Why Obama's tax plan is Socialist

[Episcopus]

So, by your own definition, you're a socialist. Just so we know where you're coming from.

Socialism, in and of itself, is not necessarily bad. I am not a fan of having my disposable income decreased because the oil companies feel like jacking prices on a whim. There are certain vital commodities, e.g. utilities that are necessary for life, which probably should be nationalized or heavily regulated so that everyone can afford to live.

I believe in the United States way of life, which is to say a mixed economy.

 

[Episcopus]

Did H.W. have a Nazi tutor?

He was a "family values" Republican, so his biggest and most influential tutors were his parents, right?

 

[CarmelHP]

He was a "family values" Republican, so his biggest and most influential tutors were his parents, right?

So then, if Obama has socialist parent AND a sought out a socialist tutor to mentor him then you agree he's a socialist? Right? Q.E.D.

 

[Episcopus]

So then, if Obama has socialist parent AND a sought out a socialist tutor to mentor him then you agree he's a socialist? Right? Q.E.D.

Instead of trying this guilt-by-association fallacy, why don't you tell me which of his proposals are giving you fits? Wouldn't that make for a far more productive discussion than accusing him of socialism and then defending that assertion by accusing him of socialism?

Which of Obama's proposals are the most concerning or most socialist, in your eyes? Why?

 

[Hoosier8]

Socialism, in and of itself, is not necessarily bad. I am not a fan of having my disposable income decreased because the oil companies feel like jacking prices on a whim. There are certain vital commodities, e.g. utilities that are necessary for life, which probably should be nationalized or heavily regulated so that everyone can afford to live.

I believe in the United States way of life, which is to say a mixed economy.

Jacking prices on a whim? Ever hear of speculation. How about the prices below 2 bucks now? Did they drop it on a whim? Would you have supported a bailout when the price of oil was $10 a barrel? Do you know that the Profit Margin of "Big Oil" is only 9%, much lower than many other businesses. Any lower and it would make sense for "Big Oil" to invest in something else. Since oil is a huge market, the Profit Margin dollars are used to dupe the masses into a frenzy for votes but the actual business of it is ignored.

Socialism is a philosophy of equal outcome. Good people with good intentions can lead the country down the path of stifling self righteousness. Socialism in Obama's case also creates a new dependent class. One of the things Socialism also does is stifle expansion and creativity in the market. Becoming another European country is not my cup of tea, but we are heading there.

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
------Winston Churchill

 

[Episcopus]

Jacking prices on a whim? Ever hear of speculation. How about the prices below 2 bucks now? Did they drop it on a whim? Would you have supported a bailout when the price of oil was $10 a barrel? Do you know that the Profit Margin of "Big Oil" is only 9%, much lower than many other businesses. Any lower and it would make sense for "Big Oil" to invest in something else. Since oil is a huge market, the Profit Margin dollars are used to dupe the masses into a frenzy for votes but the actual business of it is ignored.

Socialism is a philosophy of equal outcome. Good people with good intentions can lead the country down the path of stifling self righteousness. Socialism in Obama's case also creates a new dependent class. One of the things Socialism also does is stifle expansion and creativity in the market. Becoming another European country is not my cup of tea, but we are heading there.

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
------Winston Churchill

So which of Obama's policies are so socialist that they should concern me. The World Socialist Party denies that Obama is anything resembling a socialist, and vehemently so. Is Obama a socialist? | wspus.org

This is an editorial answering the same question. It is an interesting read. I know it was published in Salon, which is somewhat liberal, but the author was a founder of the New American Foundation, which is non-partisan New America Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is Barack Obama a socialist? | Salon

 

[Hoosier8]

So which of Obama's policies are so socialist that they should concern me. The World Socialist Party denies that Obama is anything resembling a socialist, and vehemently so. Is Obama a socialist? | wspus.org

This is an editorial answering the same question. It is an interesting read. I know it was published in Salon, which is somewhat liberal, but the author was a founder of the New American Foundation, which is non-partisan New America Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is Barack Obama a socialist? | Salon

From the Salon article,

"But while this is true it may not matter, if McCain's last-minute clarion call is really a racial "dog whistle." The McCain campaign may appear to be debating public philosophy, when in fact it is making a disguised appeal to white racism. If that is the case, then "redistributionist" and "socialist" may be intended to be understood by white swing voters as code words that function the way that "welfare queen" did for the Reagan campaign. A "socialist" or "redistributionist" is a politician who taxes white people like Joe the Plumber and gives money to ... you know who."

