You mean the stuff about our debt, or the wealth distribution, or the congressional districting, or some of that other stuff?

Wait, did you seriously want to distribute the points from the rich to the poor?

It's only fair, isn't it?

Funny (adj.) - How warsprite is not.

And Invictus: Only if we use their points for Health Care so nobody has to disband Armies or Fleets any more.

Great! Now, with our 64 armies and 23 fleets, we can finally defeat the Swiss Army!

yea warsprite, it is a failed analogy. whereas your plan is to take almost everything from a few and given to the masses, Barack's plan is to take a little more from a few and give it to the masses.

however, even if we were to do it your way, i wouldn't really object. Removing my points doesn't change my ability to play diplomacy, just the stakes at which i play.

You mean, a little more than everything?

warsprite, keep this all in one thread please.
i dont object to a % of my winnings (my dip income NOT my dip point total) going into a fund that new players then take out 100 points when they join(to be repaid once they earn points too)
neat idea actually.

about your broader aim to poke fun at Obama's tax plan, to equate a progressive income tax with socialism is plain silly.
nearly all western nations use such a income tax scale. in fact maybe all do.

Actually, sean, I think that'd be a pretty cool idea.

Maybe have the point-bank be available for prizes for tournaments, to simulate CEOs getting disproportionate bonuses, and able to be randomly taken by anyone in the top 100 or so people, to represent embezzlement!
<_<
>_>

it's not the progressive income tax that makes it socialism, it the concept of "from each according to his means to each according to his needs" That the piece that smeels a little like socialism.

it's the references to "Hey you can afford it, why don't you spread the wealth around" that is so offensive to those who have earned the wealth and feel that they deserve it - or that they deserve the right to spread it as they see fit

A little more taxation hardly counts as redistribution of wealth.

And if you've earned the wealth, you have every right to use what part of it is not being dedicated to helping those who don't just WANT money, but NEED it.

Also, if you oppose increased taxes you forfeit the right to be taken seriously on any complaints about government inaction or debt, ever.

sooo... how can you be ok with progressive income tax and not with the idea of socialism?

also, do you realize that Alaska, Palin's state, is FAR more socialist than the progressive tax structure? In Alaska, each resident gets a check from the government with their portion of the oil profits gained from Alaska's reserves being tapped? now, THAT is socialism and it is in one of the most red states in the union.

Zarathustra, you just made me remember something by mentioning that. Sorry to derail from your very-valid point, but a quick note:
I'm glad Hillary lost the Dem Primary. If she hadn't, McCain would've never made the blunder of selecting Palin as his VP.

As other people have pointed out a lack of points doesn't mean you have no healthcare or education. Also points are generated from nothing if you don't have any, and finally taxing income is different from taxing assets. The analogy really doesn't work at all, and it's definitely not worth 2 threads (and we already have too many Obama threads)

So philcore are you opposed to a progressive tax structure or not? You say that the progressive tax structure is not what you object to, and then say it's "insert BS communist slogan that Obama hasn't said here." But you don't elaborate at all on what exactly the problem is. Crying "socialism" doesn't explain your objections. That's a cop out. Give us details.

You do know what a progressive tax structure is right? It means that as you go up in income you pay a slightly larger and larger percentage of your income. All developed countries have such a tax structure, including the US. What exactly is it you object to? You can certainly argue the actual details of the Obama plan, but it sounds to me like you actually ARE against the idea of a progressive tax structure.

One question I've always had for people who say things like the Obama Tax plan are socialist, is this: How do you feel about things like the Bush tax cuts which cut taxes more for the wealthy than for the middle and lower classes? Why is it ok to cut taxes significantly for the upper classes, while essentially leaving the middle and lower classes with only a symbolic tax cut?

Would you prefer a flat tax?

Did you think the McCain tax plan made more sense? If so, what did you like more about it?

McCain never wanted Palin to be nominated for VP. Mike Duncan did.

@aoe3rules - well that's hardly a ringing endorsement of McCain. He was so cowed by advisers that he couldn't even pick a VP he actually wanted? Not sure that sounds like someone I would want to be in charge...

i like how warsprite hasnt even made a post in his own thread

@DrOct: If Mike Duncan tells a Republican what to do, they do it. Or else. Note: this also applies if you replace "Mike Duncan" with "Howard Dean" and "Republican" with "Democrat".

@WhiteSammy: He's spying on us, biding his time.

@DrOct - I reread my posts and cant figure out where you got the idea that I'm against progressive taxes. I'm ok with Progressive taxes, I wouldn't mind exploring a few alternate ideas, but they have problems too (flat tax, consumption tax, etc). My issue is that when the top marginal rate is higher than 50%, you actually get to keep less of your earned money than you are required to give away to the government. Under Obama's plan, the top rate will be 65% when Fica and SS are taken into account. I think that sucks!

