Obama the tax shifter, not tax cutter

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-12-2008
Obama the tax shifter, not tax cutter
172
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Obama would reinstitute the windfall profits tax, which almost bankrupted the oil industry back in the 1980's. Congress repealed it in 1988 because of that.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

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-16-2008
Mon, 10-13-2008 - 8:39pm
If I was making over 250,000 I wouldn't mind paying 30% of it to the Federal government.



Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2006
Mon, 10-13-2008 - 10:17pm

<>

Right. I think there's some confusion on what is "constitutional" as well. The constitution as originally written condoned slavery, restricted voting to a select few, etc. The constitution reserves certain rights to states and to individuals, but doesn't specifically disallow things that we are often told are "not constitutional". There is no particular virtue in adherence to "first principles"; the Civil War was fueled in part by the Dred Scott decision, which was an application of a strict "constructionist" interpretation of the constitution. Our constitution was written at a time when everyone had access to the same "health care". There was no germ theory of disease, no understanding of sanitation, no anesthesia. Infant and child mortality was high, diseases which are an annoyance to us were deadly, dentistry primitive. For all except the most hardy, life was shorter and more difficult than it is now. Health care was abysmal for rich and poor alike. The Declaration of Independence states that all should have "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." I do not think the founders expected the day to arrive when some citizens would be denied "life" because of inability to pay.

There is no "right to education" in the constitution, but most of us think that access to a free public education (whether by public schools or private schools in some sort of voucher system, it's paid for by taxes) is key to having a well educated citizenry, and thus a viable democracy (or democratic republic, if you prefer). My town's school district spends over $6000 per year per student. Over 13 years that comes to about $80,000. I've never heard anyone ask "Why should I pay for YOUR children's education?" Yet we hear the same question repeatedly with regard to health care. If it is true that we are willing to fund public education only because it's "capped" (is this true, anyway: some people attend public universities for years in the pursuit of graduate degrees), then why are we willing to pay endless sums for "common goods" like roads? Why are we willing to pay trillions of dollars on things that have NO BENEFIT at all, like preemptive wars based on false pretenses? I've read the constitution pretty carefully myself, and I don't recall seeing anywhere in it that we should all share the cost of "common goods" but not "goods" that benefit individuals

We (my dh and I) can pay for our health care, with the help of employer sponsored insurance, the kind Mr. McCain wants to "privatize". We have seven college degrees between us: mine are in physics and computer science, and I'm a semi-professional (this means I get paid) violinist. His top degree is a Ph.D. in geophysics. If we can barely make it with our children's extraordinary medical expenses, how about those who don't have our education and employment options? With our education and skills (we are both highly regarded by our employer), we ought to be able to afford health care even without insurance, right? Wrong: the kinds of things that we are good at are easy to "outsource". A computer programmer in India can live very well there on what is not considered a living wage in the United States. Health care professionals cannot be outsourced. The "playing field" is NOT level, not because I and my husband lack skills or virtue or "personal responsibility", but because our economy is run like a pyramid scheme.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2006
Mon, 10-13-2008 - 10:20pm

Hi there, stranger!

<>

Well, last year we spent almost that much on health care, so yeah, I guess...

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-16-2004
Mon, 10-13-2008 - 10:30pm

Just jumping in, about the post regarding why should person A pay the same as person B when one has many more medical bills and issues...

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-10-2008
Tue, 10-14-2008 - 1:12am
Then count yourself as far more generous than myself.
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-07-2003
Tue, 10-14-2008 - 4:04am

Big Macs aren't really that bad for your health.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-07-2003
Tue, 10-14-2008 - 4:05am
McCain says we can't bring our troops home until we have achieved VICTORY. So, I watched Bill Maher and the one female guest asked the condervative guest(who works for Wall Street) So what is considered victory? He said "when Iraq has a stable Government" So,now, how long will that take? The whole Iraq war was a big mistake. A very costly one with a handfull of people getting very wealthy on it. I think when you use other people to become wealthy, you don't deserve to reach the gates of heaven, when all one cares about is MONEY then they cannot call themselves true Christians. Money is their GOD.



Why are you bring religion into this?

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-24-2008
Tue, 10-14-2008 - 5:16am

Howard Stern (the Youtube video) has no shame, lol!

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-24-2008
Tue, 10-14-2008 - 5:26am

I totally agree.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-24-2008
Tue, 10-14-2008 - 5:44am

<

Pages