I can honestly admit that I am not the most educated person when it comes to the presidential election and by no means do I know everything each candidate is fighting for. I have not watched all the presidential debates but I decided to watch the final debate between McCain and Obama so I could learn more about each of their ideas for the future of America. I began watching about 30 minutes into the debate but the moment I tuned in they were talking about Joe the Plumber. When I first heard both McCain and Obama mention his name I thought he was a hypothetical character they were referencing relating to their fundamental beliefs about taxes. But I soon found out that he was an actual man that Obama had met during one of his campaigns in Ohio. Apparently Joe the Plumber had raised a lot of questions about Obama’s tax plan and the negative effect it would have on all of America, even though only the upper tax bracket would face an increase in taxes. But the day following the debate I saw a video on Yahoo where Diane Sawyer was interviewing Joe after his named was mentioned 23 times in the presidential debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeX3zfvIwAA.
During the interview, it immediately became apparent that Joe was not in the tax bracket that would be affected by higher taxes when Diane Sawyer asked if he was making $250,000+ a year and he laughed at the notion. So she continued to question him about why this was such a troubling issue for him if it would not affect his personal income. Joe responded by saying that “why should they [people who make more than $250,000] be penalized for being successful.” He also stated that one day he hoped he could start a business that would earn that much money but higher taxes threaten all upcoming small businesses. When taxes are increased, businesses usually decrease the number of jobs because they have to give up a large portion of their earnings to the government. So even though those who do not make $250,000 are affected by higher taxes because there is potential many small and large companies will reduce their number of employees. During the interview Joe also said, “What if he [Obama] decides well $150,000 you’re pretty rich too, lets go ahead and lower it again, you know it’s a slippery slope. When is it gonna stop?” The basic point Joe is trying to make is that taxes will always be necessary but the government does not need to make taxes increasingly higher on those who have high incomes.
I completely agree with Joe because if people are willing to work hard for their income they should not have to see their salary stripped away. I know taxes are necessary for all people because the government needs funding to operate. I also understand that those who make make more money can afford to pay more taxes than those who do not have as high of salaries, but only to an extent. The idea of taking a large sum of the upper classes money away to “distribute the wealth” to the lower classes is bordering socialist beliefs even though we live in a democracy. Obama’s tax plan has varied over the campaign because earlier this year I heard that he wanted the upper tax bracket to pay as high as 45% of their income to the government through taxes. Whether it be a 3% increase or a 9% increase, raising taxes ultimately threatens the entire economy. Our economy depends on the people spending money in markets, but when more of the money is taken out of a workers salary the less they will be willing to spend in American markets. Raising taxes would also affect the American economy because, as I said before, fewer job opportunities will be available because those individuals and companies will have to take more money out of their salary and they will not be able to afford as many workers as they had when taxes were lower.
2 comments:
I am definitely ready to support everything you just said til the day I die. I love America and have been raised very patriotic. I believe in the foundation this country was built on part of which is capitalism and the ability to get ahead and become successful to no end. When did this whole idea of fair get invovled? Life isn't fair, no one said it should be and no one should sit back and expect it to be. People who become successful ought to be proud of their success and enjoy it to its fullest. Taxes, its true, are a necessary evil in order to pay the bills of the government but this whole "redistribution" and "share the wealth" business is just plain unAmerican. We cant let capitalism and democracy (dont think its not next) fail in this country, they are why we are the worlds most powerful nation. If people dont like it their welcome to go find a system they think is more fair and still provides the possibility to become anything and everything they might desire. And when you do, let me know cause I'll start sending immigrants there cause so far they think its a pretty sweet set up here, and thats cause it is
Heres another thought, just an email I got before the election about the democracy countdown.
HOW LONG DO WE HAVE?
This is the most interesting thing I've read in a long time. The sad thing about it, you can see it coming.
I have always heard about this democracy countdown. It is interesting to see it in print. God help us, not that we deserve it.
About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:
'A democracy is always temporary in nature; it! simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.'
'A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.'
'From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy which is always followed by a dictatorship.'
'The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years'
During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. from bondage to spiritual faith;
2. from spiritual faith to great courage;
3. from courage to liberty;
4. from liberty to abundance;
5. from abundance to complacency;
6. from complacency to apathy;
7. from apathy to dependence;
8. from dependence back into bondage.
Post a Comment