The top 1% in the US earn 22% of the Adjusted gross income, yet pay 39% of the taxes. The top 5% earn 36% of the AGI, and pay 60% of the taxes. the bottom 40% pay NOTHING. I think that's fair on both sides, honestly. But the highest earners are certainly paying their fair share, don't you agree? If not, how much would you LIKE to see them pay? Maybe we should just have an absolute cap on income stating you are not allowed to make anything over X - in other words a marginal rate of 100%. I don't really understand the mindset of people who strive so hard to become so wealthy, I'd rather be comfortable and have time to spend with my family, but I'm sure glad they're here, because they are the ones who employ the rest of us. We cannot de-incentivize that kind of drive or innovation goes away.

If you really need to raise taxes to support the government, then by all means raise them and raise them fairly. But to only raise them on the highest income earners in order to give people who currently don't pay any taxes money back, that is wealth redistribution, plain and simple. And I disagree with it at a fundamental level. That has become the philosophy of the left, for some reason. It's the philosophy that scares me, not the actual numbers, because the philosophy isn't limited in their minds (or on the campaing trail where "rich" kept getting redefined - 250K, 200K, 150K, 96K) and I fear there is a huge potential for this to be a foot in the door of something far more close to socialism.

As far as Bush cutting the taxes on all brackets, I think that was good. However, he should have followed it with a corresponding DECREASE in spending, which he didn't. And the fact that he decreased the top bracket by 2% MORE than the other brackets? definitely a bad move. I don't want you to punish the high income earners for being successful, but damn, I don't want you to favor them over the middle class!! What was he thinking? Bad Bush!!

Finally you asked about McCain's tax plan - I haven't read it. I know that he's a republican with WAY more fiscally conservative values than Bush, so I trust that while his tax plan may have tweaks here and there - the mindset behind it is not "spread the wealth around" but "live within your means".

That's my 1 cent (I had to pay the other cent in taxes ;-)

@philcore that's exactly what I was looking for. An actual explanation of what it was you don't like, and not just some bullshit about "socialism."

And for the record, when you say: "it's not the progressive income tax that makes it socialism, it the concept of "from each according to his means to each according to his needs" That the piece that smeels a little like socialism."

You aren't explaining anything, and it sounds like you're simply saying that taxing the rich more is socialism. When you don't give any detail and just spout bullshit accusations of socialism without giving any reasons, it's easy to get the wrong idea about what you're trying to say.

Since you didn't give any detail on what you didn't like about it I had to assume that you simply didn't like the idea of taxing the rich more than other people, which sounded to me like you were against a progressive tax code (yes you started out saying you weren't, but your lack of detail and railing about socialism made it sound like perhaps you didn't actually know what a progressive tax code was).

However, now that you HAVE given some detail, I see that you aren't against a progressive tax code, you simply don't like Obama's specific plan.

No. Again, it's not that I "simply" don't like his specific plan. I'm not sure why, but you keep missing the bigger point that I have made over and over. Even in your last post, you say that I'm not explaining anything when I refer to Marx's motto. Well, I'll try one more time. It's not the specific plan or any aspect of it. It's the MINDSET! It's the PHILOSOPHY!

I think it explains my position pefectly well by showing how things that BO has said, are simlar in philosophy to things that KM has said. I'm not sure why you can't see the connection, and maybe calling it "bullshit" 3 or 4 more times will help convince yourself that the connection is not there, but it is ... really.

"I'm not sure why you can't see the connection, and maybe calling it "bullshit" 3 or 4 more times will help convince yourself that the connection is not there, but it is ... really."

I think you're trying too hard to see a connection that is flimsy at best.

perhaps, but it could also be that the fanaticism he inspires in his followers (I mean supporters) is masking the clarity for them to see it. Comments like the following from another thread are indicitive of how his worshipers respond to him:

"I'd still love him if he were another color. At this rate the man will be a saint by 65."

With emotions like that for the guy, it's no wonder nothing sticks to him. I seriously doubt that anything could have disuaded people from voting for him. "What? Barack kills baby kittens for fun? I don't care, he probably had a good reason for doing it, one that a mere mortal like me could never understand O-BAM-A O-BAM-A O-BAM-A"

Whatever, he's my president as of January 20th and I'm sure he'll disappoint his loyal followers when they find out he's mortal, and he'll probably pleasently surprise those who think like me when we find out he's not truly Karl Marx reincarnated. The truth will, in all likelyhood, fall somewhere in the middle.

