How many Americans are hoping Obama will redistribute some of the wealth?

[a_unique_person]

Despite the interviews that have the interviewer seriously asking Obama if he is a follower of Karl Marx (something that would never happen in Australia or Europe, it's just accepted Social Democrat policy with Progressive Taxation), I'm wondering what percentage of Americans are hoping he will do some redistribution, even if they won't say so publicly.

[leftysergeant]

I just want him to stop the redistribution that started when we installed that jelly-brain from California in 1980.

Of course, re-instating the inheritance tax would be a good start. Without it, we would be on the fast track to feudal Europe.

[Meadmaker]

I just want him to pay the bills, and the only way to do that is to raise taxes, especially on the rich. This will result in the rich being not quite so rich. If that's redistributing wealth, then I am one of those Americans who hopes he does it.

Obama has been hurt a bit by his "spread the wealth around" comments because redistribution of wealth suggests, to many people, welfare. That's wildly unpopular. Obama hasn't done enough to counter that perception.

[T.A.M.]

Easy answer...

Take the number of people in the USA who make less than 250K per year. Then ask them how many of them would like to see no tax increase, or a tax cut.

You then have your answer, as that is the heart of Obama's plan.

I suspect, though McCain has made it into a dirty word, that the vast majority of American's would like to see "Wealth Redistribution" as defined by Obama's Tax Plan.

TAM

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I just want him to pay the bills, and the only way to do that is to raise taxes, especially on the rich. This will result in the rich being not quite so rich. If that's redistributing wealth, then I am one of those Americans who hopes he does it.

Obama has been hurt a bit by his "spread the wealth around" comments because redistribution of wealth suggests, to many people, welfare. That's wildly unpopular. Obama hasn't done enough to counter that perception.

dead on. Unfortunately, despite the rhetoric, The Obama campaign is coasting, hoping there is not enough time for it to gain any traction. I hope they are right.

TAM

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I just want him to pay the bills, and the only way to do that is to raise taxes, especially on the rich. This will result in the rich being not quite so rich. If that's redistributing wealth, then I am one of those Americans who hopes he does it.

Obama has been hurt a bit by his "spread the wealth around" comments because redistribution of wealth suggests, to many people, welfare. That's wildly unpopular. Obama hasn't done enough to counter that perception.

Right. The fact that Obama's plan does include a large component of increased welfare payouts should in your view be countered by the Obama campaign ....

Lying.

"Paying the bills" and "increasing welfare" are not synonomous.

[Cain]

Redistribution is inescapable in virtually any sort of tax system. Bush and idiotic Republican tax cuts largely redistribute the burden of current government spending onto future generations (so much for no taxation without representation).

Who says that however the market (with rules laid down by government) distributes income and wealth in a way we should accept without question? Redistribution is necessary to make sure people, particularly children, have access to primary goods; I mean, that's just necessary to maintain any semblance of meritocracy.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Hmm. Increasing welfare payouts..

Quote:

Obama proposes to grant a number of refundable tax credits to low- and middle-income workers. For example, he would give a $500 tax credit ($1,000 for a couple) for workers,

THIS IS NOT WELFARE. :|

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by mhaze

Right. The fact that Obama's plan does include a large component of increased welfare payouts should in your view be countered by the Obama campaign ....

Lying.

"Paying the bills" and "increasing welfare" are not synonomous.

Only one problem. That is incorrect, at least according to FactCheck.org

Quote:

A new McCain-Palin Web ad characterizes Obama's proposed refundable tax credits as "welfare." But McCain himself proposes refundable tax credits, too, as part of his health care plan, and calls them "reform."

