Posted on 10/15/2008 6:17:37 AM PDT by Kaslin
WASHINGTON -- Barack Obama has a disturbing habit of saying things that are not true, such as no one who makes less than $250,000 will pay higher taxes under his tax plans.
He is running saturation ads around the country saying this, but the fact is that lots of people will be paying higher taxes beneath that income level (which will raise the top marginal tax rate from 35 percent to nearly 40 percent). In fact, millions of Americans who now pay no income taxes will get "refundable" checks from the government under his plan (but more on that in a minute).
The liberal senator would raise capital-gains tax rates on the sale of stocks or other assets on the gain in their value when they're sold. That would mean higher taxes on millions of American families preparing for their retirement.
He'd raise taxes on dividends, too, that would impose higher taxes on Americans whose income depends on those hard-earned dividends.
If you run a small business that earns $250,000 or more and you pay taxes on its earnings as an individual taxpayer (though you pay yourself less than that), you will be hit by his higher income tax.
His plan proposes to get rid of a lot of corporate tax "loopholes," which would mean higher taxes that would be passed on to their customers who make a lot less than $250,000.
But the most disingenuous part of his tax plan is his claim that he will give 95 percent of all American workers a "tax cut," because he does not mention that it will mean sending checks to millions of tax filers who pay no personal income taxes.
Critics say that looks "suspiciously like welfare" or income redistribution from wealthier taxpayers to lower-income Americans. But it also raises the question, How can he call it a "tax cut" when its recipients pay no income taxes?
Under his "Making Work Pay" income tax cut for low- to middle-income people, he will give a "refundable" $500 tax credit to low- to middle-income workers or $1,000 to couples. It would begin to phase out at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for a couple.
But because he makes it "refundable," he will pay the equivalent amount to those who have no income-tax liability after taking the usual tax credits and deductions in the tax code. Those checks would come from taxes to be paid by higher-income Americans.
The Internal Revenue Service says nearly 46 million tax filers -- one-third of all filers -- had no tax liability in 2006, so you can hardly call this a tax cut because they pay no taxes.
"What he's really talking about doing is mailing a check and, to me, that looks more like a welfare program than the kind of real tax relief that would encourage work, savings and investments," said Phil Kerpen, policy director at Americans for Prosperity, a free-market advocacy group.
Obama claims that almost all workers (95 percent) will benefit from his "tax cuts." But Investor's Business Daily points out that Obama's "'working families' does not include all households. Throw in singles, retirees, students and the unemployed, and the share getting some tax-related benefit is a good deal less."
The Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan tax-analysis group established by the liberal Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, dismisses his 95 percent figure, saying that about 80 percent of households would receive a tax cut. Throw in the tens of millions of tax filers who owe no taxes, and the percentage of taxpayers getting real tax cuts falls a lot lower.
The Obama campaign's chief economist Jason Furman told me in an e-mail that "the tens of millions of families working hard and paying payroll taxes do not think that tax cuts are a form of 'welfare' or 'redistribution' -- they think it is only fair to reward work."
Roberton Williams of the Tax Policy Center said "one can argue" that workers who don't pay income taxes "are paying Social Security payroll taxes, and this is a tax cut against that."
But is this just another clever way for Obama to redistribute the nation's income, taking from high-income taxpayers who pay the lion's share of all income taxes and giving it to lower-income workers who pay none?
Williams doesn't dispute this. "You could view it that way because both (tax) proposals are in the same tax plan," he said. "There's no question that's one way to perceive the tax plan." Exactly.
So this is what's at the core of Obama's economic policies -- taking more money from one group of taxpayers and directly transferring it to those in the lower- to middle-income tax brackets who pay little or no income taxes to begin with.
Instead of cutting everyone's taxes to encourage work, investment and savings by enlarging the economic pie, Obama would redivide the pie into smaller slices and redistribute it through the tax system.
This is the Europeanization of the economy that awaits us under an Obama presidency.
McCain had better bring up the plumber quote tonight.
The black Muslim socialist is going to redistribute your wealth.