Oh I'm fine with you thinking his plan is coming from the same place as socialism, that's up to you to decide. But just yelling "socialism" in a discussion of tax policies and not giving any examples or details of why you feel that this tax policy is tantamount to socialism, doesn't clarify anything, or add much to the discussion.

I'm not sure how you could jump into a discussion of tax policy and say:

"it's the references to "Hey you can afford it, why don't you spread the wealth around" that is so offensive to those who have earned the wealth and feel that they deserve it - or that they deserve the right to spread it as they see fit"

and not see how someone would get the impression that you're against a progressive tax code. Which is it? Do you think it's fair to ask the rich to bear more of the tax burden or not? Or do you think it's fine so long as no one says the reason is because they can afford to give more than other people?

At least that was the impression I had when I saw your first two comments, hence my confusion about whether you understood what a progressive tax code was.

Then, when I asked for clarification, you gave it, and seemed to imply that you felt the problem was that Obama's tax plan put TOO MUCH of a burden on the wealthy. So I said "oh ok, it's not that you're against a progressive tax code, you just don't like this one" you start yelling about how I didn't listen, and missed your point.

If your point is simply that you think Barack Obama is a socialist, I guess that's fine. But I thought we were talking about tax plans, so I thought you would want to talk about tax codes and how they do or don't relate to socialism. Clearly that was not the point you were trying to make, or the discussion you wanted to have. It's not that I missed that you think he has socialist attitudes, I just thought that wasn't all that relevant to the discussion at hand. I think we were just having different discussions.

"Whatever, he's my president as of January 20th and I'm sure he'll disappoint his loyal followers when they find out he's mortal, and he'll probably pleasently surprise those who think like me when we find out he's not truly Karl Marx reincarnated. The truth will, in all likelyhood, fall somewhere in the middle."

You can be pretty reasonable when you're not being a jerk ;)

Sorry, looking back at the discussion further, when you first jumped in, it had only just started to skew toward a discussion of tax policy, when I jumped in it was much more about that already. So perhaps I simply got the wrong context for your original comments. This of course just reinforces the point that I think we were just both trying to have different discussions, and thus not understanding why the other kept talking about things we didn't think were important.

fair enough - BUT DON'T EVER CALL ME A JERK AGAIN YOU SOCIALIST PIG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

haha - just kidding. I can be as big of a jerk as anybody when I feel passionately about something. I think we ended up having a good discussion. Thanks for your contributions DrOct.

Thank you as well!

Oh, and I fully acknowledge I can be a big jerk too.

You're all wrong. It's not socialism. It's communism. Socialism would imply he's ALREADY established his dictatorship.

uhhhh - no it wouldnt. but thanks for playing ;-)

Oh, one last thing philcore, when you talked about Obama's tax plan you cited a lot of specific numbers/percentages. What was your source for that? I'd love to really dive into the numbers some, but haven't really been able to find a good balanced summary of the whole plan (or the plan itself), aside from the bits and pieces taken from articles all over the place. Of course I've also only put in about 10 minutes of effort into that so... yeah.

the only number I gave from his tax plan was that his top marginal % (including Fica and SS) would be 65%. Heres a story from the Heritage foundation explaining the details:

http://www.heritage.org/research/Taxes/wm1973.cfm

The other numbers I cited were historical figures about who earns what % and who pays what %. Those can be found at:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

And while I didn't want to offload the burden of my argument to different sources, I figured if I couldn't make them myself, then I didn't understand them well enough. There are a number of people smarter and more influential than I who agree with my assessment. And ONLY because you asked for sources will I include a few - normally, I fugure if I can't make my own argument, then I shouldn't be arguing.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121910303529751345.html?mod=most_emailed_day

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmE0M2RjNzM2ZWY4MjJiNTU1NDU1MTdmOTQ5NTIwMjM=

Oh, sure, I'm sorry, I hope it didn't sound like I was implying you weren't making your own argument or anything, I just wanted to know where you got your numbers, so I could take a look at them, and hopefully be a bit better informed about the things I'm talking about. As I've said I'm mostly gotten my information from articles and editorials, I was hoping maybe you'd discovered a trove of info I hadn't. I will certainly check out those articles, but I have a feeling at least one of them I've already read.

Does anyone know if/where the actual plan has been published? Whenever people are running for office and have plans like this, they always talk about them, and you always see reporters talking about them, and giving numbers and such that I have to assume come from the actual plan, but it's always harder than one would imagine for someone as a member of the public to see it themselves.

Their actual tax plans are on their websites - but they aren't exactly balanced summaries, they're the way each candidate chose to present them:

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Factsheet_Tax_Plan_FINAL.pdf

http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/JobsforAmerica/taxes.htm