Oh, hell no. That is even more misleading. We are talking about federal income taxes. When Obama says that McCain wants tax cuts for the rich, is he talking about sales taxes, gasoline taxes and the like? Hell no.
That is even more misleading nonsense. The whole debate is about federal income (I thought rates, but) taxes…
See erislovers post #19 above. I guess I also have no problem with math, and can understand that if someone is currently receiving money back under EICT, a “tax cut” will mean that they get a bit more back.
I just cannot see what the fuss is about.
I guess I should be embarassed. I thought that Obama was for change and not the same word games.
You can’t say that this debate was about fucking payroll taxes and the like. It was about the Bush tax cuts (which were mentioned many times) and they dealt with only income taxes.
Payroll taxes, FICA, property taxes, sales taxes, are all separate issues; most of which aren’t even federal issues.
But the income tax is a Federal issue. The EITC is a Federal issue. The payroll tax is a Federal issue.
Again, Obama isn’t saying that 95% of income tax payers will see a benefit. For conservatives to somehow try to pretend that low income Americans don’t pay any taxes, and Obama would somehow start some massive new government welfare program for them, is misleading at best, and disingenuous at worst. Just because Republicans don’t want to acknowledge the existence of payroll taxes in this discussion doesn’t mean that the poor suddenly don’t pay them.
Also, Rand Rover, I responded to your proposal for a bet on tax burdens over in the Pit thread about taxes. That thread kind of died out, so I’m not sure you saw it. Cruise on over and let me know what you think.
I’m really getting tired of people trying to disingenuously claim to be shocked, SHOCKED, that Obama is somewhat left of the center, and that he, shockingly, hasn’t been 100%, completely, non-political and lain down his head on the chopping block like the sacrificial lamb they wish he’d actually be. None of you was going to vote for him in the first place. This is obvious. Quit lying and acting like his “shockingly” liberal (really left-centrist) policies are giant secrets that have never, ever been talked about in public this entire campaign season.
They really hope no one will ever take notice of the ceiling on the FICA deduction, which makes FICA regressive rather than progressive. Personally, I think the ceiling should be $300,000 rather than $100,000. That would take care of this mythical Social Security shortfall no matter what illusory numbers one is using.
I remember receiving the EIC when my kids were little. About 25 years ago. I thought it was stupid then and I still think so. That’s part of Obama’s plan that I don’t agree with. I don’t like the idea of that many people not paying any taxes although I’m willing to look at arguments why that’s a positive thing for our society. For other reasons, I’m voting for Obama.
If his plan is to help people while we fix the economy so more people are working and paying taxes that’s great but in general I think it’s a bad idea to have too large a segment of our population not paying taxes, and worse to be getting back more from other tax payers.
This debate was started by you, and it is a misleading attempt to pretend that Obama’s claim is limited to federal income taxes.
He clearly says that it applies to working families. It is a tax cut for workers’ wages. Workers pay taxes on their wages in the form of payroll taxes and income taxes.
The only ones playing word games in this debate are you and Rand Rover. If you honestly want to understand the issue, go to the Tax Policy Center or Politifact.com.
If you want to spread bullshit lies under the guise of an honest attempt to understand things, that’s a different matter altogether.
But also, more people will go from paying to receiving.
I’m not arguing that Obama is not technically correct (and I don’t think the OP is either). The problem is that Obama is selling a Robin Hood scheme as a tax cut so that it doesn’t sound as bad as it is.
Read my prior posts about my feelings regarding this election. You want to accuse me of lying when you don’t really know, then that is your fucking choice…
Anyways, these things are ALWAYS about income taxes. When have we had a Presidential debate where a candidate said, “I want to lower/raise your municipal water fees!”
Social Security?!? Fucking forget it! Nobody will touch the payroll tax issue…
Of course all workers pay Medicare and Social Security Payroll Taxes. It is a payment for the future benefits they will receive. Nobody has ever called these welfare programs which are dependent on income. You pay into a trust fund.
Now come on SDMB posters, let’s be honest here and quit fucking around. When a candidate says “tax cuts” he isn’t talking about your garbage pickup surcharge.
Did any of you, in early 2001, think that the Bush tax cuts were about the fees that you pay on your dog from the county?
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?
I imagine he’s lost your vote then.
It shows his true intent, but the crafty McCain got him to drop his true desires by pointing them out? That’s what you’re going with? Seems far more likely that they designed the plan based on other principles and it had the effect of including a sliver of people who did not work. They didn’t really care either way about that sliver, so when it became a potential liability, they were happy to jettison it. Why is your interpretation more plausible?
(Not to mention the problematic notion of any welfare being considered socialism.)
OK, so if this discussion is just about income taxes, and absolutely not about any other sort of tax whatsoever, I’ve got a suggestion: Let’s eliminate income tax altogether! Under my plan, every citizen in America, including the vast majority who are in the top 5% and whose every need must be catered to, will pay no income tax whatsoever!
[sub]You will, however, all have to pay an earning-money-tax of between 10% and 35% of all of the money you earn from any source.[/sub]
But hey, the earning-money-tax I’m proposing doesn’t matter at all, because it’s not income tax, and that’s all that matters for purposes of this discussion, right?