Of course, by using the race card as the Salon editorial does, it conveniently defines and dismisses the argument. Salon goes on and on about Obama's medical plan and dismisses the charge of re-distribution with the race card.

While WSPUS complains constantly in their missive that there can be no equality or justice in Capitalism, they simply hate capitalism and anyone playing in the sandbox is guilty. We are not talking about taxing to pay for infrastructure or national defense, so I will be clear this time. Confiscating from the wealthy and blatantly advertising they will give it directly to those not paying taxes, is socialist, plain and simple. Prove it is not. A rose by any other name.

The Communist party supports Obama while claiming, without explanation, that he is not a left candidate. Funny that he is rated as one of the most liberal, read that left, senators in Congress. Maybe just not left enough for them, yet. Their endorsement, couched in The Third Way speak is disingenuous, but their endorsement is not.

CPUSA Online - Editorial: Eye on the Prize

Maybe you should be worried about totalitarianism since he has threatened to bankrupt the coal industry with new laws and has a very anti gun ownership voting record.

 

[CarmelHP]

So which of Obama's policies are so socialist that they should concern me.

Since you've announced that you're OK with seizing oil companies, I can't see how anything Obama proposes short of making a mirror copy in the U.S. of Hugo Chavez' Venezuela would be so socialist that they concern you.

 

[Episcopus]

Since you've announced that you're OK with seizing oil companies, I can't see how anything Obama proposes short of making a mirror copy in the U.S. of Hugo Chavez' Venezuela would be so socialist that they concern you.

I wouldn't favor seizing oil companies, but I would prefer if they were regulated like other utilities. Hell, even cable TV is heavily regulated in a way meant to stabilize prices. I said that I don't think that nationalizing something so vital as utilities, which I view oil as, is necessarily a bad idea. Let me repeat though, that I would not favor that approach over other approaches short of seizure. Especially because I don't think seizure of an industry is Constitutionally kosher.

You may not have noticed through your apoplectic Obama-rage, but I am actually trying to have a discussion here. I am being honest and genuine. Maybe you could cut the rhetoric and try the same. First, try answering which of Obama's proposals you oppose because they are socialist. How are they socialist?

 

[Episcopus]

From the Salon article,

"But while this is true it may not matter, if McCain's last-minute clarion call is really a racial "dog whistle." The McCain campaign may appear to be debating public philosophy, when in fact it is making a disguised appeal to white racism. If that is the case, then "redistributionist" and "socialist" may be intended to be understood by white swing voters as code words that function the way that "welfare queen" did for the Reagan campaign. A "socialist" or "redistributionist" is a politician who taxes white people like Joe the Plumber and gives money to ... you know who."

Of course, by using the race card as the Salon editorial does, it conveniently defines and dismisses the argument. Salon goes on and on about Obama's medical plan and dismisses the charge of re-distribution with the race card.

While WSPUS complains constantly in their missive that there can be no equality or justice in Capitalism, they simply hate capitalism and anyone playing in the sandbox is guilty. We are not talking about taxing to pay for infrastructure or national defense, so I will be clear this time. Confiscating from the wealthy and blatantly advertising they will give it directly to those not paying taxes, is socialist, plain and simple. Prove it is not. A rose by any other name.

The Communist party supports Obama while claiming, without explanation, that he is not a left candidate. Funny that he is rated as one of the most liberal, read that left, senators in Congress. Maybe just not left enough for them, yet. Their endorsement, couched in The Third Way speak is disingenuous, but their endorsement is not.

CPUSA Online - Editorial: Eye on the Prize

Maybe you should be worried about totalitarianism since he has threatened to bankrupt the coal industry with new laws and has a very anti gun ownership voting record.

Obama's proposal, as I understand it, is to renew the Bush tax cuts for all but the top 2 brackets. He will end the cuts for the highest two brackets, resulting in a top marginal tax rate of 39.6 percent, or exactly what it as at the beginning of 2001. Am I wrong on this?

