Should We Share Prosperity?

**NickTheCage** · 08-13-2012, 02:48 PM

Obama: "A New Vision Of An America In Which Prosperity Is Shared" | RealClearPolitics

"Too many folks still don't have a sense that tomorrow will be better than today. And so, the question in this election is which way do we go?" President Obama asked at a fundraiser in Chicago on Sunday.

"Do we go forward towards a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared?" Obama asked. "Or do we go backward to the same policies that got us in the mess in the first place?"

"I believe we have to go forward," Obama said. "I believe we have to keep working to create an America where no matter who you are, no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, no matter what your last name is, no matter who you love, you can make it here if you try. That's what's at stake in November. That's what is why I am running for a second term as president of the United States of America."

**seand** · 08-13-2012, 02:54 PM

It takes a certain amount of "sharing" to make sure opportunities to compete are equally available to all. Investment in public education and infrastructure as an example.

Whats wrong with "I believe we have to keep working to create an America where no matter who you are, no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, no matter what your last name is, no matter who you love, you can make it here if you try."

**phillycat** · 08-13-2012, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by seand

Whats wrong with "I believe we have to keep working to create an America where no matter who you are, no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, no matter what your last name is, no matter who you love, you can make it here if you try."

Because that kind of talk leads to colored people in the White House.

**Giavella Water** · 08-13-2012, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by phillycat

Because that kind of talk leads to colored people in the White House.

You mean colored people that are fellow travelers...comrade.

**raider.adam** · 08-13-2012, 03:47 PM

We shouldn't "share prosperity". We should use prosperity to make sure everyone has equal opportunity for prosperity.

**NickleDimer** · 08-13-2012, 03:51 PM

"You should make it here if you tried" might be better revised to "you should make it here if you are TRYING and are willing to adapt."

**seand** · 08-13-2012, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by raider.adam

We shouldn't "share prosperity". We should use prosperity to make sure everyone has equal opportunity for prosperity.

which is accomplished by "sharing" prosperity.

Thats a pretty thin fig leaf of a distinction there. Someone might sneeze and accidentally erase it entirely.

**raider.adam** · 08-13-2012, 04:27 PM

Originally Posted by seand

which is accomplished by "sharing" prosperity.

Thats a pretty thin fig leaf of a distinction there. Someone might sneeze and accidentally erase it entirely.

No, it is vague and not the same.

Sharing prosperity can be from using money to build education and roads or it could mean giving everyone a $10,000 check at the end of the year. It is very important on how you do it.

You can get a lot of different views from people base don what "sharing prosperity" means. I am defining the actual act I support.

**jdhill** · 08-14-2012, 11:07 AM

The most fundamental problem with Obama's "we should share the prosperity" is the implication that prosperity is not already being shared to a massive extent. Sadly, this is a pretty big lie that while understandably appealing to those who feel that they'd benefit by a greater wealth transfer, is really nothing more than shameless propaganda. Individuals pay about 82% of all taxes into the treasury, which means the average worker's share of 2011 federal spending was $29,500 in federal/fica/medicare. Add to that state local and property tax, which would cost the average US worker about $7,300 if divided equally, and you'd get the "average" tax burden per US worker of $36,800.

So take your total fed,state, local, property, fica, medicare taxes combined and subtract it from $36,800. The difference is the prosperity that's already being shared. So are you a prosperity sharer or prosperity sharee?

**Naveen** · 08-14-2012, 12:48 PM

What's interesting is that the very notion of shared prosperity is now debatable in this country. America: On the fast track to becoming an undeveloped nation.

**raider.adam** · 08-14-2012, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by Naveen

What's interesting is that the very notion of shared prosperity is now debatable in this country. America: On the fast track to becoming an undeveloped nation.

The debate is on how it should be done.

**phillycat** · 08-14-2012, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by jdhill

The most fundamental problem with Obama's "we should share the prosperity" is the implication that prosperity is not already being shared to a massive extent. Sadly, this is a pretty big lie that while understandably appealing to those who feel that they'd benefit by a greater wealth transfer, is really nothing more than shameless propaganda. Individuals pay about 82% of all taxes into the treasury, which means the average worker's share of 2011 federal spending was $29,500 in federal/fica/medicare. Add to that state local and property tax, which would cost the average US worker about $7,300 if divided equally, and you'd get the "average" tax burden per US worker of $36,800.

