Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Redistribution? Taxing the Rich?

On the front page of the Wall Street Journal today, the top story is a recent poll that shows Obama having a double-digit lead over McCain. In my opinion, if people have not been pushed away from Obama now, they probably won't in the next couple weeks.

I believe that McCain's inability (and it really is not just McCain, it is the party as a whole) to appeal to voters is somewhat troubling. But I also know for a fact there are many out there like myself who are Ron Paul supporters/libertarian leaning who simply cannot justify voting for McCain or some other Republicans who are up for re-election or election. I truly think that as the signs at the Rally for the Republic read, we need to "Bring the GOP to its roots." I firmly believe that those who are choosing to vote third party for whatever reason are not going to budge from their positions and beliefs.

What the GOP needs to do is run on a small-government platform. Why can't we be in support of cutting the size of government in half? What is so wrong with wanting to have a balanced budget for once? Why can't we look at big reforms? There are huge problems today, and they require huge changes.

What I find extremely troubling is that because the GOP cannot 'get itself together' they are fighting an uphill battle. Many who are fighting re-election are fighting extremely tough battles to keep their seats. The only politician I have seen who has gained extreme ground is BJ Lawson against the incumbent democrat David Price. He is making a huge stand, and hopefully he will be able to win that election in a couple of weeks. Funny thing is, he was not warmly received by the Republicans because he has Ron-Paul/libertarian leaning views.

A point I do want to hit, as the title suggests, is the idea that the rich do not deserve to keep the money they have earned, and that it should be 'redistributed.' Obama has been pushing this agenda, and it was specifically hit on the 'Joe the Plumber' points made in the last debate. Redistribution is clearly a socialistic idea, and I don't know about you, but that is the complete opposite of what I think should be an acceptable idea in America. Just look at Barney Frank in the following video:



How can the American Dream be best preserved? Allow people who have wealth to keep wealth. If people believe that they can become rich without it being taken away and huge amounts of taxes levied on them, then the American Dream is alive and well. In a society where one sees those who have 'made it' being attacked and taxed relentlessly so that the wealth can be 'redistributed,' there is something seriously wrong about that notion. Redistribution is socialism, and it should not be embraced in what should be the freest country in the world.

4 comments:

Bubba said...

I don't think that Obama actually said anything about "redistributing" the wealth. That was an interpretation of his comments that came from McCain. His comments were more in tune with making taxes more equitable across an economic class system that has developed in the U.S., especially since the Reagan era.

My income borders on the lowest end of what we might refer to as the middle class, probably on the edge of federal poverty guidelines in many instances. Yet as a percentage of my meger wealth, I pay far more in taxes than someone earning $250,000 or more a year.

As for socialism, doesn't that have more to do with collective and government ownership of utilities and manufacturing than distribution of wealth. Redistributing wealth probably leans more toward a communist philosophy than a pure socialist philosophy.

DC said...

Bubba,

I would be interested in what your interpretation of "spreading the wealth" is? I believe when you "spread" something out, it essentially involves evening out the amounts people have of whatever that might be. In this case, it would be "wealth." How do you spread something out without redistributing it?

Also you said

"As for socialism, doesn't that have more to do with collective and government ownership of utilities and manufacturing than distribution of wealth. Redistributing wealth probably leans more toward a communist philosophy than a pure socialist philosophy."

I would like to hear what your exact definition of socialism and communism is. Sure, socialism and communism are different, but I would like to know why whatever difference that might be is relevant to what I said in my blog. I would agree with you that redistributing wealth is leaning more towards communism than socialism, but I don't see how that is relevant in this situation. But that is just my opinion.

Also, as far as you paying quote "far more" than someone earning $250,000 or more a year, you are going to have to prove that. I don't believe thats correct. If you can prove it then the burden of proof will be on me to disprove your statement, but until then I would need to see a tax chart that shows this.

Thanks for the comment!

-David

jpberthiaume said...

First of all, I have a hard time seeing that Obama would even deny that he is looking to redistribute wealth. I haven't looked for a quote where he has specifically said it that way, but he did say "spread the wealth around" which is akin to taking wealth that is already out there and moving it around. That's redistribution.

As for your post, Dave, I'm disappointed that the third-party voters who agree more with McCain than Obama are going to stay and vote third party. I suspect you are right that they aren't going to budge. I just think Obama is too large of a risk to take. I agree with most of your reasons for not wanting to vote for McCain, I just think the consequences of not doing so are too great.

Last, I'm wondering who pays Bubba. My guess is that it is a person or business that makes $250,000 or more and is going to take a hit under Obama. Liberals don't like to admit that trickle-down economics works, but they'll seemingly soon have to answer for the fact that nothing is trickling down...

Bubba said...

As I see the difference between socialism and communism, socialism can be maintained and still leave an element of capitalism within the state. Under communism,the state is non-existant,and capitalism is completely out of the picture. Communism also has a stricter element of the governing of personal income. Utopian communism would have no class system, with each person in the society having an equal amount of the wealth and contributing all productivity to the group. That has to be an impossibility, of course, because without a central incentive, or state, prodiuctivity fails. so injecting a state back into the equation, once personal power enters the arena the temptation of greed enters with it.

But as you said, DC, those definitions really have little to do with the point you were making.

My point was that even though someone making a much larger annual wage than I may be in a higher tax bracket, there are tax break options available to those with disposable cash that are not available to those who need every cent of their income to live hand to mouth. I honestly don't believe that the tax breaks that do exist are wrong, I'd just like to be able to get a break at my level of income.

And JP is right, I don't think trickle down economics works. Unemployment is rising fast and we're using tax dollars to bail out failing big businesses. Isn't that where the trickle down is supposed to originate?