[andyandy]

The entire debate over "redistribution" is almost incomprehensible to (I imagine) most Europeans. The idea that a party can stand up and actually say "we don't want to spread any of the wealth around", and for that to be popular is incredible. The very basic role of government should be provision of support to the most vulnerable in society, and for which that necessitates redistributing some of the wealth from those lucky enough to be the most prosperous in society. To turn the argument on its head, and present right wing rich man economics as "altruistic" is an impressive piece of spin but fundamentally disingenuous. McCain attempts to make the argument in two ways:
(1) "I'm not going to redistribute the wealth, I'm going to make sure everyone has the same opportunity to be rich"
(2) "any redistribution of wealth would harm the trickle-down benefits for the poor"

1 is almost embarrassing in its idealistic naivete, and I don't believe that McCain or anyone else in the Republican Party seriously thinks it is even remotely possible. 2 relies on the assumption that "trickle-down" benefits accrued would be superior to any redistribution benefits, which is somewhat dubious (and even suggested by the term "trickle-down"). 2 also actively seeks to increase social inequality as a means of tackling social problems. This perverse logic is followed even though social inequality in itself has long been pinpointed as a fundamental driver in social unrest/unhappiness/depression in society.

Everyone expects politicians to favour the rich, after all politicians themselves will either be rich or will become rich after cashing in on a previous political career. But to have politicians sticking up for the rich man at the expense of the poor man, and being cheered for it by those who could benefit the most, is a truly remarkable political feat. Only in America?

[Gnu World Order]

Can someone please explain to me the difference between a "refundable tax credit" and a "tax credit"?

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by Gnu World Order

Can someone please explain to me the difference between a "refundable tax credit" and a "tax credit"?

I'm not a tax expert, but I'm just guessing that a tax credit is a deduction you take off when you do your taxes, so you never send it in, whereas a refundable tax credit is one where they send you back some money you've already paid in taxes.

At least, that's how I'd interpret it.

BTW, welcome to the boards. You might be (or become) aware that there is a poster here by the name of "Gnu Ordure". You might be confused with him.

[GStan]

Cutting someone's tax liability to zero dollars is a tax cut.
Giving someone a refund check for having a negative tax liability is welfare.
You can characterize it as a tax cut, but its still welfare.

"Hey buddy, how much did you have to pay in taxes last year?"

"Nothing"

"Well, that's too much. Vote for me and I'll cut your taxes even lower"

"WTF?"

I agree that some form of welfare is necessary to maintain social stability. However, as intellectually dishonest as it may be on one side to use welfare as a scare word in a campaign, it is just as intellectually dishonest for the other side to claim that it is only a tax cut.

In answer to the OP, I do not hope for redistributed wealth, even though I would certainly qualify for some under Obama's tax plan.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally Posted by Tricky

I'm not a tax expert, but I'm just guessing that a tax credit is a deduction you take off when you do your taxes, so you never send it in, whereas a refundable tax credit is one where they send you back some money you've already paid in taxes.

At least, that's how I'd interpret it.

Could be, or it may be that a tax credit is something that reduces your tax bills whereas a refundable tax credit is effectively having a negative tax bill.

For example:

Income 100
Tax 30
Tax credits (10)
Balance to pay 20

Is a tax credit.

Income 20
Tax 0
Refundable credit (10)
Balance to receive (10)

Is a refundable credit?

[GStan]

Originally Posted by Tricky

I'm not a tax expert, but I'm just guessing that a tax credit is a deduction you take off when you do your taxes, so you never send it in, whereas a refundable tax credit is one where they send you back some money you've already paid in taxes.

At least, that's how I'd interpret it.

BTW, welcome to the boards. You might be (or become) aware that there is a poster here by the name of "Gnu Ordure". You might be confused with him.

I'm also not an expert, but I think the distinction is that a tax credit is something that can reduce the amount of taxes that you owe, but cannot reduce it below zero. A refundable tax credit can effectively reduce it to below zero. In effect, you can receive a refund check for more than the total amount that you paid in.

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by GStan

Cutting someone's tax liability to zero dollars is a tax cut.
Giving someone a refund check for having a negative tax liability is welfare.

No, it's not. FactCheck explains:

Quote:

Furthermore, the Journal's editorial misstated a key fact in its "welfare" argument. It said that anyone who doesn't pay federal income taxes is not a "taxpayer," which is simply incorrect. Here's what the editorial said:

Wall Street Journal editorial, Oct. 13: [Refundable credits] are an income transfer – a federal check – from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare." ... Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.