That’s actually a rather good question. Let me tackle it this way: for the bottom 20% of Americans, the average family earns $15,000 a year. For the next lowest 20%, the average family brings home $33,000 a year.
Even if that “family” is nothing more than an unmarried single earner with no children, they will most likely be paying nothing to just a couple hundred bucks in income tax. If we were to restrict this conversation to the income tax, as your conservative friends proposed earlier, then for the most part, they are already out of the narrowly defined taxation game.
Was this a controversial proposal? Hell, it was one of the selling points of the Bush tax cuts.
Now, those same families probably pay around a grand or two in FICA. If it isn’t a stretch to believe that it is okay to exempt something like a third of wage earners from the income tax, then providing them a tax credit that takes care of payroll taxes is fine with me.
All things being even, if I were to design a tax policy from scratch, I would think about merging payroll and income taxes to simplify the taxes we pay, have the poor pay a minimal amount of tax, and maintain the progressivity of the system by topping out with a tax in the range of 40 to 45 percent on ultra high income earners, such as those with earnings in the million dollar area.
Aesthetically, I think it is probably a good thing that everyone contribute something to the government, and the wealthier you are, the more you are able to contribute, and the more you have benefited from the United States Government, the more you should pay, up to a point.
Now I have a question for you: do you think it is fair to stick a secretary with a higher tax rate than that of Warren Buffett?
More recently, the child tax credit was added. Not very well known is that there are actually two parts to this credit – the regular child tax credit, which is nonrefundable, and the “additional” child tax credit, which is refundable, and which only applies in certain special circumstances.
As has been explained above, what this means is that the regular child tax credit can’t reduce your tax below zero, but the additional child tax credit can result in a refund even if you owe no tax at all.
The point is that the idea of refundable tax credits is neither new nor (in general) controversial.
Ed
First, it should be pointed out that the government benefits more than these million-dollar-earners, usually business owners, than it does from a guy making 40k. But I do agree with the larger principle, that the more you make the more you pay. If only there was a way to have it correlate exactly…let’s see, how about a flat tax? Or a consumption tax, which might even equate to a more progressive system if people spent within their means.
I also think that having everyone contribute is more than aesthetically pleasing. I think one of contributing factors to people feeling that they are not part of the system is that they aren’t. I think it would be a good idea to make sure everyone pays something. For the poor, I’d create a system through which they can “pay their fair share” through some type of work: spend a day or two cleaning up a park, painting over graffiti, painting a school, washing sidewalks, something—anything. I truly believe that this would help them feel more a part of society and then participate more, and more positively, to it.
I do not think it is fair. I’ve heard this alluded to before and assumed it was due to the fact that Buffet can game the system. He can pay thousands of dollars for lawyers to plan around the tax code and find loopholes. He can also, as Steve Jobs does, take $1 in salary and have the rest come in the form of options and bonuses. Again, a flat tax scenario would address that. I also think that capital gains that have been earned on stock that was part of compensation should be taxed at that same rate, but investment earnings should be lower as to incentivize investment. Especially now.
Well I don’t think you should be embarrassed, but you obviously haven’t done enough homework to understand both candidates’ tax proposals. Barack Obama isn’t the only one of the two whose plan will significantly increase the number of non-tax payers. In fact, each of their plans affects almost the exact same number of filers in this manner, just in different ways.
“Both Candidates’ Tax Plans Will Reduce Millions of Taxpayers’ Liability to Zero (or Less)”
Good luck with your decision.
What “other principles”? My best guess is based on what he wants to do and his rationale. He says that EVERYONE pays taxes, if not income tax, then payroll taxes and/or sales tax, If that’s his criteria, then why stop at only those at work, why not those who don’? After all, they all pay sales tax, right?
And I actually don’t equate welfare with socialism. I think welfare is fine if it is viewed as a short term relationship, much like the home relief of the 1830s or so; when it is viewed as a safety net for someone falling because of some run of bad luck. but when it becomes an entitlement of sorts, when it is a permanent option to being a productive member of society, then it slides into socialism-light.
There’s a great seen in Cinderella Man where his character, Jim Braddock, has to go on the dole. It’s a sense of embarrassment for him. And not only does hut use it only when he absolutely has to, he actually goes into the office one week and pays back the money. My parents were raised in the harlem tenements and explained to me that although many/most of the families they new had to go on Home Relief some time or other, there was a sense of shame attached to it and people got off of it as quickly as possible.
Sorry, but both of those systems have the undeniable effect of shifting the overall burden of taxation to the middle class, even if there is a sizable income exemption. That’s pretty much the opposite of a progressive tax system which you claim to support. I do give you credit, though, for equivocating my support of progressive tax rates for a mindless interpretation of simply looking at the dollar amounts contributed.
So the rich write a check to Uncle Sam, and the poor are required to do community service? Wow. I didn’t know that being poor was a crime punishable by forced labor.
This seems to be the part at which conservatives generally throw up their hands and propose a false dilemma: either we tacitly allow wealthy people to game the system, or we go to a flat tax. Couldn’t it be that we start closing some of the loopholes while maintaining the benefit of a progressive tax system?