Posted on 09/11/2008 4:32:06 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
The best-kept secret in this presidential campaign is Barack Obama's substantial package of middle class tax cuts--most political junkies can't even tell you what's in it and most working-class swing voters don't even know it exists.
Indeed, those voters would be shocked to discover that, according to independent analyses, Obama is offering 80% of Americans four times as much in tax relief as McCain on average.
The next best-kept secret of the campaign, and arguably the biggest mystery, is why has Team Obama seemingly been hiding this electoral haymaker? Even worse, why have they been letting their opponents con the American people into thinking that Obama will raise taxes on the middle class while McCain will lower them--a damaging line of attack that is demonstrably false?
This is perplexing on many levels, given the primacy of the economy as an issue in this credit-crunched year, the traditional bugaboo that taxes have been for Democrats and the troubles Obama has had closing the deal with blue collar voters. Indeed, if ever there were a time for a Democrat to play up a middle-class tax cut, not as a pander but as a serious response to a serious weakness in the economy, this is it.
But it is all the more mystifying because Team Obama has otherwise run one of the most ruthlessly efficient and disciplined presidential campaigns in the television era. They did not take out the Clinton juggernaut by getting lucky, but by consistently and aggressively out-thinking, out-maneuvering and out-organizing their formidable opponents--not to mention out-reading the public zeitgeist.
The only explanation I can come up with is that the Obama campaign fell into the classic trap of re-fighting the last war.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
The real problem is that Obama wants to confuse a ‘tax cut’ with a welfare payment inside a wealth transfer scheme. Obama would tax some people more in order to give other people a tax credit for taxes they didn’t pay. When you give someone something they didn’t earn, that’s welfare.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
It is inferior because he thinks taxation is a zero sum game and that cute must be offset not with spending limitations but rather with increases on the ‘rich’ and businesses.
So what happens when the corporate tax rate goes up?
What happens when small businesses who file as individuals/families have their taxes go up?
What happens when your ‘start-up’ designation expires?
The answer is simple:
1. Prices go up.
2. Business owners, unlike the government, understand the value of cutting expenses. This will mean less investment in capital projects, fewer raises, and in many cases lay-offs.
As for tax credits for college - that is nothing more than pandering. It is not the job of the federal government to provide collegiate education - it is the responsibility of the states (or private enterprises) which run the schools, the families, and most importantly - the students.
A more detailed summary without the political rhetoric can be found here:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/election_issues_matrix.cfm
(Obama wants a 45% tax rate on estates over $3.5 million. Why don’t we just start taking small business owners out and shooting them instead!)
That's exactly the type of emotional response the left hopes we will use! What is needed is logical facts a point-by-point refutation of his plan.
Start with something like: the latest figures from the congressional budget office say that the top 50% of earners pay 96%+ of the federal income tax. If you cut taxes for 95% of the taxpayers as you promise, how do you do that without DRASTICALLY reducing the net revenue to the government?
And given your program plans, at a minimum, call for 845 billion in new spending....is your plan not fiscally impossible?
Bill and Hillary would get a tax break?
Since, 50% of tax payers pay no tax, they cannot benefit from a tax cut. They will be given a tax credit which will be refundable.
My understanding is that these groups wouldn't be part of the "95%" as Obama implies
What is needed is logical facts a point-by-point refutation of his plan.
:::::::::::::
As we have long witnessed, anything factual used against liberals are LIES AND TAX BREAKS FOR THE RICH. The dregs that will vote for Obama, are typically not America’s major taxpayers or contributors to the GNP. They want as much of a free ride they can get, and anyone’s expense of course, and in return they will give their vote to Obama, et al.
Until those voters get hurt bad enough by the radical socialist left, they will NEVER consider rational thinking or facts or logic. They are to selfish.
Borat would say almost anything to get elected, McLaim would say almost anything..
“How does increasing taxes in the 5% who make $250,000 or more help decrease taxes on the other 95% ?”
All that is beside the point. A few months ago, Maria Bertilona (bad spelling, the cute babe on MSNBC that does the real time reporting from Wall Street) interviewed Obama. During that interview she asked this question (paraphrased): ‘Why do you want to raise capital gains taxes since that has been proven to cut revenues’. The Obama answered: “It isn’t about revenue, it’s about fairness”. IOW, Obama thinks some people simply have too much money and he will take that money to make incomes more fairly distributed.
Now do you understand the Obama’s tax plan? He wants to use the tax code to make incomes more ‘fairly’ distributed. He doesn’t care if that means everyone makes less as long as it’s ‘fair’. The man will be an economic disaster.
“Does anyone really believe he has what it takes to implement it????”
Many seriously do in Typical Bitterland. That stimulus check gave them a taste, and they want more - plus you’ve got people like BOR saying you’ll get a check for $1,000 in the mail from 0bama.
However, George S corrected 0bama last Sunday: If you’re single with no dependents, you don’t get squat. The keyword on his plan is FAMILIES, so he wasn’t lying.
So those without children - and sans spouse - will have to carry the load right along with the 5% that are ‘rich’.
It drops down to 81% after the adjustment - which George S pointed out. Unfortunately, I didn’t catch the source - I don’t know if it was taxfoundation.org or not. If someone has it, please advise - thanks!
Has Barry cut local taxes in the community he organized? I bet there is a local wage tax and business owners privilege taxes as in most big cities ..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.