Originally Posted by dshealey
What is the big deal?
The big deal is that he's being touted as the common working man, and that Obama's tax plan will ruin him and other small businesses, and by implication, take a huge chunk out of the middle class. The reality is that the median US income is roughly $30K/year, 70% of us make under $50K/year, and only the top 5% make over $100K/year.
So a working plumber has ambitions to buy his company (good for him, if he can pull it off), but is worried that he won't be able to expand this potential business because he may be saddled with an extra couple of grand in taxes? That's like refusing to collect lottery winnings because "the gov't will just take it all anyway."
And the actual proposal (which is hardly set in stone, as many things can and will change between election promises and actual results) calls for a reduction in taxes for 95% of the population, and a slight increase for those individuals
making over $250K/year. So not only does Joe have to do the work to buy the company and build it up, but he himself has to clear $250K in income before he gets hit.
Somehow, I just don't see it happening, and I sure don't see this guy as the "Everyman" that they keep trying to parade him around as. On the other hand, I did actually start a small business (instead of just talking about it) which I've kept running for the past few years through some smart choices, a bit of luck, and a whole lot of hard work, so I do have a bit of a direct stake in this whole debate.
I've heard from many middle-class folks that they're worried that Obama will increase their taxes and give that money away to the poor and underprivileged. That's why they've jumped on the "Spread the Wealth" comment so quickly and so viciously. It simply plays into many people's fears, especially in an uncertain economy.
But first, how many of these folks clear
$250K/year (remember, that's after all your deductions)? And second, what do you call a $700 Billion bailout (that no one I know approved of), or an arguably unnecessary war that by some estimates could cost upwards of $2 Trillion? Is it conceivable that those actions alone far dwarf any potential tax savings or increases? Or did folks just not notice that Bush inherited a $230 Billion budget surplus from Clinton, but that he will leave his successor with a $500 Billion deficit (and still counting . . .)?
Reagan tried that whole "trickle-down" theory by seriously cutting taxes to the wealthiest 1%, in order to spur the economy and job creation. It didn't work for him then, and it won't work now, either. Clinton somewhat reversed this by reimposing some of those top-rate taxes, and as mentioned he left the White House with a surplus of cash. W has managed to wipe that out at record rates, and even though he's only got scant months left, he's still spending Billions that we just don't have to spend.
It ain't pretty out there folks, and no matter who takes the reins next, it's gonna get a whole lot worse before it gets better. So buckle up, cause it's gonna be a bumpy ride.
(Apologies if this got a little ranting. I've just spent a week at the in-laws, and was exposed to far more Fox News than I really care to be. That often causes my attitude to go from amazed, to incredulous, to offended, to appalled. And people actually believe the tripe that they're spewing.