October 20, 200817 yr Yes. I take it you didn't read the post you quoted. No, I just randomly pick posts to quote in my responses with out reading them.
October 20, 200817 yr No, I just randomly pick posts to quote in my responses with out reading them. :thumb:
October 20, 200817 yr It is a guess, because Obama has made the following statements on multiple occasions: "I want to provide a tax cut for 95% of Americans." Source: 2008 second presidential debate against John McCain Oct 7, 2008 "My plan cuts taxes for most small businesses & 95% of people." Source: 2008 second presidential debate against John McCain Oct 7, 2008 "Tax cut for 95% of all working families, not corporations." Source: Speech at 2008 Democratic National Convention Aug 27, 2008 "I will cut taxes--cut taxes--for 95% of all working families."Source: Speech at 2008 Democratic National Convention Aug 27, 2008 http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Tax_Reform.htm Doesn't the bolded give the answer? 95% of all working families...don't all "working" families pay income taxes?
October 20, 200817 yr Doesn't the bolded give the answer? 95% of all working families...don't all "working" families pay income taxes? I think, if I understand the argument correctly, that the issue is the working families who receive EIC who often recieve more back than they paid in.
October 20, 200817 yr I think, if I understand the argument correctly, that the issue is the working families who receive EIC who often recieve more back than they paid in. Ahhh....gotcha. Thanks. :thumb:
October 20, 200817 yr Doesn't the bolded give the answer? 95% of all working families...don't all "working" families pay income taxes?If that's all Obama ever said on the topic, I might concede your point. The problem however is that he also says the following: "I want to provide a tax cut for 95% of Americans." Source: 2008 second presidential debate against John McCain Oct 7, 2008 "My plan cuts taxes for most small businesses & 95% of people." Source: 2008 second presidential debate against John McCain Oct 7, 2008 While 95% of all working familes might easily fit within 95% of all Americans. 95% of Americans cannot fit within 95% of working families. These are not mere gaffes. Obama has forwarded these on multiple occasions... both with and without a script. You cannot possibly square one aganst the other. I think, if I understand the argument correctly, that the issue is the working families who receive EIC who often recieve more back than they paid in. That is a good point, but does not address O's very clear statements regarding 95% of Americans.
October 21, 200817 yr I think, if I understand the argument correctly, that the issue is the working families who receive EIC who often recieve more back than they paid in. That is exactly right. Example, several years ago we had a guy who worked in our warehouse. He made about $9.00 an hours. He was married with one kid with 2 kids. He didn't work much over time so he made about $19,000 a year. His wife worked off and on but mostly $6-$7 an hour jobs. He would get back over $5000 in federal tax refund. He would always brag about his tax check being bigger then mine. He never really understood why he got back so much.
October 21, 200817 yr Somebody help me with this... 0 divided by any positive number is less than zero. You can't divide zero by a positive number and achieve a positive number. If one-third of all tax filers do not pay FICA taxes. It is impossible to give a "tax cut" to someone not contributing a positive number. To say "95% of Americans will receive a tax-cut under my plan" is a lie. At best, (95 - 33 = 62) 62% could conceivably receive a "cut", but to claim 95% and keep claiming 95% is a bald-faced lie. What am I missing here? It is possible, ... it is called the earned income tax credit where millions of Americans who pay $0 taxes get a check from the government. Now, their check will just be bigger.
October 22, 200817 yr One (among MANY) beefs I have with the Obama plan is as follows: The purpose of the U.S.tax code (as horribly and unnecessarily complex as it currently is) is now and always has been to provide the necessary funding to our government so that it can carry out its duties and responsibilities in an effective manner. Period. The Obama tax plan is nothing more than an exercise in manipulating the tax code to create a massive redistribution of wealth from the top 5% of taxpayers to the rest of the nation. I don't have a problem with the fact that lower income earners currently pay no federal INCOME taxes in most cases already. However, creating a larger refund for people who haven't paid any INCOME taxes in the first place by creating a higher rate of tax for the wealthy is despicable. If this isn't buying votes, I don't know what is. Simply put, the wealthy in this country are the ones who create most of the jobs in the first place. Increasing the tax burden on these people is counter-intuitive for those of us who have spent our entire careers in the areas of finance and taxation. The article also makes an excellent point as follows: "There's another catch: 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. Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory. The tax credits are sold in the name of "making work pay," but in practice they can be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you're a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year."
October 22, 200817 yr Doesn't the bolded give the answer? 95% of all working families...don't all "working" families pay income taxes? Not really....If you make less than a certain amount, you don't actually pay taxes after credits and deductions and such.
October 22, 200817 yr Not really....If you make less than a certain amount, you don't actually pay taxes after credits and deductions and such. Gotcha...so they pay in, but receive more back then they contributed. This is using the current tax policy?
October 22, 200817 yr It is possible, ... it is called the earned income tax credit where millions of Americans who pay $0 taxes get a check from the government. Now, their check will just be bigger. I really hate that name. If something is welfare, call it welfare.
October 22, 200817 yr It is possible, ... it is called the earned income tax credit where millions of Americans who pay $0 taxes get a check from the government. Now, their check will just be bigger. I undestand what you're saying, and I understand the mechanics of the system... I'm simply saying that the word "cut" following the word "tax" indicates a reduction. It is logically... if not mathematically impossible to reduce "zero". Therefore, Obama's plan cannot give "tax cuts" to 95% of Americans when 95% of Americans do not already contribute a positive number. Obama is attempting to redistribute wealth under the fallacious heading of "tax cuts". If handouts are what he's all about fine. If that's what people want fine. Let's just blow away the smoke and mirrors and call it what it is.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.