Obama's Tax "Cut" for non tax payers

[Richard_Parker]

@magellan01

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?

Well, I presume they made some overall decision about tax structure based on income, without considering specifically whether it would affect some tiny percentage who pay taxes but don’t work. So it wouldn’t be right to suggest that they intentionally wanted to give more money to those who don’t work and then changed their minds.

@magellan01

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.

Glad to hear it. I misread you then.

[Magiver]

@Kimstu

The EITC is not problem-free, of course, but it’s very useful in providing much-needed income support to low-income workers while not removing their incentive to earn wages instead of just collecting government handouts.

Except that it’s a government handout. I’m not sure how many people actually know what Earned Income Credit means. It’s welfare.

[Captain_Carrot]

@Magiver

Except that it’s a government handout. I’m not sure how many people actually know what Earned Income Credit means. It’s welfare.

Good job not reading the thread at all.

[Magiver]

@Captain_Carrot

Good job not reading the thread at all.

I read it. If you don’t like what I said you can counter with something or you can shut the fuck up.

[Magiver]

@Ravenman

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.

So it’s OK if I’m forced to give my labor hours to society but not the poor? From each according to their ability. To each according to their needs.

[magellan01]

@Richard_Parker

Well, I presume they made some overall decision about tax structure based on income, without considering specifically whether it would affect some tiny percentage who pay taxes but don’t work. So it wouldn’t be right to suggest that they intentionally wanted to give more money to those who don’t work and then changed their minds.

I think based on what he wants to do AND the rationale he supplied (which I relayed), that your interpretation of his desires and intentions is overly charitable. Very much so.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Magiver

I read it. If you don’t like what I said you can counter with something or you can shut the fuck up.

Wow, the righties are getting pretty testy these days. I wonder what it is that has them all full of angst like this?

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Magiver

So it’s OK if I’m forced to give my labor hours to society but not the poor? From each according to their ability. To each according to their needs.

That’s correct comrade. And in a few weeks, it’s off to the Jane Fonda re-education center with you!

[magellan01]

@Ravenman

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.

There seems to be some major confusion. I do not advocate a progressive tax system.

@Ravenman

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.

Can you explain this better?

@Ravenman

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.

No. they have the option to substitute service for cash. The point is that we all have a duty to contribute to the kitty. I’m attempting to proveide a means for them to do so. If I was in such a circustance I would welcome the opportunity to contribute my fair share in some way. how is this a bad thing? I have to contribute. You have to contribute. We all do. Welcome to being an adult.

@Ravenman

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?

I’m all for closing loopholes in the meantime. But not to save a progressive tax system. I find it a truly reprehensible, disgusting system. It’s one of those instances when someone (the government) asked "can we?< when the real question is “should we?”.

[Zoe]

Magiver, do tell us how tax credits are the same as welfare.

[Magiver]

@Euphonious_Polemic

Wow, the righties are getting pretty testy these days. I wonder what it is that has them all full of angst like this?

Just getting tired of drive-by swipes without any input.

[Zoe]

Why are some of you using “the poor” as if it means the same thing as “non-working”?

[Magiver]

@Zoe

Magiver, do tell us how tax credits are the same as welfare.

A household with 2 kids and an income of 16,000 gets a “credit” for $4,536 when their tax liability is $1,716 for a net gain of $2,820.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@jtgain

I guess I should be embarrassed. 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 they aren’t really separate issues actually. Serious tax analysts take care to look at the effects of a given tax given the remainder of the tax structure. After all, a dollar paid to the government is a dollar, right?

Actually, McCain is the one playing games with rhetoric. He notes that US Corporate tax rates are high relative to Europe. This is true, narrowly. But US corporate tax revenue is actually low by OECD standards, because our tax code is festooned with multiple deductions. And tax revenue/sales is really the relevant metric.

The general principle is that looking at a single tax in isolation is likely to give you a distorted view of government finances. For example, you would miss the way that social security surpluses are essentially propping up deficits in general federal account.

Obama has this one right. Payroll and FICA are regressive taxes: a partial reversal of their effects via the EITC is plausibly called a tax cut. I’ll also add that the negative income tax was first proposed by none other than Milton Friedman.

[Jas09]

@jtgain

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…

Differentiating between FICA and standard income taxes is rather silly. When Obama proposes increasing the cap on FICA contributions is it not described by conservatives as a tax hike? Of course it is.

If you think it is misleading, please provide a quote from Obama were he claims to only be talking about federal income taxes? You will not find one because nobody segregates things that way. What you call a tax is irrelevant - only the overall tax burden affects the amount of money in your pocket. The fact that you were misled does not make it misleading.

Also, as has been pointed out above, there is nothing unique or unseemly about a negative tax rate - the flat tax for one has always relied on this concept.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Magiver

Just getting tired of drive-by swipes without any input.

Ya, I know what you mean - statements that don’t advance the argument, sort of like:

From each according to their ability. To each according to their needs.

[Gaudere]

@Magiver

I read it. If you don’t like what I said you can counter with something or you can shut the fuck up.

[Moderator Hat ON]

Cool it, Magiver.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

[Magiver]

@Euphonious_Polemic

Ya, I know what you mean - statements that don’t advance the argument, sort of like:

I posted a relative point about labor hours and how I’m expected to provide my labor hours but not the poor. I backed it up with a reference to Marxism to make a point. Did you forget to read the first part when you posted the Jane Fonda comment?

[erislover]

If these “welfare” fat cats are gaming the system so hard, why not be on “welfare”? It’s the life!

[What_the]

@Jas09

Differentiating between FICA and standard income taxes is rather silly. When Obama proposes increasing the cap on FICA contributions is it not described by conservatives as a tax hike? Of course it is.

Excellent point. It’s the press’ job to flesh out the truth behind the rhetoric don’t you think?

Wonder why they never point out that the tax cut will mean that poorer workers won’t be putting money into the Social Security system (although they will be getting credit for it)?