There was a lot more to that exchange than we’re hearing. Another thread has an interview with the plumber. He’s wanting to open a business, he will not be “rich”, but his business will put him in the 250k income range (with lots of debt).
0bama wants to punish his “American Dream”.
"suspiciously like welfare", What the hell is suspicious about it? It's in your face blatant. Vote for 0bama and he will give you more welfare.
...
Psssssst he’s 1/2 white don’tcha know.
And that’s exactly how McCain needs to set up the quote.
On the bottom of his feet and hands.
When Obama talks about tax cuts, he focuses on welfare-like payments from the rich to the poor.
This guy is from another planet.
Even most of the middle class likes welfare now. We are all “socialists” now.
1960 - John F. Kennedy - “ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country”
48 years later, an ageing indulgent baby-boomer class, given almost everything by their parents who survived the great depression, and won the Big one, never seem to have enough.
2008 -we the people - “show me the money”
Barack to people - “We’ll spread the wealth around”
Depressing.
Everytime I hear that friggin’ commercial of his and it gets to that tax cut part for millions of Americans, I start screaming, “They don’t pay any taxes, that makes it welfare, call it what it is”!
Yeah, he should.
It’s not welfare, it’s communism.
Tax the “rich” out of existence, just like Stalin punished the well-off independent peasants in the late 1920s. He called them “kulaks” and the idea wasn’t fairness, it was control. In practice, a “kulak” was anyone with one more cow than you. In the end, all peasants were herded into the hated collective farms, and Russia, once breadbasket of Europe, suffered famine.
It’s the same idea here. Don’t forget that when 0bama and McCain are talking about the middle class, they are talking about two completely different sets of people. For McCain, the middle class are the people that make this country work, like the plumber. Small independent business owners. They are 0bama’s tax targets because that’s where our nation’s wealth lies. And where the power of the people lies. 0bama will reduce these “rich” members of the middle class to paupers.
0bama’s middle class, on the other hand, are the 40% of people who pay no taxes, and are a net drain on our economy. The people who can’t afford the homes they live in. The people who do not have the skills to keep up in our changing economy, nor do they care to acquire them. The people who believe the government “owes” them their existence. Those are the recipients of 0bama’s tax policies.
If 0bama is elected president, I fully expect the socialist congress to rubber-stamp his policies. We will all be herded on to various “collective farms.” Where this will lead is to the “rational distribution of resources.” That’s just a longer term for “rationing.” The distribution of everything to every household will be regulated: Electricity, gasoline, food, education, everything. The State will determine how much you get.
Be prepared for a black market economy, graft, and corruption like you’ve never before imagined.
We’re going to be in the same boat with our business.
IF, due to the stupidity and ignorance of the average voter, BO manages to get himself elected, I think we’re going to add an “Obama surcharge” to each of our customer invoices reflecting the increase in our taxes.
“Oh, this charge here? Well, the total above is what you would have paid before Obama so wisely increased the taxes affecting many small businesses. Unfortunately, we can’t afford to absorb the extra cost and stay in business, so we’ve been forced to pass the additional cost on to our customers.”
GREAT IDEA.
You need to get this to Hannity, seriously!
If, God forbid, he does get into power, EVERY small business needs to do this.
Obama wants to take money from hard working plumbers and factory workers to send checks to those who work “off the record”, like drug dealers and prostitutes.
McCain should simply state the obvious. Only the naive believe a politicians promises. The only thing you can trust is his actions, not his words. Clinton promised us tax cuts, and after being elected gave us the largest tax increase in history. Obama has voted for every tax increase in his life, and against every tax cut in his life. Talk is cheap. Reality with a democrat president is very, very expensive.
So a tax rebate is welfare?
So that would include the stimulus checks this year and back in the early 2000’s.
Sorry, folks, another stupid argument that ends up helping O’Bama.
I'll help you out. If you pay federal income taxes and you get a tax cut or a rebate check your effective tax rate is lowered. If you don't pay federal income taxes and you get a check in the mail, that is welfare.
Clear?
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.