The fact is, a worker can be a "taxpayer" whether or not they owe any income tax. Just about every worker is subject to federal Social Security and Medicare taxes totaling 7.65 percent on every dollar of earnings, up to $102,000 per year. (For earnings over $102,000, only the 1.45 percent Medicare tax applies.) Low-income workers, and retired and jobless persons as well, also pay federal excise taxes whenever they buy gasoline or pay a telephone bill, for example. Obama and other Democrats argue that for low-income workers, refundable tax credits are not “welfare” but, in effect, a reduction in their overall federal tax burden, counting payroll taxes.

Congressional Budget Office figure show that even those in the lowest-earning fifth of households pay an effective federal tax rate, on average, of 4.3 percent of their income, despite benefiting from existing federal refundable tax credits to a major degree. This group had average income of $15,900 in 2005, the most recent year for which CBO has done the calculations. But despite receiving "a federal check" through the income tax system that boosted income by an average of 6.5 percent (this shows up as a negative tax rate in the CBO tables), they still paid an average of $600 in federal taxes. That's true even after subtracting the effects of refundable tax credit "welfare."

[ZenFountain]

That is exactly the difference GStan. For reference in 2004 the highest percentage of Americans ever reported zero tax liability, almost 1 in 3. I kinda understand the Republican grievance with Obama proposing new refundable tax credits that could be going to those that already pay no federal income taxes, but at the same time I cynically don't believe Obama is going to do much about middle class tax relief.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by ZenFountain

That is exactly the difference GStan. For reference in 2004 the highest percentage of Americans ever reported zero tax liability, almost 1 in 3. I kinda understand the Republican grievance with Obama proposing new refundable tax credits that could be going to those that already pay no federal income taxes, but at the same time I cynically don't believe Obama is going to do much about middle class tax relief.

It's crazy how these debates focus almost solely on federal income taxes -- the main progressive instrument against a system that has become more or less flat once all other taxes are taken into account. Also, whatever happened to Milton Friedman and the negative income tax (what a socialist!), or Ronald Reagan's love for the "earned income tax credit" (EITC)?

Jesus Christ, I get the sense from these Republican loons that they'd like to send an envelope to everyone in the lower-middle class containing a note. Open the note and it reads "**** YOU." (Those asterisks should be capitalized.)

[Malerin]

I posted on a similar thread about this. Normally, I would object to sending checks out to people, but the middle class has been stagnant for 30 years now and the top 1%'s share of the income has gone from 10% to 20%. These are disturbing trends, and a concentration of so much wealth in the hands of so few is not good for society.

[GStan]

Originally Posted by Cain

It's crazy how these debates focus almost solely on federal income taxes -- <snip>

Jesus Christ, I get the sense from these Republican loons that they'd like to send an envelope to everyone in the lower-middle class containing a note. Open the note and it reads "**** YOU." (Those asterisks should be capitalized.)

It all depends on your perspective and your own beliefs. I get the sense from some of these Democrat loons that they'd like to send an envelope to everyone in the upper class containing a bill. Open the bill and addition to the amount due to the politicians that promised your money to someone else, it also reads "**** YOU!" (Those asterisks should also be capitalized.)

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by mhaze

Right. The fact that Obama's plan does include a large component of increased welfare payouts

Do tell. What do you mean? Have I been duped again? What are you referring to by "increased welfare payouts"?

[ZenFountain]

Originally Posted by Cain

Jesus Christ, I get the sense from these Republican loons that they'd like to send an envelope to everyone in the lower-middle class containing a note. Open the note and it reads "**** YOU." (Those asterisks should be capitalized.)

If that was directed at me I wasn't implying that Obama's ideas are necessarily bad. Look at what Clinton did in 1993. The economy was floundering, the federal deficit was huge and he raised taxes. Republicans warned of an apocalypse if Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy and yet five years later, the economy was booming and the federal budget was balanced.

