Success Happy

If wealthy people shouldn't be taxed more because that is penalizing them for being successful, does that mean?

that Obama is the best candidate because he was more successful than McCain at raising campaign funds? Sounds like Obama is the better capitalist, but I welcome your input.

Public Comments

1. A little bit more tax for people who make millions won't hurt them one bit. It's not penalizing them for being successful really, it's just helping out people who really need it. I don't totally agree with his plan but I think it will work best.
2. Neither candidate has said they would eliminate the tiered tax system, so I don't think it treally is an issue. I believe they are about the same - McCain will do it less but they both are taxing the rich more than the poor. Obama is saying he will just go back to the Clinton levels, which is only slightly higher than now. It is a tough issue because it is impossilbe to know exactly how tax policy effects tax income and the work people are willing to do. We can only theorize and patch the holes as they appear
3. It means Obama is anexample of a wealthy someone who makes a ton of money AND is willing to spread the wealth around by accepting higher taxes. Keep in mind, the money raised during the election period is spent mostly on campaigning, it's not money to be kept for personal use. Also, the concept of taxing those who make the most money goes against the Capitalism. Theoretically those who make more money, earned they money they make, therefore, in a capitalistic government, shouldn't be penalized by having to pay higher taxes.
4. What's more, McCain took taxpayer dollars to fund his campaign. Obama didn't. You can slam Obama for changing his mind or even call him a liar. But the fact remains that he's relied on Capitalism to fund his campaign. McCain has relied on Socialism. He's redistributing the weath to HIS campaign! McCain advocates, instead of giving me a thumbs down, or ranting about how Obama lied, can you defend McCain's use of socialism and wealth redistribution?
5. Jay says: "McCain advocates, instead of giving me a thumbs down, or ranting about how Obama lied, can you defend McCain's use of socialism and wealth redistribution?" McCain is using Federal Campaign Funds, rather than privately raised funds. Therefore he did not participate in a capitalist venture nor compete with O'Bama to see who was the better capitalist. The socialism I am worried about is the one promised to us by O'Bama - the one where some Americans work our butts off, pay our taxes, and don't qualify for federally-backed programs, and those who don't work at all get the same benefits as those of us who worked. (Spreading the wealth - also called Socialism)
6. Taxes cuts - well I don't think taxes are an issue. It is the spending, and both candidate are poor on this, and fundraising means nothing. I am a capitalist; Obama and McCain are not. If they were they would pay down the national debt, and market America not other countries, close the boards and be for the American dream. Stop giving money away too. If you keep giving money away you won’t have any! One more thing everyone looks at the president but congress is the real problem, tighten the budget, and place term limits on all voted officials.
7. No, it means he is a liar and a cheat. Both McCain and Obama agreed to only accept public campaign financing. Obama changed his mind and started receiving private funding and McCain stayed true to his principles and character. This stance cost McCain money and he knew that it would when he made the decision. Obama on the other hand also knew that he would gain him an advantage in dollars if he said one thing and then reneged on his promise later. As for taxing the "rich" to give to the "poor"; who is to decide: A. Who is rich? B. How rich is rich? C. How to spend the richs money once it is confiscated from them? D. Who are the poor? E. Who decides who is worthy of "help"? F. Who decides who is not worthy? If the answer is Obama, then I suggest that you be very careful for what you wish. I for one do not want Obama deciding how to spend my money and on whom or for what worthy cause. I do a better job of that now. My philanthropic money goes where I decide. I give far more than the Obama's give both in real dollars and as a percentage of income. My money does more good dollar for dollar than anything the government could ever do. If you think that the government is good at running programs, why is Social Security bankrupt? Why does it cost so much to mail a letter? Why are there "bridges to nowhere"? Why are we still importing foreign oil? I could go on to infinity with the list of incompetent governmental programs that do not now nor will they ever function efficiently. The blame for governmental waste goes to both party's. However, if America hands over the reigns of power in the House and Senate and Executive branches to the Democrats, WATCH OUT! America will never be the same.