Posted on 10/15/2008 8:27:27 AM PDT by PajamaTruthMafia
I don’t have a link to the original WSJ article, but this is a summary that I found on an accounting web site.
WSJ: Obama’s Tax Cut for 95% of Americans Is an Illusion
Editorial in today’s Wall Street Journal: 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.
It’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.” ...
Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven [tax] credits for individuals:
1. 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.
2. A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.
3. A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).
4. A “savings” tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.
5. 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.
6. A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.
7. 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. ...
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. ...
One mystery — among many — of the McCain campaign is why it has allowed Mr. Obama’s 95% illusion to go unanswered.
October 13, 2008 in Political News | Permalink
TrackBack
re: “erratic”
That was John Kerry’s talking point already more than a month ago - surely it was provided by the Obama campaign then. Kerry used it to deride McCain for selecting Governor Palin to be the VP candidate.
The ‘Rat scumbags are nothing if not predictable — “erratic” is their way of playing the “age card” without referring to age.
Just as obvious is that the republican candidate should be running against the unpopular democrat congress. Heaven knows they've given him enough ammo. Banking scandals, sex scandals, stupid energy policy, etc. But there is a problem, McCain is a creature of the congress, it's hard to run against them when you are of them. Hence his whole "I'm a Maverick" theme (i.e. he's not Bush and he's not really a republican in congress) but all that means is he is a guy who compromises his values in order to work the system, which I don't think people see as the same as being an outsider. So McCain has shied away from really going after the congress and that means the next choice is to run head on against Obama. But McCain won't do that either, instead he's running against Obama's past associates. Actually, Bill Ayers. It's sort of like rather than facing your enemy going to the UN to ask for sanctions. Seems like doing something but ultimately won't make much difference.
McCain needs to pick a real opponent starting tonight. Go after Obama head on or tie him to the democrat congress and then run against them. But not half way, go all out and be willing to know that some senators are going to be ticked off and will tell him to go to hell after it's all over. He'd rather lose an election than lose a war, I think he'd also rather lose an election than lose his friends in the senate.
Bottom line, Senators make lousy candidates. Never nominate one again!
I'm good with that approach. :-)
Obama has already received the questions, or he wouldn’t know which answers the media is supposed to parrot...
If you think this is scary, just wait until Obama has REAL power!
So long 1st Amendment...
And Ann Curry - jeez she’s creepy.
Saudi money?
And no mention in the article of the fact that Obama intends to let the Bush tax cuts expire, which will equate to an automatic tax INCREASE on people like me, the middle class (or lower middle class).
Here is one thing I know. DemocRats NEVER lower taxes. They always “only” raise taxes. But they always DO lie about it.
“Oh, stop it. You know as well as I do that a big chunk of the news media will be using these talking points. And the debate hasn’t been held yet.”
And if they do it’ll be obvious where they came from. Although a lot of the points ti sounds like the campaign is simply parroting what the media and “pundits” are already saying. Not a whole lot original there.
“Remember, please, debates are generally very overrated.”
I pay no attention to them whatsoever. I’ll probably be watching a movie.
He will take from "The Rich", turning them back into 'Middle Class'; and take that stolen moen, and give it to 'The Poor', bring them up to "The Middle Class".
IOW, the typical, unworkable, "classless" Commie/Socialist society, run by a classless, cluelss, relentless cabal.
And 2nd Amendment! If Obama wins, I imagine there will be a LOT of gun theft police reports made.
“* This is John McCain’s last chance to turn this race around and somehow convince the American people that his erratic response to this economic crisis doesn’t disqualify him from being President.”
This isn’t the candidate laying out the details of the programs he is hoping to discuss in tonight’s debate, this is an attempt by the DNC to yet again collude with the media to present the reporting of the news. This is giving the editors the framing of the debate coverage to be “on point”.
Ever wonder why the networks all lead with the same handful of stories with all that goes on in the world?
Ever wonder why they ALL seized on the word “g-r-a-v-i-t-a-s” in 2000?
I have no plans to watch tonight. I’ve heard it all before.
Do you really, really believe the McCain campaign isn’t already spinning the debate before it happens? MAYBE he’s being a little more subtle than Obama, but you know he’s doing it.
Before the VP debate, the campaign was spinning if Palin just gets a “tie” that’s a win (which the media readily parroted) and they were also downplaying her speaking skills to lower expectations. That’s how the game is played.
Noooo! He'll never take me! I must RESIST!
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.