My point was there is a huge mental hurdle for Americans when it comes to taxation and how those taxes are spent. If 0.5% of federal spending went into wasteful social programs and 5% went to wasteful defense spending, to many people the 0.5% wasted on social programs is far more appalling because it's perceived as going to lazy bastards, where as the wasteful defense spending is never seen. Growing up in rural Nebraska I saw a lot of this where poor people on welfare, food stamps and Medicaid were regularly mocked, often by the very same people who were receiving massive agricultural subsidies when corn and soybean prices were in the tank.

If Obama actually does something about trimming wasteful spending, no matter how insignificant it would certainly help alive the acute misgivings Americans have about federal taxes also.

[Kestrel]

Originally Posted by andyandy

Everyone expects politicians to favour the rich, after all politicians themselves will either be rich or will become rich after cashing in on a previous political career. But to have politicians sticking up for the rich man at the expense of the poor man, and being cheered for it by those who could benefit the most, is a truly remarkable political feat. Only in America?

America has several well funded "think tanks" like the Heritage Society that are dedicated to reversing all the social changes of the 20th Century and making the world safe for an inherited aristocracy.

These propaganda mills have managed to reframe a lot of political debate. For example, the estate tax became the "death tax" and people were told it was destroying family farms and the middle class. This is pure fiction, but the lie was repeated often enough that many believed it was true.

[andyandy]

Originally Posted by Kestrel

America has several well funded "think tanks" like the Heritage Society that are dedicated to reversing all the social changes of the 20th Century and making the world safe for an inherited aristocracy.

These propaganda mills have managed to reframe a lot of political debate. For example, the estate tax became the "death tax" and people were told it was destroying family farms and the middle class. This is pure fiction, but the lie was repeated often enough that many believed it was true.

In the same way that taxes have become "job killing taxes"

there is an excellent article in today's financial Times about how "trickle down" economics has been largely a myth:

Quote:

In the closing stages of the US presidential campaign, John McCain has been pushing hard on the idea that Barack Obama would “spread the wealth around” – as the Democratic candidate this month reportedly told the voter who came to be known as Joe the Plumber. “That is what change means for Barack the Redistributor,” said Mr McCain on Monday. “It means taking your money and giving it to someone else.”

The Republican nominee’s sounding of the alarm resonates with portions of the US electorate, although it has probably come too late to be a game changer. But much larger sections of voters – those living in the bottom 80 per cent – have been experiencing a means of wealth redistribution in the past few years that has led many of them to different conclusions.

kind of redistribution is of a different complexion to the progressive taxation that Mr Obama supports and which Mr McCain apparently no longer does. It has come via the mechanism of the market and has shifted wealth in the opposite direction – from the middle classes to the wealthy. It long predates the collapse of the subprime mortgage market last year that lit the fuse for today’s global financial crisis.

Economists call it median wage stagnation. Others dub it the “silent recession”. Mr Obama, who has struggled since the start of his campaign to speak in an economic language that strikes a chord with blue-collar voters, recently put it this way: “We are now being battered by a very serious economic storm and for many Americans it has only deepened the quiet storms they have been struggling through for years.” The data are stark and go some way towards explaining why so many Americans felt so disaffected even during the most robust years of economic growth under the Bush administration. Between 2000 and 2006, the US economy expanded by 18 per cent, whereas real income for the median working household dropped by 1.1 per cent in real terms, or about $2,000 (£1,280, €1,600). Meanwhile, the top tenth saw an improvement of 32 per cent in their incomes, the top 1 per cent a rise of 203 per cent and the top 0.1 per cent a gain of 425 per cent.

Part of this was because the latest period of economic growth failed to create jobs at nearly the same rate as in previous business cycles and even led to a decline in the number of hours worked for most employees. Unusually for a time of expansion, the number of participants in the labour force also fell. But mostly it was because the fruits of economic growth and soaring productivity rates went to the highest income earners.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/62cfa31e-a...077b07658.html

taken from 1980, real incomes of the lowest fifth of the population have risen by 10%, for the third fifth (ie 40% to 60% of the population) they have risen by 14%, for the highest fifth they have risen by 50%, and for the top 5% they have risen 75%. And buried within this evidence of massive widening social inequality, we can see that in real terms the bottom fifth are barely better off than they were in 1989, and that the bottom 60% have seen a real wage decline in the last eight years. America is now as unequal as it was preceding the great Depression, with the top 1% taking home 24% of the share of total income.