Both Senator McCain and Senator Obama would extend most provisions of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts (EGTRRA and JGTRRA), which are scheduled to expire after 2010. Under current law, the 10 percent income tax bracket will disappear in 2011 and the 25, 28, 33, and 35 percent brackets will increase to 28, 31, 36, and 39.6 percent, respectively. Senator McCain would extend the statutory rate schedule established by EGTRRA and JGTRRA. Senator Obama would extend the 10, 15, 25, and 28 percent tax rates but restore the 36 and 39.6 percent rates imposed on the highest income taxpayers.

The Impact of the Presidential Candidates' Tax Proposals on Effective Marginal Tax Rates

If distribution is socialist, so is McCain.

The two candidates' plans would have sharply different distributional effects. Senator McCain's tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes, almost all of whom would receive large tax cuts that would, on average, raise their after-tax incomes by more than twice the average for all households. Many fewer households at the bottom of the income distribution would get tax cuts and those whose taxes fall would, on average, see their after-tax income rise much less

A Preliminary Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans (Full Report)

How is one socialist but not the other?

As I said in another thread, I am not an economist. I don't know if he has a good plan. I know he has a plan that would seem to benefit me, and most people in this country. If you disagree with his tax plan, go ahead and disagree with it. I am not here to convince anyone at this point. It is way too late in the game to change most people's minds. However, I absolutely fail to see how it is socialist, or if it is socialist, how McCain and every other President and Presidential candidate ever were not also socialist.

 

[Episcopus]

Maybe you should be worried about totalitarianism since he has threatened to bankrupt the coal industry with new laws and has a very anti gun ownership voting record.

Totalitarianism is a concern, especially with majorities in both Houses of Congress.

Obama didn't say he would bankrupt the coal industry, he said it could bankrupt a company to build a new coal-fired power plant. Power companies build power plants, not the coal industry. Also, McCain supports a cap-and-trade system like Obama was talking about. Let's keep that discussion in that thread though, so things are easier to follow.

Obama's gun rights record is alarming. Frightening even. I hope that the combination of being voted out of office after the last AWB and the decision in Heller keep the Congress sane. Even with my concern over his views on gun ownership, I can have no part of putting an anti-science, anti-intelligence creationist (Sarah Palin) anywhere near the White House.

 

[Hoosier8]

Obama's proposal, as I understand it, is to renew the Bush tax cuts for all but the top 2 brackets. He will end the cuts for the highest two brackets, resulting in a top marginal tax rate of 39.6 percent, or exactly what it as at the beginning of 2001. Am I wrong on this?

You are right. The question is, what happens to it? The top bracket tax in the 60's was 91% and dropped to 25% in the Reagan years, which many believe built the foundation for the economic boom to follow. Increasing any taxes in an economic downturn is a mistake and even Obama has uttered words to that effect.

The two candidates' plans would have sharply different distributional effects. Senator McCain's tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes, almost all of whom would receive large tax cuts that would, on average, raise their after-tax incomes by more than twice the average for all households. Many fewer households at the bottom of the income distribution would get tax cuts and those whose taxes fall would, on average, see their after-tax income rise much less

This is a red herring. If you gave an across the board, let's say, 3% tax cut to all tax payers, the above would be true. Those paying much higher amounts would get more in dollars back because they pay more in but it would still only be 3%. Those paying lower amounts would get less dollars but still 3% back. Those paying nothing still pay nothing. What the writer is equating to redistributing taxes in this case is money that is not the governments, but yours. So what is fair, an across the board tax cut giving you back your money or moving income from one set of taxpayers to another set of taxpayers and non-taxpayers because you think that is the fair thing to do? Who decides what is fair? Who decides you should not be able to keep the money you earn but that it shall go to those that did not earn it? I always ask if you think rich people just sit on their money in a room? This is a dynamic system.

Obama's plan, by his own platform, Increases taxes on the wealthy and gives it directly to the middle class and disproportionately to those not paying taxes (look up his "Making Work Pay", a nice platitude). For instance, I will get back 1/3 of 1 percent of my taxable income back under Obama. The percentage for a non-taxpayer is infinity. This is called re-distribution. From my calculations, the increase in taxes on the wealthy will only cover the reduction in taxes for the middle class and the tax credits for the non-taxpayers and it may not be enough. This re-distribution of wealth is socialism.

