# Obama's Tax "Cut" for non tax payers **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 22, 2008, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-tax-cut-for-non-tax-payers/469125 "2008-10-22T21:17:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2008, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-tax-cut-for-non-tax-payers/469125/101 "2008-10-24T01:42:40Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Isn’t this kind of a wacky and potentially confusing use of tax language, though? > > I mean, according to your argument, if I’m busting my hard-working low-income ass at my above-minimum-wage housekeeping job so that my income is just barely high enough for me to pay a small amount of net-positive income tax, I’m not on welfare. But if next year I lose that job and have to take another one that pays less, and my income becomes just barely low enough for me to receive a small net-negative tax credit, then all of a sudden I am on welfare! > > What happened? I’m still just as much a hard-working fully-employed wage-earner, and the difference in my net income is trivial, but all of a sudden you’re telling me I’m a welfare recipient! Yes. Why is the word welfare so toxic to you? It’s a word that represents public assistance. Food stamps, HUD housing payments, child daycare assistance. It’s all welfare. > [@Kimstu](#): > > Does that really make sense? Does it really correspond to the way we’ve traditionally used the term “welfare”? Being “on welfare” conventionally means that someone is supported by the government instead of working. As far back as I can remember welfare meant public assistance. If you looked at the example I posted I showed how much that adds up and it’s all based on a low-income scenario. It’s not a couple of bucks, its thousands of dollars and it’s hidden among dozens of programs. If you want to launch into social commentary that we need a new word to separate the working welfare recipient from the non-working recipient than that’s fine but in the end it’s still welfare. Replacing the word “welfare” with “public assistance” doesn’t negate the fact that taxing the rich more to increase public assistance is wealth redistribution. The more it is done, the more the economy will be hurt. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2008, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-tax-cut-for-non-tax-payers/469125/102 "2008-10-24T02:21:41Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Replacing the word “welfare” with “public assistance” doesn’t negate the fact that taxing the rich more to increase public assistance is wealth redistribution. The more it is done, the more the economy will be hurt. Woah there big fella, you lost me with that last bit. Do you have any evidence for your last statement? I think that during the last 8 years or so, the wealth distribution has mainly been in the other direction, no? I seem to recall something about nice tax cuts for the upper brackets. And how’s that economy doing there, guy? And if the economy is hurt with an increase in “wealth distribution”, how do you explain the fact that many economies that practice more wealth distribution than the USA are doing pretty good. (ie Canada has a budget surplus for the past 12 years, positive balance of trade, and has strong growth.) ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2008, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-tax-cut-for-non-tax-payers/469125/103 "2008-10-24T03:00:04Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > For me it’s not about money. It’s about giving/allowing everyone to pull on an oar for a while. I find such fervent resistance to even discussing this idea exceedingly odd. Perhaps you can it explain it. You do realize that the working poor have a pretty good idea of what it means to pull an oar, don’t you? I’ve had a lot of jobs- some minimum wage, some well paid. In all cases the minimum wage ones required far, far more work than the well paid one. And this doesn’t even bring up that the working poor often work extra jobs just to get by. But yeah, I’m sure a weekend of labor will teach the mom working two jobs the value of labor! ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2008, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-tax-cut-for-non-tax-payers/469125/104 "2008-10-24T03:44:47Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > At what point in this conversation did I suggest this? It seems a reasonable question considering the lengths you’ve gone to to deny that the payroll tax has any relevance to the discussion and your characterization of a refundable tax credit as welfare. So, once again, do you think that poor people who currently benefit from a negative income tax should have their taxes raised? > [@](#): > > If the tax credit exceeds the tax paid then it’s welfare. First, you should show that the tax credits more than offset both the income and payroll tax. Second, welfare is generally given to those who are out of work. Twisting the politically loaded term “welfare” to encompass a simple tax credit, which is basically already available to tens of millions of households, is incorrect and unsupportable. Lastly, why can’t you call things what they are? Why is it like pulling teeth for you to admit that FICA is, indeed, part of an individual’s tax burden? Why are tax refunds suddenly welfare checks when poor people get them? (I didn’t notice you criticizing the stimulus checks as “welfare for the middle class,” if you did, I’d like to see where and when.) If you are inclined to call every government payment a form of welfare, doesn’t that render meaningless the difference between Social Security and, oh, I don’t know, WELFARE? And as far as wealth redistribution being bad for the economy, I submit that the last eight years of wealth concentration is a primary cause of the crisis on Wall Street. So there. ---
**Author:** ![Churchill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Churchill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Churchill)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2008, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-tax-cut-for-non-tax-payers/469125/105 "2008-10-24T04:12:40Z")
Wow, I really can’t believe a lot of what I have read in this thread. I can’t begin to address all of it but a couple of things - “trickle up economics” and “spread the wealth” aren’t similar. They aren’t even close, in fact they are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Supply side Reaganomis worked in the 1980’s in that personal wealth, unemployment, home ownership, incomes, savings and investment all went up. I challenge you to cite a serious metric that was adversely effected by Reagan. Conversely, I challenge you to find for me a time when redistribution of wealth helped anyone. I will help get the ball rolling: The federal govt spent $17 trillion dollars from 1965 to 2003 on poverty. Poverty rates in 1965 were 18%, poverty rates in 2003 were 18%. -Including people who don’t pay taxes into fictional tax cuts is misleading. What Obama is publicly telling Americans he will do is provide the largest expansion of entitlement programs since LBJ. He proposes no spending cuts other than the military. He is disingenuous at best and dangerous at face value. -This of you who buy into his class warfare rhetoric need to remember that the “rich” already pay their fair share in this country. The top third receive less than $.50 cents in government spending for every dollar they pay in taxes while the bottom third receive about $7.00 in assistance for every dollar they add…if they add anything at all. We are on a slow steady march to socialism, Bush has already help to pave this road. Obama and a democratic majority will only ensure it. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2008, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-tax-cut-for-non-tax-payers/469125/106 "2008-10-24T04:30:15Z")
> [@Churchill](#): > > We are on a slow steady march to socialism, Bush has already help to pave this road. Obama and a democratic majority will only ensure it. Ahhhh the scary socialist meme again! You should be so lucky. Maybe you’ll be able to be in a surplus position for 12 years in a row like the scary socialist country to the North of you. I swear, never in the field of human argument have so many tried to explain so much to so many stubborn people. I shall never surrender! ---
**Author:** ![Carol\_Stream](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c2a13f/32.png) [@Carol\_Stream](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carol_Stream)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2008, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-tax-cut-for-non-tax-payers/469125/107 "2008-10-24T05:06:17Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > So there. Wow, you’ve just won the thread with that insightful argument. Go You! ---
**Author:** ![UnwrittenNocturne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/6de8d8/32.png) [@UnwrittenNocturne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UnwrittenNocturne)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2008, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-tax-cut-for-non-tax-payers/469125/108 "2008-10-24T05:11:07Z")
> [@Churchill](#): > > We are on a slow steady march to socialism, Bush has already help to pave this road. Obama and a democratic majority will only ensure it. If only that were true. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2008, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-tax-cut-for-non-tax-payers/469125/109 "2008-10-24T06:06:45Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > You do realize that the working poor have a pretty good idea of what it means to pull an oar, don’t you? I’ve had a lot of jobs- some minimum wage, some well paid. In all cases the minimum wage ones required far, far more work than the well paid one. And this doesn’t even bring up that the working poor often work extra jobs just to get by. > > But yeah, I’m sure a weekend of labor will teach the mom working two jobs the value of labor! Oh, boy. Obviously, you misunderstood my point. Pull an oar _in the one boat we’re all in_. You know, contribute to the _common_ effort. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2008, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-tax-cut-for-non-tax-payers/469125/110 "2008-10-24T14:03:18Z")
> [@Churchill](#): > > Wow, I really can’t believe a lot of what I have read in this thread. I can’t begin to address all of it but a couple of things > > - “trickle up economics” and “spread the wealth” aren’t similar. They aren’t even close, in fact they are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Supply side Reaganomis worked in the 1980’s in that personal wealth, unemployment, home ownership, incomes, savings and investment all went up. I challenge you to cite a serious metric that was adversely effected by Reagan. Conversely, I challenge you to find for me a time when redistribution of wealth helped anyone. I will help get the ball rolling: The federal govt spent $17 trillion dollars from 1965 to 2003 on poverty. Poverty rates in 1965 were 18%, poverty rates in 2003 were 18%. > > -Including people who don’t pay taxes into fictional tax cuts is misleading. What Obama is publicly telling Americans he will do is provide the largest expansion of entitlement programs since LBJ. He proposes no spending cuts other than the military. He is disingenuous at best and dangerous at face value. > > -This of you who buy into his class warfare rhetoric need to remember that the “rich” already pay their fair share in this country. The top third receive less than $.50 cents in government spending for every dollar they pay in taxes while the bottom third receive about $7.00 in assistance for every dollar they add…if they add anything at all. > > We are on a slow steady march to socialism, Bush has already help to pave this road. Obama and a democratic majority will only ensure it. Step one; Get rid of the neocon power mongers. step two; get rid of the entrenched Washington do nothings from both