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Obama would reinstitute the windfall profits tax, which almost bankrupted the oil industry back in the 1980's. Congress repealed it in 1988 because of that.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
<>
I noted at the bottom of my post that there are several variants on this quotation.
<
I'm not asking you to.>>
The point is that unless you're in the VERY VERY top of the food chain moneywise, if you became unemployed or lost insurance or developed a serious health condition, I could end up doing that. You don't pay for my health care now because I have employer sponsored insurance, which Mr. McCain wants to end. It might not be the best solution to health care coverage, but it is the only thing that our family can afford. Our job choice was driven partially by the benefits offered by the employer. The employer was aware of our pre-existing conditions. We earn slightly above the median household income in the U.S. We'd be BANKRUPT without insurance, and our kids would have inadequate care. Many people in our situation ARE, through no fault of their own. If we were living in some sort of ideal "level playing field" situation, there would be no debate. The REALITY is that healthcare is BANKRUPTING increasing numbers of Americans, even those who have middle class incomes. Inability to pay for healthcare is not related to virtue or "personal responsibility", no matter how often someone tries to equate it to irresponsible driving or other risky behaviors. It's because, for whatever reason, the price of healthcare is out of line with the "earning potential" of most Americans.
I also pay for the roads you drive on, the schools you were educated in, the clean water you drink and the clean air you breathe, the security structure that keeps you safe, etc., as you do for me, if you're a taxpayer. I don't use all the services I pay taxes for. Repeat: I DON'T USE ALL THE SERVICES I PAY TAXES FOR. (I homeschool my kids. I pay taxes for schools. I don't complain, because education is a cornerstone of a CIVILIZED society.) No one thinks we in the U.S. are "socialists" because we have free public education through age 18 in this country. Access to education is considered a fundamental right. Why not so for health care?
I went to a combination of public and private schools.
The elementary school I went to was public, and fairly good.
The point is that unless you're in the VERY VERY top of the food chain moneywise, if you became unemployed or lost insurance or developed a serious health condition, I could end up doing that.
Correct - it can happen to any of us.
Oh health care and education aren't the same....but then I didn't say they were.
I completely agree Obama's tax policy will do a great deal of harm to our economy.
Pages