Besides that, all other tax revenues will have to go towards all of the new spending programs, such as his National Security Force, or the 50 or so expansions of existing programs he mentions in his platform (some are probably repeats if you have ever tried to read it). This will have to come from raising business taxes. The proposed rise in business taxes will in no way be able to cover the new spending. Business passes on increases in cost to who? You guessed it, us. So in effect, we pay for the new business taxes also in increased product prices and lost jobs. This coming at exactly the wrong time. At least Clinton increased taxes on an upswing in the economy. Government spending is the issue and instead of doing the hard thing, curtailing spending, congress borrows and taxes and we suffer.

 

[Episcopus]

You are right. The question is, what happens to it? The top bracket tax in the 60's was 91% and dropped to 25% in the Reagan years, which many believe built the foundation for the economic boom to follow. Increasing any taxes in an economic downturn is a mistake and even Obama has uttered words to that effect.

The lowest top marginal tax rate during Reagan's years was 28%, implemented for 1988. HW Bush carried that rate for 2 years, then increased it to 31%. Interestingly, Reagan had a 33% tax bracket during the years that his top rate was 28% (footnote 8 of following link) Reagan taxed at 50% for 5 years. Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)

There is a lot of stuff in the other section. I will check all that out tomorrow, but first, not even McCain thinks Obama is a socialist. Obama Not A Socialist, McCain Admits (VIDEO)

Regarding the Making Work Pay proposal:

As a result, a number of analysts say, it is a stretch to say Obama's plan smacks of socialism. Instead, Obama's plan is much like the earned-income tax credit supported by presidents of both parties, and it somewhat resembles the negative income tax championed by conservative economist Milton Friedman as far back as 1962.

DispatchPolitics : Obama's tax plan socialist? No, but ... Columbus Dispatch Politics
It seems that one would have to be working and making an income to get this Making Work Pay money. It is meant to be a reimbursement for social security and state taxes, which the workers who qualify for this credit would pay, even if they are not paying federal income taxes.

p.s. digging into all of this has been very interesting and enlightening. Good discussion, Hoosier8

 

[Hoosier8]

I agree, I have enjoyed this also.

25-28% whatever it takes.

If you are like one of my friends who finds me using the word Socialism is like speaking a four letter word, let's just say Obama is using a backdoor method to steepen the progressive taxation already in place. The result being moving money from one class to another. Where does it stop?

It is my opinion that a truly fair system would use sales tax on new products only with the exception of medicine and food. That way if you were rich and wanted to buy all new, expensive stuff, you pay the tax. If you are poor and want to buy used goods, you pay no tax. There would be people like me that would do both. This gives the citizenry choices.

I am also opposed to property tax. I have had people from other countries laugh when talking about Americans being free. When you pay your house off, you have to rent it from the government or fear confiscation or sale. There are people in Indy who have lost their houses after living in them for 40 years because their neighborhoods have increased in value, along with the taxes, outstripping their ability to pay on fixed incomes. That is just plain wrong.

Our tax regulations are up to 9 million words. Something should be done to simplify the system which would reduce government cost and eliminate all of these loopholes everyone talks about. You will not find one IRS employee that understands the whole thing.

 

[Episcopus]

If you are like one of my friends who finds me using the word Socialism is like speaking a four letter word, let's just say Obama is using a backdoor method to steepen the progressive taxation already in place.

No, I don't think it is an awful four-letter-word type of insult. I am just not convinced that it is actually socialism, and I am interested in calling things what they are. Or, if it is actually socialism, it isn't a lie, but it is dishonest to get up in arms about Obama's "socialist tendencies" when every other President has done exactly the same thing. The only real difference is that he is making it flow down rather than up. If he is elected tomorrow, we will find out, good or bad, what his policies mean in real life.

I am also opposed to property tax.

I am with you 100% on that. Up here, people bought lakefront property in the 40's, 50's and 60's for 10s of thousands of dollars. Those same pieces of property are now being taxed on an assessed value of nearly or over a million dollars, depending on the piece. The people who bought them so long ago are retirement age and struggling to keep the homes. It is absolutely ridiculous. I would like to see yearly property tax abolished. If that isn't feasible and there must be a property tax, I would like it to be some up-front portion of the value of the land, like sales tax, or I would like the assessed value capped at the value at time of purchase, but that would be my last choice. Property tax is a ridiculous idea.