parties and their financial backers. step three; continue to improve our society and examine policies. rework or remove the ones that don’t work. There’s a reality check needed between real life and statistics. I have a good friend who has a successful business and is pissed about what a high tax rate he pays. I understand and I don’t blame him. On paper it’s really unfair. The reality is he’s living very well. As a society we need to be actively engaged in the process of trying to improve things in our society. It’s not enough to have slogans about how the free market system will work things and how fair a flat tax would be out while people are really hurting. I think Obama is smart enough to see what isn’t working and change it, even if it means changing policy he initiated. If he isn’t then I’ll be happy to vote him out of office if the GOP can find a candidate who sincerely wants to serve the American citizens. Bush sure didn’t and I don’t believe McCain does either. Social programs put in place to help some people through hard times can be tweaked or even done away with in the future. I’m not overly fond of several of Obama’s proposals but in this election at this time in history I think he’s clearly the better choice. Should we worry more about a few percentage points of tax policy or the war that’s draining our economy and costing lives? We, the voting public need to stage engaged and make serious changes in congress to ensure things get done. I welcome an honest discussion between sincere members of congress. First we have to get rid of the insincere self serving jackasses. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2008, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-tax-cut-for-non-tax-payers/469125/111 "2008-10-24T14:15:36Z")
> [@Carol\_Stream](#): > > Wow, you’ve just won the thread with that insightful argument. Go You! Given that “So there” represented a tiny fraction of that post, and that **Ravenman** has contributed 10 posts to this thread laying out a compelling and coherent argument, whereas this driveby gem constituted your only contribution to the thread whatsoever, I’d say you’re in contention for the Greatest Sadly Ironic post of the year. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2008, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-tax-cut-for-non-tax-payers/469125/112 "2008-10-24T14:34:16Z")
Yeah! So there! ---
**Author:** ![Churchill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Churchill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Churchill)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2008, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-tax-cut-for-non-tax-payers/469125/113 "2008-10-24T17:15:07Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Ahhhh the scary socialist meme again! You should be so lucky. Maybe you’ll be able to be in a surplus position for 12 years in a row like the scary socialist country to the North of you. > > I swear, never in the field of human argument have so many tried to explain so much to so many stubborn people. I shall never surrender! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Canada…funny. Perhaps you could give credit where credit is due. Canadians, since the inception of your country, have benefited by either a strong mother country or a strong neighbor. In economic terms this means you can get away with spending an infintesimal amount on military and defense compared to GDP while letting others do the heavy lifting. Canada also has the luxury of dumping products like lumber on American markets. You just told an NFL team that they can get under the salary cap by being more like pop warner. Don’t do that again ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2008, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-tax-cut-for-non-tax-payers/469125/114 "2008-10-24T20:24:40Z")
> [@Churchill](#): > > Supply side Reaganomis worked in the 1980’s in that personal wealth, unemployment, home ownership, incomes, savings and investment all went up. I challenge you to cite a serious metric that was adversely effected by Reagan. Not true, at least according to the Cato Institute: [Link](http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1120). They claim that while the first metrics you list improved under Reagan, savings rates did not. So that is at least one “serious metric”. > [@Churchill](#): > > -Including people who don’t pay taxes into fictional tax cuts is misleading. What Obama is publicly telling Americans he will do is provide the largest expansion of entitlement programs since LBJ. I repeat again, please show me a working person in this country that doesn’t pay taxes. From dollar one payroll taxes are withheld, and everyone pays a federal gas tax (just to list two). A negative tax rate is not socialism, and was original proposed by Milton Friedman. [QUOTE=Churchill] He proposes no spending cuts other than the military. He is disingenuous at best and dangerous at face value. [/QUOTE] Also manifestly untrue. Obama has proposed the following non-military spending cuts: “cutting Medicare subsidies to HMOs, cutting subsidies to banks that make student loans, imposing payment limits for high-income farmers, dramatically reducing pork-barrel projects, ending no-bid contracting and eliminating unnecessary and duplicative programs.” From [here](http://www.usbudgetwatch.org/budgetblog/2008/obamas-advisor-stresses-spending-cuts-159). [QUOTE=Churchill] -This of you who buy into his class warfare rhetoric need to remember that the “rich” already pay their fair share in this country. The top third receive less than $.50 cents in government spending for every dollar they pay in taxes while the bottom third receive about $7.00 in assistance for every dollar they add…if they add anything at all. [/QUOTE] How can you be sure that the current share is “fair”? Are you the final arbiter of fairness? Is there some way to measure the benefit derived from the state for “the rich”? No, there is not. We, as a society, pretty much from day one (and I include John McCain in this) have determined that those that earn more have derived a greater benefit from the services and protections of the nation, and as such should pay a greater than proportional share of its funding. This is not particularly controversial, and sure as hell isn’t socialism. