“I Worked Hard for that Money!”
Via Stubborn Facts comes a very funny cartoon about “spreading the wealth.”
Read it below the fold:
The cartoon is funny but, as I see it, this is exactly what should be done to Obama. He needs that money, he says, in order to campaign? Fine, so do others who work hard for their money. Since McCain has far less money, Obama should give a bit of his to McCain, whether he wants to or not.
Perhaps that would teach Obama and people like him a bit about increasing taxes on ‘the rich.’
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
Well, that’s certainly overly simplistic.
But you know what? If this were the case, I think Obama would probably be completely happy giving McCain $4.5M of his $150M. Because that’s all Obama is asking for…an additional 3% for the top tax bracket.
Listen, we need to get some honesty back into this “spreading the wealth” debate. Every single first world economy has a progressive taxation system of some sort. This is a system that, by its very nature, spreads the wealth. How the right wing ignores this and continues to characterize a $30 tax hike on every $1,000 earned over $250,000 as somehow being “socialistic” is not only intellectually dishonest, it’s also doomed to fail.
I’d say that any estimation that Obama wouldn’t increase tax below 250k is intellectually dishonest. But in anycase, I love the hoards of lefties that try to clarify remarks of Obama’s, that he failed to clarify on his own.
Interested,
If your response to me is that Obama is a liar, then what debate is there to be had? How do you expect me to answer that? “Umm, no he’s not.”
Why don’t you argue against progressive taxation and how increasing one tax bracket by 3% amounts to socialism? It would be refreshing to hear a genuine defense of what I consider to be a logically fallacious argument.
250,000
Actually, that was $250,000 for small businesses and $200,000 for individuals – seem you don’t know his plan very well. Then Biden said they would lower it to $150,000 and Gov. Richardson to $120,000. In other words: this is going to go down, down, down.
And we have argued against progressive taxation at this blog. I don’t think that repeating the same point time and again is useful – just do a quick search.
Gardner
did you by chance pay attention to any debate?
pick one
any one
then show me where he established a track record to back up his believability.
I realize we left it in the dust with Clinton – but you really should consider a person’s honesty to be a very valid argument.
Justin, since you’re calling on Interested to explain his thoughts on progressive taxation, I’ll ask you to do the same with your views. I’ll also ask that you not pretend that we don’t already have a highly progressive income tax structure. When the top 5% earners are paying 40% of the revenue from income taxes, and the bottom 40% are paying nothing at all in income taxes (in many cases, and many more if Obama has his way, they’ll have a net positive payment from the govt), the ball is in your court to explain why you don’t think that already distributes the burden of taxation ‘fairly’ enough.
because it’s an undependable position to take Christine. Course I know you knew that already.
[blockquote]
Subject: FW: 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 one
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.
[/blockquote]
LOL, it’s been a while since I’ve seen that, Interested- it’s a classic.