Obama and Bush not so far apart...
-
Umm....this is fairly old news. I'm pretty sure he said quite early in his campaign that he plans on reversing the tax cut for the wealthy that came in the early years of the Bush administration.
Is the full video out there where he talks about capital gains tax reduction? I'd like to see that as well. The question is, how much does he intend to raise taxes on the "wealthy"? Is it 1% or 10%....if it's ten percent I take issue with it...if it's 1% I can handle that. Yes, I'd ideally like to see the taxes flat.
I'm telling you that I can handle paying a percent or 2 more than I currently do. It won't affect my spending habits one bit....however if you give another 2% to someone making, say, 20k per year it allows them to put another $400 into their pockets which WILL go back into the economy...give me another 2% and it goes into my IRA/401k/Roth/whatever....odds are I won't respend it, at least not for another 30 years or so.
torbs;242007 wrote:
"6. Economics: Obama told reporters that he agreed with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Bush's bailout package, then voted for the $700 billion plan. And despite routinely criticizing "the Bush tax cuts," Obama is now offering tax cuts of his own (although only for the 95 percent of taxpayers earning less than $250,000 a year). What a concept!"Did I hear 'tax cuts' there or welfare check...coulda sworn i heard the later...
40% of Americans don't pay in any taxes right now...This means he's going to give taxpayer money to those who don't give anything to the system...yeah, there's a word that discribes that, welfare...
Torbs, I fail to see how a tax cut for the working class is a bad thing or how it is a welfare check. He said the MAJORITY of the people would get tax cuts...not extra payments. If you work and earn a living and make less than $250,000 you will get a tax cut if his plan goes forward.
Tell me why this is bad?
Is it because you will have more money and won't have to try and negotiate every single deal you try and make with someone?
Is it because I will have more money to buy things for my wife and kid?
Is it because people that are working hard for their money might have a chance to put some of it away?
Is it because businesses should according to the past 2 stimulus packages bring about more people spending money and boosting our economy?
Or is it because a liberal is talking about making a move that would normally be seen as fiscally conservative (ok...fiscally moderate) and presenting it to the people? I mean, come on...I've never seen a tax break that the republican party didn't like!
-
Then there is the whole issue of the 40% who you claim don't pay taxes (actually 37.2%).
How many of them are retired people living on social security...or maybe even welfare as they may be in nursing homes and such and not have any other source to pay? (BTW, 1 in 7 people in this country are receiving a Social Security benefit...so that's 14% potentially right of the bat)
How many of them suffer from mental/physical disabilities that prevent them from working?
How many work for cash?
And to be fair, how many on welfare could be out working but chose not to and should have their benefits cut off?
-
By returning tax levels to what they were during the Reagan administration? Reagan is Mr. Conservative...surely he should have cut taxes if it were fiscally responsible to do so!
The gov't already controls nearly every aspect of your life in some way shape or form, what new things do you see Obama bringing to the table that will affect YOU or ME?
-
Reagan ftw. Currently wearing a Reagan/Bush 84 t-shirt.
-
02AccordEXV6;242050 wrote:
socialism...We discussed this at a bit of length on AIM Nick...and I've said this before countless times, I'm all for a flat income tax percentage across the board.
However, it could easily be argued that the trickle-down economics that have been implemented under Bush didn't work as planned/hoped.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04358.pdf#page=34 as you can see on this page, 61% of all US Corporations paid ZERO taxes during.....Bill Clinton's final term in office. So to say that all democrats are socialist is wrong. To say that the rich were overtaxed under Clinton is somewhat misleading....and all that Obama has suggested is rolling back the taxes to what they were under Clinton.... Maybe that is why so many new jobs were created then?? Maybe it will create new jobs now? (Pure speculation, I realize this...but throwing it out there for debate none-the-less)
Now here is the real irony in this.....I've heard from nearly all of you that you think the "bail out" should have gone to the people of this country and not to the corporations, yet when a tax plan comes out that might just do that, you all seem to think it is the most evil thing ever....
I hear that you pay too much in taxes, that it consumes too much of your income....then you bitch when someone wants to lower them for well over 99% of this board and 95% of Americans.
You bitch that the "minority interests" get all the benefits, then when a program that benefits the majority comes out you are all against it.
