It’s all over FOX that Richadson said middle-class tax cut is $150K and below. Didn’t see this on the real news anywhere. What’s the deal?
This taxcut thing is strange. With our debt ,how can we afford to cut taxes. Yet the economy might get a boost if we did. A tax cut for the wealthy does not get the money through the economy like a cut for the lower classes does. But ,we have to start paying for Bushs’ wars. We have to start cleaning up the debt he brought . One fix has a negative effect in others.
Richardson said the tax cuts would affect those making $120,000 or less. This is down from Obama saying $250,000, then $200,000, then Biden saying $150,000.
But, as usual around here, this means nothing. Move along, move along, cast your vote for Obama and grab from the evil rich…you know, the ones that actually provide jobs and such.
I am so over this election season.
Jesus, people, this is simple.
$250,000 = no tax increase for families
$200,000 = no tax increase for singles
$150,000 = tax cuts
I thought I noticed Obama dropping from $250k in the debates to $200k in his infomercial. Is that right or was he talking about two different things?
$250,000 = no tax increase for families
$200,000 = no tax increase for singles
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Tax_Plan_Facts_FINAL.pdf
That’s how it has always been.
Cite that Obama said everyone making under 250k would get a tax cut?
Obama’s plan is to raise taxes on the wealthy to where they were when Clinton was President. When Clinton raised taxes there were widespread cries from the usual suspects that this would lead to an economic collapse. Instead you had one of the longest expansions in US history, massive job creation, falling poverty, falling deficits and soaring stock prices.
When Bush cut taxes, predominantly on the wealthy, the right-wing ideologues hailed it as an economic triumph which would get the economy rolling. You had a mediocre recovery which has now fizzled into a second recession, soaring budget deficits, rising poverty and very poor job growth. In all likelihood Bush will leave office with a lower Dow than when he came in.
It’s as close to a natural experiment on the effect of tax policy as you get in Economics and the outcome is pretty much the opposite of what conservative ideology says it should be.
As for the tax proposals of the the candidates this chart which I have posted in the other thread does a good job of summarizing the impact.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html
As it makes clear a large majority of tax payers will get a larger tax cut under Obama than McCain. The calculations are complicated because specifics will differ from taxpayer to taxpayer but the big picture is perfectly clear.
Gee, who’da thought?
Aha. Obama wants to penalize you for getting married.
-FrL-
Geez, I could have sworn he said this at the second debate, but sure enough, I’m misremebering:
Still, this one does say people making $200,000 or less will get a tax cut, which is different than the values listed by Liberal above.
But maybe it’s that $200,000 families get tax cuts, while $200,000 singles have no tax increase. That would be compatible with what Liberal listed. I should go read his cite…
-FrL-
And a [del]libertarian[/del] classical liberal says that. So are ya’ll stupid, disingenuous, or just barely paying attention?
And why not? Might as well heap on the suffering.
[Moderator Hat ON]
Rhetorical question insults are STILL insults, foolsguinea, and inappropriate for here. Take it to the Pit.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
I am of the understanding that capital gains taxes will raise. Does that not fly in the face of the Obama quote? If I misunderstood, please correct me.
You misunderstood.
Interesting thanks. Anything about dividends?
Nevermind…
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2008/08/what-would-pres.html
That’s no different from the current tax code anyway.