Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Rant: Politics (read at your own risk)

I've been really perturbed with the recent tactics employed by McCain and his camp. Among the biggest sticking points for me are the attacks against Obama's tax proposal. So McCain claims Obama is a socialist for believing in "spreading the wealth."

As I struggled to find the eloquence to express my feelings about this, I happen to stumble upon this comment on a Digg article about all the political labeling going on that I couldn't possibly agree with more.

Political and social constructs overlap. It's dangerous and misleading to quote a line or two from one philosophy and label anyone who agrees with the quote as a believer in all aspects of the philosophy. I'm a fiscal conservative and social liberal. I believe that we should use our country's resources with profound respect and accountability. I also believed that a truly functional society requires that people take care of each other. All taxes spread the wealth around. The current administration did a massive redistribution by raising taxes on the middle class while lowering taxes on the wealthy, which contributed to the economic mess we're in. The "trickle down theory" has failed twice, spectacularly. The middle class is worse off by far now than 8 years ago. Obama's tax plan is breathtakingly simple: the wealthy will pay an additional 3% on taxable income over $250,000. (No change for taxable income below $250K.) The middle class will receive a necessary tax break with which to regain their financial footing. I aspire to be among the wealthy someday. I will not quibble about paying more if I ever break through that $250K level. I want to live in a society that values the health and fiscal well-being of all citizens.

2 comments:

Lawrence Tam said...

so is there a point of taxing the rich too much? I agree 3% really isn't much more but on top of what.

Say your in the 35% tax bracket. you add 3%. That makes it 38%.

This redistribution of wealth should help the middle class.

Now what if we just went gung ho and hit the rich to say... 49%. Shoot. screw the rich. Lets just do 60%.

Will there be a point that the rich won't be rich? I'm not rich. Not saying I side with the rich. Just wondering if there is a % to tax them that is not feasible to expect the rich to carry the population. Shoot. What if they all moved their operations overseas and stopped paying taxes?

Our taxes here aren't high compared to other nations.

Austrialia, China tops at 45%
UK at 40%.

Maybe we should just go higher? I know they pay more across the board due to socialized medicine but just wondering if there is a breaking point. why stop at 3%?

Phi Nguyen said...

Continued over at http://spooon56.blogspot.com/