Here is my guess (not guarantee....guess): If the middle class has more of their hard-earned money to spend, they are likely to buy more things/invest in their future...which in turn causes even less people to potentially need assistance from the gov't down the road (huge savings right there). If they spend more money with your business (if you are in the 250k+ club) you should easily offset any losses due to additional taxes you would have incurred by an increase in volume of business....much like the Walmart philosophy of not making as much on every product sold, but they sell a shitload of products to make up for because they can sell it to a wider variety of consumers.
-
integra_gsr98;242057 wrote:
Reagan ftw. Currently wearing a Reagan/Bush 84 t-shirt.I agree 100%, 2 of my top 3 presidents since WW2 (based on info that I have absorbed over the years) are Republicans.
-
http://wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html
Obama's 95% Illusion
It depends on what the meaning of 'tax cut' is.One of Barack Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today.
[Review & Outlook] APIt's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut."
For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:
[Review & Outlook]-
A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.
-
A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.
-
A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).
-
A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.
-
An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.
-
A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.
-
A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.
Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.
The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.
The total annual expenditures on refundable "tax credits" would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as "tax credits," the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.
The political left defends "refundability" on grounds that these payments help to offset the payroll tax. And that was at least plausible when the only major refundable credit was the earned-income tax credit. Taken together, however, these tax credit payments would exceed payroll levies for most low-income workers.
It is also true that John McCain proposes a refundable tax credit -- his $5,000 to help individuals buy health insurance. We've written before that we prefer a tax deduction for individual health care, rather than a credit. But the big difference with Mr. Obama is that Mr. McCain's proposal replaces the tax subsidy for employer-sponsored health insurance that individuals don't now receive if they buy on their own. It merely changes the nature of the tax subsidy; it doesn't create a new one.
There's another catch: Because Mr. Obama's tax credits are phased out as incomes rise, they impose a huge "marginal" tax rate increase on low-income workers. The marginal tax rate refers to the rate on the next dollar of income earned. As the nearby chart illustrates, the marginal rate for millions of low- and middle-income workers would spike as they earn more income.
Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory. The tax credits are sold in the name of "making work pay," but in practice they can be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you're a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year. One mystery -- among many -- of the McCain campaign is why it has allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered.
Wow Chuck, I'm surprised you actually said (though not directly) that you pretty much don't care about more Government control of our lives...I would have expected you of all people to realize that any move towards socialism is bad.
Also I still don't get how he plans to somehow ruin our healthcare system by trying to socialize it and STILL lower taxes on everyone but the top 5%...it simply wouldn't work.
-
-
put it this way obama plans incorporate more gov't control
the basis of this economy is free market capitalism
when you start fucking with that you become a socialist
when you become a socialist you limit growth, who wants to start up a business when you cannot succeed...meaning growth? i know i sure wouldnt because the govt wants to tell me how to run it..what gives me the motivation?
-
But but but...everything the government gets involves in suddenly works so much better because it destroys all that red tape and corruption!
HAHAHA sorry I could barely keep a straight face typing that one out...
-
tjamz;242037 wrote:
Torbs, I fail to see how a tax cut for the working class is a bad thing or how it is a welfare check. He said the MAJORITY of the people would get tax cuts...not extra payments. If you work and earn a living and make less than $250,000 you will get a tax cut if his plan goes forward.Tell me why this is bad?
Is it because you will have more money and won't have to try and negotiate every single deal you try and make with someone?
Is it because I will have more money to buy things for my wife and kid?
Is it because people that are working hard for their money might have a chance to put some of it away?
Is it because businesses should according to the past 2 stimulus packages bring about more people spending money and boosting our economy?
Or is it because a liberal is talking about making a move that would normally be seen as fiscally conservative (ok...fiscally moderate) and presenting it to the people? I mean, come on...I've never seen a tax break that the republican party didn't like!
Agreed. Except for the kids part. i have no kids.
Torbs why are you angry that I dislike Glen Beck? Is it beacuse you follow his every word and thought (and comments/quotes apparently)?
-
tjamz;242042 wrote:
By returning tax levels to what they were during the Reagan administration? Reagan is Mr. Conservative...surely he should have cut taxes if it were fiscally responsible to do so!The gov't already controls nearly every aspect of your life in some way shape or form, what new things do you see Obama bringing to the table that will affect YOU or ME?
So basically saying that all because they control many aspects of my life that it's ok for them to control more...because what Obama brings to the table is more gov't control.
What in the blue hell is wrong with you...
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login