redistribution of wealth

Thanks for this, seriously.

Obama may not wear the name “socialist”, but that doesn’t change the fact that he definitely leans towards socialist ideals. America already has enough quasi-socialism as it is. Well, chances are he won’t be able to do half the things he promised anyways. Darn politicians and their “promises”.

You’re confusing socialism with social democracy. But that’s okay, it’s an easy mistake to make. Saying he “leans towards socialist ideals” is like saying that republicans “lean towards anarchist ideals” because they want small or no government, and thus Mccain is an anarchist. (Not that Mccain actually wanted this in any regard) If you’re okay with that, then I guess good luck with that, but you’ve arrived at a point where your rhetorical venacular has lost any useful meaning whatsoever.

Could you email my mom and explain this to her? She doesn’t buy the socialist moniker for Obama, but she did vote for McCain because Obama’s going to cost her (and me and my sister by extension apparently) money.

Her problem is in failing to take the next step and ask “What does that money pay for and is the trade off (money in her already well-lined pockets vs social welfare) worth it?” In other words, “Is the juice worth the squeeze?” Obama can squeeze my oranges (please laugh at this terrible joke) for the juice of better schools, better health coverage, welfare for those in need, etc. And if it hurts my inheritance–sorry, Mom, I wasn’t counting on it anyway.

Luckily all of the people I KEEP hearing referring to Obama as “socialist” are online.I think I’m going to take a swing at the first person who does so in person. Most of them were calling for the government to take over or bail out banks and insurance companies a few weeks ago. They don’t seem to remotely know what a socialist is. I think the Republican scare machine could have said Obama was a “vampire” and these people would now be repeating THAT as their mantra.

I think I’ll hardwire my mud client to substitute “vampire” for “socialist”.

I don’t need the “republican scare machine” to tell me that Obama’s tax plan is socialist. Heck, I don’t even listen to the “republican scare machine”, because I can think for myself, that is, unless you consider sources like NPR to be part of the scare machine. I don’t agree with the bailout package either, we shouldn’t be nationalizing the financial institutions. But Obama’s tax plan IS socialism, wrapped up in economic progress and moralism. The concept that the rich should be taxed heavier because they can afford to take care of everyone else… what do you call it? To borrow a line from Obama, you can put lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig. You can be an apologist for Obama, that’s fine, but just admit that his policy is socialist.

The concept that the rich should be taxed heavier because they can afford to take care of everyone else… what do you call it?

Progressive taxation. I realize you meant that question to be rhetorical, but the answer is not “socialism”.

I’m sorry Chris, but I disagree with you. You can call it what you want, but it’s still socialism. I know we are never going to see eye to eye on this though :)

This isn’t a matter of opinion, it’s a matter of diction. You’re using a word that doesn’t apply in the interest of hyperbole to impart negative connotations. I am looking it up in a dictionary.

But Clinton… uh… big goverment… uh… socialism… um… freedom… ahhh, fuck it. I give up.

In the shower this morning I came to a conclusion: Obama’s plan is not socialism. You are right, he is merely modifying the terms of America’s progressive taxation. I think that my qualm is not with Obama, but with the idea of progressive taxation in general. My misunderstanding, I believe, was exacerbated by Obama’s push towards more progressive taxation (something I disagree with), combined with statements made by some Obama supporters that I spend a lot of time with (not naming names). Statements like, “it’s not fair for them to have that much money,” and “they should have to give their wealth to the rest of us,” etc. are indicative of the envy-based structure Marx calls “crude-communism”. I don’t believe that this is what Obama wants. I think I have been projecting these views on Obama’s policy without really thinking about what I was doing. Thank you guys for helping me work this out in my own mind. Next stop, fair-tax debate. Peace.

Whether we’re discussing some form of progressive taxation, a flat tax, or whatever tax scheme you like, the proponents of these various tax schemes all have, I think, the same goal in mind: fairness. If we must live with the necessary evil of taxation, then we at least want a system in which tax obligations are dispensed justly and equitably. And I laud the efforts of anyone who strives to come up with a more just scheme.

The debate about which form of taxation is the most “fair” is something that I, not having a lot of expertise in this area, do not have very strong feelings about per say. That’s something for people much wiser than I, in the field of economic policy at least, to figure out.

But here’s something I do know, and something, I think, everyone knows - whichever form of tax policy you support, I think we can all agree that the tax code we have now needs to be RADICALLY SIMPLIFIED. We need this desperately!

Until we simplify the tax code, arguing about how “socialist” any current or proposed tax scheme is, is in my opinion an exercise in futility; a giant waste of time that doesn’t address the real problem facing Americans right now: we have a tax code that few people can understand.

When we have a system right now that is so complicated, the average person has no hope in ever completely understanding it, the system is broken. When we have a system that has, by necessity, created an entire industry of professionals; an army of lawyers, accountants, and software developers, who’s sole job description is simply to assist people and businesses to navigate, interpret, and comply with this tangled mess, the system is broken. When the tax code is so complex that the IRS can’t even effectively keep up with it, much less enforce it, the system is broken.

Our current tax code is a jungle. Over 8,500 pages long. It only benefits those who have the resources available to hire great legal counsel, who can aid in tracking down and exploiting every little tax credit, discount, and loop-hole buried deep down in that overgrown ravel. It simply overwhelms the rest of us, individual and small business alike, and so our taxes are by default higher, because we haven’t exploited all the credits, loop-holes, and tax-avoidance schemes that are available. We don’t have the time to do this, and the IRS banks on the fact that we won’t. But the big corporations certainly will, because they can hire people who’s full-time job is to think about this crap. Fair?

Whether our system be progressive, or flat, or whatever, is really secondary at this point - the first step in creating a tax system that is “fair,” is creating a system that can easily be understood and complied with! THEN, we can have the space to have this debate about whether progressive or flat taxation is more fair, or more “socialist”, or more befitting a free people, or whatever… Right now we have more pressing problems.

The tax code has been bloated, and ruined, by law makers who attempt to use tax policy to affect social change and manage the economy. This is well-intentioned, but, as history has shown, stupid. So each new, presumably well-meaning, tax credit, tax break, and tax loop-hole just adds another 10-20 pages to a tax code that’s so long, so convoluted, that lawmakers can’t even agree about long it is!

I want a tax code that I can read myself! I want a tax code that is shorter than The Bible.

Just my 2¢. Until we simplify the tax code, radically, then any debate lawmakers have about “tax fairness” is simply pissing in the ocean - nothing changes until we take a hatchet and sledgehammer, not a scalpel, to our tax code. Unfortunately, it seems for all their talk, neither Democrats nor Republicans are really willing to do anything about this.

No law is fair unless those who are expected to comply with it can understand it.