Whichever way you analyse the figures, "trickle down" economics has turned out to be a convenient ruse for the rich to get richer, whilst pretending that they are actually acting with altruistic good intent.

[gtc]

Originally Posted by andyandy

The entire debate over "redistribution" is almost incomprehensible to (I imagine) most Europeans. The idea that a party can stand up and actually say "we don't want to spread any of the wealth around", and for that to be popular is incredible. The very basic role of government should be provision of support to the most vulnerable in society, and for which that necessitates redistributing some of the wealth from those lucky enough to be the most prosperous in society.

I think that if you don't percieve the prosperous as being merely lucky but as either having earnt or deserved their prosperity then you are much less likely to support higher tax/higher welfare policies.

[geni]

Everyone outside the farming sector is hopeing. Everyone in the farming sector pretty much knows.

People will use various words for their redistribution of course.

[BenBurch]

You know there is a not very nice word for a nationalist government that gives welfare mostly to major corporations and which effectively makes them part of the government.

[gtc]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

You know there is a not very nice word for a nationalist government that gives welfare mostly to major corporations and which effectively makes them part of the government.

If you want to call the US Government fascist, then you need to prove the three bolded claims you made. However, even then, I don't think you have the correct definition of the word.

[andyandy]

Originally Posted by gtc

I think that if you don't percieve the prosperous as being merely lucky but as either having earnt or deserved their prosperity then you are much less likely to support higher tax/higher welfare policies.

I was hoping someone would pick up that point, I left it in deliberately to be provocative.

everyone who is rich is lucky to be rich regardless of how much " effort" or "hard work" went into earning that wealth. That's because for every hard working rich person there will be someone equally hard-working who by dint of circumstances (whether education, skills, parental upbringing, bad luck, disability, carer responsibilities etc etc) who will be poor. So "deserved" is a very poor dividing line to draw when considering wealth. This fundamental self-centred attitude seems to be at the heart of much of the selfish right-wing economics. People say "I'm rich, I worked hard, so I deserve to be rich. People who aren't rich obviously didn't work hard enough".

Everyone who is rich should recognize how lucky they are regardless of how "deserving" they think they are. Just, to extend, we in the West should recognize how lucky we are to have fresh drinking water, proper sanitation, electricity and universal education, because just those simple provisions put us ahead of about one billion people. If we factor in all the various advantages that are conferred upon people simply by being born in a rich country, then "luck" is indeed the correct metric to use. Without too much difficulty I think I could say I was in the top 10% globally in terms of wealth and opportunity, though I'm certainly not rich from a UK perspective.

If people were a little less self-centred, they might realise that luck is indeed crucial to success however it is achieved, and as a result might be a little less selfish when it comes to "spreading the wealth around".

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by gtc

If you want to call the US Government fascist, then you need to prove the three bolded claims you made. However, even then, I don't think you have the correct definition of the word.

If we are going to be calling people names without any justification, I want to join the game.

[IchabodPlain]

Originally Posted by andyandy

The entire debate over "redistribution" is almost incomprehensible to (I imagine) most Europeans.

Quite possibly true. I offer this, not as an argument for or against Obama's proposal, but merely as background for what many Americans grew up believing and the culture that has spawned those beliefs.

It's a conversation between David (Davey) Crockett and a supporter from around 1828, in which Crockett is being antagonized for having voted in support of a piece of legislation that gave "charity" to a woman whose husband had died. The title, and the message of the conversation being "Not Yours To Give". The rationale is that what you have earned is rightfully yours, and not the government's to use as a vehicle to transfer wealth.

Maybe it was one-to-many Horatio Alger stories, but most Americans do not look at a rich person and think "lucky". Instead, it is replaced with a combination of A)intelligence B)born into wealth and C) learned work ethic. Lucky is winning the lottery, not working your way through school and the business world on your way to becoming prosperous. Luck may play a part, but not the overriding factor (in most American's eyes anyway). There is still the idea that if you work hard and "do the right thing" you too could be a rich man/woman.

