Obama Wants To Shift Tax Burden To Rich

Investor's Business Daily ^ | Aug. 22, 2008 | DAVID HOGBERG

[budwiesest]

Obama won’t have to do anything if the AMT isn’t recinded. ‘Cause if you have a lot of deductions against your income, they have a plan to take it anyway.

[budwiesest]

If you make more than his half brother, then you are rich . Hut Sweet Hut.

It's too late to be that funny. LOL!

[Bobalu]

Socialist idiots.
The problem we have is not enough millionaires.
Rich people, for the most part, are who keep this capitalist ship afloat.
Rich entrepreneurs create jobs and wealth at the same time...out of thin air! the government sure can’t.

[A Balrog of Morgoth]

Nobody making between 31 and 43 thousand anywhere in the NYC could charitably be called anything more than lower middle class, yet Obama wants to raise their marginal rates by 50%?

[MarkL]

In contrast, McCain would cut taxes across the board and give the biggest cuts to the highest-income households.

For the mathematically challenged and leftists out there, this translates to "give the biggest cuts to people who actually PAY taxes, and smaller "cuts" to those who don't." And for the grammatically scrupulous (i.e. Conservatives) the phrase "'cuts' to those who don't (pay taxes), this translates to more welfare.

Mark

[MarkL]

The problem is that the entire premise given here is a lie. Here in the US, "the rich" aren't taxed. Being rich means owning great wealth. In the US, wealth isn't taxed, at least not by the federal government. Only earnings are taxed.

The ugly little game that's played here, through class hatred and envy ("the rich don't pay their fair share!!!") is that the productive and earners are the ones taxed, and the least productive, who are a net drain on the economy and society are subsidized.

If the "rich" were really taxed, then the Kennedy clan and their ilk would be worth a LOT less than they are today... How much "productivity" has that family introduced into the economy and society since Joe was a bootlegger?

Mark

[Gaffer]

Most likely, that's because the $31K/year is about the income level that most EIC filers qualify for (with 1 dependent). The maximum EIC income for 2008 is something over $38K.

So in Obama's eyes, these people and those with incomes below that will not only not see tax rates climb (as if they even paid Federal income tax anyway), but also receive all the more money back disguised as ficticious tax payments they made (but really didn't).

EIC is a complicated concept coined by the government to disguise its true name - income redistribution. ANY Democratic tax proposal has first got to figure out that this one group is protected from any federal tax at all, and , preferably, how this group can get more money they never earned.

So the Democrats now are really only left with pandering to those with incomes between the Max EIC income and US Median income (about $48.5K in 2006) which can take the form of free medical care, home heating oil assistance, etc. If you have these groups in your pocket, you will stay in power forever.

[ajay_kumar]

Any one making more than what the gubbermint pays
in welfare/minimum wage/ADC/Unemployment is “rich”
in eyes of liberals such as Obama & Biden.

[RWB Patriot]

Reagan was right when he spoke of “trickle-down” economics. Unfortunatly, they work both ways; when a business has to pay more taxes, the cost is shifted to the workers and customers in the form of lower wages, lower benefits, higher prices, etc.

And this isn’t taking into account the “Rich” waking up one morning and saying “Screw this. I’m leaving and I’m taking my money with me,” which honestly wouldn’t surprise me if it did happen.

[RWB Patriot]

“In contrast, McCain would cut taxes across the board and give the biggest cuts to the highest-income households.”

Are people not entitled to keep more as they earn more? And it’s the higher-income earners who, more often than not, provide the jobs in this country (running a business is expensive).