"No deductions for you!"
Posted on 10/01/2008 10:27:23 PM PDT by Danae
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- How would Barack Obama pay for the $800 billion that John McCain claimed in the first presidential debate Sept. 26 in Oxford, Miss., that his Democratic opponent would spend if he were elected president? Obama replied, by "closing tax loopholes."
Obama was no more specific in the debate, and tax experts doubt that structural changes without increasing taxes can raise anything close to that amount of money.
My office asked the Obama campaign for the details, and it responded with a 19-page single-spaced paper on the candidate's "tax plans."
In fact, there was precious little about tax policy in the paper, which amounted to a repeat of Democratic campaign oratory that can be heard in 30-second speeches before both houses of Congress daily on C-SPAN.
Obama has made clear that he would try to roll back President Bush's tax cuts, but that does not come under the definition of a "loophole." A loophole consists of a conniving tax attorney discovering a weakness in the Internal Revenue Code or such a weakness intentionally legislated by Congress under the instigation of crafty lobbyists. The only specific tax legislation contained in Obama's paper would raise the capital gains rate for most shareholders, restore taxation on dividend income to pre-Bush standards and restore the full estate tax.
These were not loopholes but presidential proposals enacted by Congress. The Obama paper paints a picture of lobbyists running wild on Capitol Hill but neglects to assess the impact on the economy during the current financial crisis of taking a serious strike against the stockholding public.
Obama's dividends and capital gains proposals appear to be a major attempt at redistribution of income rather than a serious attempt to pay for the spending that he has proposed.
A loophole is anything the government hssn’t already gotten it’s hands on.
Weren’t tax loopholes largely eliminated along with Reagan’s tax cuts in the 80s?
Leave it to the economically illiterate Obama to think that “loopholes” are still a big problem.
Every time a Lobbist gets his or her way, a loop hole is created. Seriously anytime you come across a law that tells you not to do something, but specifies no punishment and in fact never states that there is a punishment at all, yea loophole.
Thats how the Naked Short Sellers were getting away with Raping companies. A loophole just like that.
Did I mention I was referring to “TAX” loopholes?
"No deductions for you!"
I still believe in no taxation without representation.
In the US, we recognize corporations as legal parties who are subject to corporation income tax.
Accordingly, even though we do not allow corporations to vote for their representatives in government, I find no reason they might not defend and express their interests to those who represent the people who comprise those corporations.
Accordingly, the implication of lobbyists as ‘crafty’, fails to acknowledge a much greater loophole which would form in a representative government, if corporations were not allowed to lobby elected representatives.
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.