Quote:

(1) "I'm not going to redistribute the wealth, I'm going to make sure everyone has the same opportunity to be rich"
(2) "any redistribution of wealth would harm the trickle-down benefits for the poor"

1 is almost embarrassing in its idealistic naivete, and I don't believe that McCain or anyone else in the Republican Party seriously thinks it is even remotely possible.

You aren't even addressing this position. Assertion does not truth make.

[andyandy]

Originally Posted by IchabodPlain

You aren't even addressing this position. Assertion does not truth make.

Have you read the subsequent financial Times article? The data on the failure of "trickle down" economics is pretty incontrovertible. And the financial Times is certainly not a left wing rag.

Quote:

Economists call it median wage stagnation. Others dub it the “silent recession”. Mr Obama, who has struggled since the start of his campaign to speak in an economic language that strikes a chord with blue-collar voters, recently put it this way: “We are now being battered by a very serious economic storm and for many Americans it has only deepened the quiet storms they have been struggling through for years.” The data are stark and go some way towards explaining why so many Americans felt so disaffected even during the most robust years of economic growth under the Bush administration. Between 2000 and 2006, the US economy expanded by 18 per cent, whereas real income for the median working household dropped by 1.1 per cent in real terms, or about $2,000 (£1,280, €1,600). Meanwhile, the top tenth saw an improvement of 32 per cent in their incomes, the top 1 per cent a rise of 203 per cent and the top 0.1 per cent a gain of 425 per cent.

If you have evidence that "trickle down" economics does benefit the non-rich more than a redistribution of wealth, I would be interested in seeing it.

[moon1969]

Oh and Reaganomics worked so well? Where is that prosperity that should have trickle down to poor people and middle class? If Sarah Palin wins USA will become a theocracy.

[gtc]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

If we are going to be calling people names without any justification, I want to join the game.

That doesn't make sense.

You need to provide the evidence same as they do.

[Malerin]

10 yr old article, but the stats probably haven't changed much:

""Born on Third Base," a new study by the Boston-based United for a Fair Economy, shows that a majority of the Forbes 400 inherited their way onto the list, inherited already substantial and profitable companies, or received key start-up capital from a family member.


42 percent were born on home plate. These include older dynasties like the Rockefellers and du Ponts, and newer family fortunes from companies like Walmart and Gap. The Waltons of Wal-Mart are ranked nine through thirteen on the Forbes 400, with a combined $32 billion. Forbes thinks some of those born on home plate hit a home run. For example, it calls Philip Anschutz "self-made" even though he would have made the 400 cut just from the mineral wealth he inherited from his father.

At least 6 percent were born on third base. They inherited wealth in excess of $50 million or a large and prosperous company, and grew this initial fortune into Forbes 400 size. For example, Edward Johnson III inherited Fidelity from his father and led it the mutual fund world series."

http://www.phenomenologycenter.org/course/rich.htm

Hard work will get you far (hopefully). Having a mom or dad named "Walton" certainly doesn't hurt

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by gtc

That doesn't make sense.

You need to provide the evidence same as they do.

The evidence he gave looked just as good as the evidence they give.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

The evidence he gave looked just as good as the evidence they give.

You get the point.

[kallsop]

A flat tax is the best way out of this stupid situation where the politicians use the tax code to reward and punish. Obama is on record as saying higher taxes on the "rich" harm the economy, but he thinks it's "fair" to raise their taxes. How dumb is that. The whole tax code is an abomination.

I also believe it's a huge problem that more and more taxpayers have zero federal income tax liability, or are in reality on "tax rebate welfare" e.g. EITC. Freeloaders are not welcome anywhere in polite society.

[rdaneel]

Come on guys, lets all just admit that Obama is following in the footsteps of these Socialists.

[Gregoire]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

I just want him to stop the redistribution that started when we installed that jelly-brain from California in 1980.

Of course, re-instating the inheritance tax would be a good start. Without it, we would be on the fast track to feudal Europe.

By any chance, are you re you refering to this President, the one Obama was attacked for praising?

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-t...n_spark_1.html