st, 2008 at 10:40 pm
That’s the thing. $150k is or isn’t rich depending on where you live. Midwest or the south? OK you might be doing decently for yourself. The north east on the other hand that same $150k doesn’t go nearly as far. Two bedroom condos in my entire area star around 300k for something passable but not in the best of areas. Houses around here typically start around the 500k region.
August 21st, 2008 at 10:45 pm
No Debt Plan,
I don’t think McCain’s answer was any worse than Obama’s because it’s a stupid question to begin with. It’s impossible to define “rich.” The poorest people in the United States are richer than most of the people in third world countries.
August 22nd, 2008 at 2:18 am
As someone who has never earned more than $17K in a year, $150K sounds ridiculously rich to me.
August 22nd, 2008 at 1:31 pm
First, I’m disappointed to see that so many of you have the money = success mindset. I realize this is a financial blog, but life ain’t all about the money, people!
@Rick - I don’t think those who can contributing more equals socialism. I don’t believe that everything should be equally distributed.
@Slinky - I’m definitely not saying that any of us are too stupid to help ourselves. But I would definitely say that many of us, for a multitude of reasons, may not be standing on equal ground. I do think we have some responsibility, not to level the ground, but to help ensure a bare minimum.
@JC - I agree that we have to aim for a pragmatic fair. It’s hard to compromise our ideals for a realistic option.
@Rich - It will be a great world when people like you who don’t care about everybody else are willing to share their great wealth so that others don’t starve or go without an education. I totally agree that we have stupid politicians spending stupid amounts of money on stupid things.
August 22nd, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Actually, the part where McCain is described as “struggling” with the question is where he answered it. He said he doesn’t care. How rich a person is shouldn’t factor into how much he is taxed because when it does you’re leaning toward communism (or at least socialism) : To each according to his needs, from each according to his means.
What McCain said is, “I don’t care what level you choose, I just want everyone to have the same opportunity to become rich. I don’t want to penalize you for being wealthy.”
August 22nd, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Rich: has enough income from personal wealth that one does not have to work in order to maintain a decent, middle-class lifestyle (house, two cars, spouse, 2.5 kids, one or two annual vacations far from home).
If you can do all of the above without having a job or living off the dole, then you’re rich in my book.
August 22nd, 2008 at 4:14 pm
“rich” and “poor” are states of mind.. I see ALOT of people that make 3 or 4 times what i make, that are “BROKE” and living paycheck to paycheck. Where me… I not only can make my necessities but can have a few wants now and then and still hold back a good amount to save for a rainy day. This Class envy crap HAS to go. For those that say Rich people can afford to pay the higher taxes because they are so rich they dont care, completely miss the boat. a good share of this country’s wealthiest people started with nothing and climbed up the mountain. They busted thier ass, and watched thier money really carefully. So to say rich people dont care if they pay more because they can afford it.. thats not true.. Rich people really pay attention to where they money goes.. thats how they got to be rich people.
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Heather said:
First, I’m disappointed to see that so many of you have the money = success mindset. I realize this is a financial blog, but life ain’t all about the money, people!
This message permeates our society. I’m certainly infected with it; as a result I am consumed with self-loathing.
August 25th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Money may not be what life is all about, but *having* money sure makes it easier to do whatever it is that life *is* all about:-)
August 28th, 2008 at 8:39 am
What always gets left out of this debate is what we get out of our taxes. We tend to think of the rich as self-sufficient, and the poor as dependent. However, the rich actually benefit from the taxes proportionally to the benefits they reap. What do the rich get for their money? Stable markets in which to invest. An educated and productive labor pool. Stable government. Law enforcement. Research and development subsidies. An robust intellectual property system. A military to protect our interests abroad. Favorable trade treaties with other nations. And so on.