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2008, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-tax-cut-for-non-tax-payers/469125/115 "2008-10-25T19:14:38Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > First, it is clear that Obama his been disingenuous about this. It’s been intentional. Just lately he had to revise his plan to eliminate people who didn’t work at all, lest, McCain & Co be able to characterize it as welfare. So 2% of the people were dropped from his plan in the last week or so. But the fact that they were included in the first place is telling. It shows that he really does just want to employ some socialist-type redistribute the wealth scheme. So, fuck him for that alone. > > But let me ask this of those who favor his plan: I read that if employed that his plan would eliminate taxes—of ANY kind—for around 40% of Americans. Do you really think it is a good idea that such a large number of us would be expected to not contribute AT ALL to the common fund and pay for all the things we have. Or, as Joe Biden might put it, is it a good idea to withhold from 40% of Americans the opportunity to be patriotic? Any tax plan redistributes the wealth. In 8 years the Bush admin has redistributed the wealth to the rich. We have the biggest gap in wealth since the first depression. They have deliberately rewarded the rich at the expense of the rest of us. If Obama thinks the wealth sharing should be flattened out, I am all for it. ---
**Author:** ![Dumbguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/2bfe46/32.png) [@Dumbguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dumbguy)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2008, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-tax-cut-for-non-tax-payers/469125/116 "2008-10-25T20:02:10Z")
This isoutrageous. I’m never voting for LBJ again. ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2008, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-tax-cut-for-non-tax-payers/469125/117 "2008-10-25T20:24:37Z")
> [@Churchill](#): > > I challenge you to cite a serious metric that was adversely effected by Reagan. National Debt. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2008, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-tax-cut-for-non-tax-payers/469125/118 "2008-10-26T02:30:16Z")
1. Those without short memories will recall that the Savings and Loan crisis occurred on Reagan’s watch. You see, they were big fans of deregulating the banking industry, except they forgot that the taxpayer was insuring all those deposits. So lots of dipshit Savings and Loans made piss-poor investment decisions that any decent regulator would have put a stop to. Condos were built in the middle of nowhere and Keating’s nonsense at Lincoln Savings and Loan was the largest case of control fraud in US history. Poor investment decisions damage economic growth. 1. Higher budget deficits run under Reagan, due to his tax cuts and defense buildup reduced national savings and therefore investment, also hurting economic growth. 2. Supply side economics is a form of crank economics. There are plenty of conservative economists, but no serious thinker believes that tax cuts are the be-all and end-all of economic growth potential. 3. So what was the result? GDP growth was higher under Carter, Clinton and Johnson than it was under Ronald Reagan or either of the Bushes (through 2004). So spare me the chatter about how wonderful Reagan was for the economy – it’s pure unsubstantiated blovating. Cite: [http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/09/notes-to-self-f.html](http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/09/notes-to-self-f.html) ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-tax-cut-for-non-tax-payers/469125/119 "2008-10-27T16:31:35Z")
Ya know, something just occurred to me. For all of McCain’s hand-waving over giving cash to people who “don’t pay taxes,” the centerpiece of his health care proposal is a $5,000 tax credit. Let me clarify: a $5,000 REFUNDABLE tax credit. [Cite.](http://www.johnmccain.com/content/default.aspx?guid=9b94f39b-1650-4a3a-89ef-fba8cba4c868) The hypocrisy is astounding. Refundable tax credits proposed by McCain, good. Refundable tax credits proposed by Obama, socialism!!! ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-tax-cut-for-non-tax-payers/469125/120 "2008-10-27T16:54:30Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Yes. Why is the word welfare so toxic to you? It’s a word that represents public assistance. Food stamps, HUD housing payments, child daycare assistance. It’s all welfare. > > As far back as I can remember welfare meant public assistance. If you looked at the example I posted I showed how much that adds up and it’s all based on a low-income scenario. It’s not a couple of bucks, its thousands of dollars and it’s hidden among dozens of programs. If you want to launch into social commentary that we need a new word to separate the working welfare recipient from the non-working recipient than that’s fine but in the end it’s still welfare. > > Replacing the word “welfare” with “public assistance” doesn’t negate the fact that taxing the rich more to increase public assistance is wealth redistribution. The more it is done, the more the economy will be hurt. All admins are involved in income redistribution. The Bush admin redistributed the wealth toward the rich. We have the biggest gap in wealth since the great depression. If you want to argue that a huge gap is good ,have at it. If you want to ague that redistribution of wealth is wrong, you have to be against the repubs ,who have just done so. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-tax-cut-for-non-tax-payers/469125.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-tax-cut-for-non-tax-payers/469125.md?page=7)