Obama the tax shifter, not tax cutter
Find a Conversation
| Sun, 10-12-2008 - 6:09am |
When Ed Rendell became governor of Pennsylvania, he promised tax cuts very similar to what Obama promises. What he gave Pennsylvanians was a tax shift. While he cut the state's income tax, he also raised taxes in other categories to make up the difference in state revenues. What Pennsylvania ended up with was a tax cut con. Pennsylvanians ended up with tax increases instead of a tax cut. Obama is going to do the same thing Rendell has done. Obama will certainly increase other taxes, which means we won't be getting a tax cut, but a tax shift.
The bottom line is this: Whenever a Democrat promises to give you a tax cut, they're actually giving you a tax shift, which overall amounts to a tax increase. It's kind of like political bait and switch. Obama is just a con man.
Why does Obama want to keep the Bush tax cuts if his tax cuts are better?
Obama would reinstitute the windfall profits tax, which almost bankrupted the oil industry back in the 1980's. Congress repealed it in 1988 because of that.
Obama wants to reintroduce the capital gains tax, not quite qt the 28% level previously stated, but somewhere between 20% and 28% according to Obama.
Obama wants to raise social security taxes.
More on Obama's tax cuts and tax increases in general:

Pages
<>
Why should I be WILLING to contribute to yours?
Because we are CIVILIZED. Because we live in one of the richest nations on earth, even now, and to suggest even as a joke that any person should be denied essential health care because of inability to pay is MONSTROUS.
As a taxpayer I pay for many things that my family and friends will never use.
My husband's grandfather was fond of quoting Oliver Wendell Holmes, ca. 1904:
"I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization."
(There are several versions of this quote; this is my favorite.)
I trust that I have made myself perfectly clear.
Edited 10/13/2008 2:30 pm ET by muddymessalonskee
That would make sense were it not for the fact that public education is a considered a right and it is given to you by others too.
I have not suggested that medical practitioners not be paid, after all I do expect to get paid to teach. And I fully understand the public medical care would be paid for with public funds or a combination of public funds and other sources of money.
Special eduation students use more services than regular education students and no one expects them to pay more for it.
And as its been illegal for some time for employer based insurance to exclude folks with pre-existing conditons, and the insurance companies still manage to calculate pool risks I guess it must be possible.
Why should I be WILLING to contribute to yours?
I'm not asking you to.
Actually, the quote of your husband's grandfather was not quite correct:
My husband's grandfather was fond of quoting Oliver Wendell Holmes, ca. 1904:
"I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization."
The actual quote was "taxes are the price we pay for a free society".
<
Several distinctions between public education and government-provided healthcare.
First, people are only provided a pre-specified, limited amount of education - K-12.
You note:
Obama’s plan will cut taxes overall, reducing revenues to below the levels that prevailed under Ronald Reagan (less than 18.2 percent of GDP). The Obama tax plan is a net tax cut – his tax relief for middle class families is larger than the revenue raised by his tax changes for families over $250,000. Coupled with his commitment to cut unnecessary spending, Obama will pay for this tax relief while bringing down the budget deficit.
Now, explain this to me.
He is supposedly bringng down the overall tax rate.
<
Pages