So take your total fed,state, local, property, fica, medicare taxes combined and subtract it from $36,800. The difference is the prosperity that's already being shared. So are you a prosperity sharer or prosperity sharee?

your math makes no sense.

just to start with, state, local and property taxes are offsets to federal income taxes. so adding them all up to come up with a tax burden makes no sense.

fica and medicare are investments that you pay into, not taxes. they get allocated back to you (often much more than what you invested, depending on how long you live) when you start collecting them.

The average federal tax rate (not including payroll taxes) is 11%. If your adjusted gross income is less than $50k, your average rate is less than 5%. The worker's share of payroll taxes is about another 5%, if you want to count those as taxes.

Explain how you came up with a tax burden for the "average worker" of $36,000? The median personal income is $39,000. The average wage index is $41,000. You'd have to be paying over a 90% tax rate to come up with that.

Or maybe you just enjoy totally making things up.

**sharkey** · 08-14-2012, 01:43 PM

So, if someone tries their best they should be guaranteed success. I really tried to be a successful wrestler in high school, but I went 1-4. Can Obama do something about that? Maybe he should have our athletes return their gold and silver medals or share them with the other competitors who did not get a medal but really tried hard. If all men are free, they are not equal, and if all men are equal, they are not free.

**sharkey** · 08-14-2012, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by seand

which is accomplished by "sharing" prosperity.

Thats a pretty thin fig leaf of a distinction there. Someone might sneeze and accidentally erase it entirely.

No, it is not. You are ignoring the fact that opportunity and outcome are not the same thing. Someone may have an opportunity, but not take advantage of that opportunity and therefore not have a beneficial outcome. Or, they may try to take advantage of the opportunity but fail at it and also not end up with the beneficial outcome.

**raider.adam** · 08-14-2012, 01:47 PM

Correction:

Originally Posted by phillycat

just to start with, some state, local and property taxes are offsets to federal income taxes. so adding them all up to come up with a tax burden makes no sense.

**FKD19124** · 08-14-2012, 01:50 PM

ding ding ding.

Originally Posted by raider.adam

We shouldn't "share prosperity". We should use prosperity to make sure everyone has equal opportunity for prosperity.

**phillycat** · 08-14-2012, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by raider.adam

We shouldn't "share prosperity". We should use prosperity to make sure everyone has equal opportunity for prosperity.

right, and if they don't take full advantage of their opportunities -- maybe they accidentally get pregnant, or get sick, or forget to save enough money and get old -- we must make sure their lives are totally miserable. Because if they don't suffer, it is totally unfair and diminishes the quality of life of the prosperous.

I am sure that everyone who is so worried about having to "share" never envision that they might be the one to be shared with. But I assure you, life is long, and you or someone you love will, and you will be grateful.

Ryan, Romney and the Veil of Opulence - NYTimes.com

Ryan, Romney and the Veil of Opulence - NYTimes.com

**Politburo** · 08-14-2012, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by phillycat

your math makes no sense...Or maybe you just enjoy totally making things up.

I think you may have misunderstood jdhill's argument.

**palvar** · 08-14-2012, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by phillycat

You'd have to be paying over a 90% tax rate to come up with that.

That is the point he is making. If we evenly divided the cost of running the government so each person paid the same amount it would be $36,000 [note: I'm not checking his math]. So, his argument is that if you paid less than that, someone else is paying part of *your* share. Thus, their prosperity is already being shared with you.

//jdhill: correct me if I am wrong.

**Naveen** · 08-14-2012, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by raider.adam

No, it is vague and not the same.

Sharing prosperity can be from using money to build education and roads or it could mean giving everyone a $10,000 check at the end of the year. It is very important on how you do it.

You can get a lot of different views from people base don what "sharing prosperity" means. I am defining the actual act I support.

Originally Posted by Naveen

What's interesting is that the very notion of shared prosperity is now debatable in this country.

Originally Posted by raider.adam

The debate is on how it should be done.

Incorrect. That is the debate we used to have in this country. At this point, conservatives view terms like "shared prosperity" as code words for socialist policies.

Indeed, you even reinforce that by suggesting that Obama's "vague" statement opens the door to giving everyone a $10,000 check. In any recent previous era there would have been a general understanding that that is not even close to what the President meant. The fact that these things now need to be articulated to even relatively sensible people from the right-end of our political spectrum shows just how far our debate has become detached from any common ground, and indeed, from reality.