Obama's tax cut for 95% of Americans
Find a Conversation
Obama's tax cut for 95% of Americans
| Mon, 10-13-2008 - 11:24am |
I know it is endlessly brought up how Obama is going to cut taxes for 95% of working families.
| Mon, 10-13-2008 - 11:24am |
I know it is endlessly brought up how Obama is going to cut taxes for 95% of working families.
Pages
from your very own site:
<>
(yet they pay 60% of the taxes)
-Kristen
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html
"Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.
The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.
The total annual expenditures on refundable "tax credits" would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as "tax credits," the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is."
I thought you were worried about your children having to pay back. Maybe you should worry about the over $1,000,000,000,000 per year that the tax credits Obama proposes and you love will cost. That's above and beyond all of his other spending plans.
"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."
I shouldn't be jumping in because I swore in another thread I was going to go do laundry, but I just had to say one thing.
<
So, then
<>
Then why should they get taxed at half the rate of someone earning income through wages?
Well, I am sure I read somewhere in this thread the notion of taking money from the wealthy and "spreading it around" (Obama) because they don't need it or will use it frivilously (spa treatments) or someone else deserved it more.
"It is right to be contented with what we have, but never with what we are."
<>
Yes, they were biased in the fact they are only showing you ONE side of the equation.
The link I gave you is very factual.
<>
Fleur,
I hear ya and I understand. Our deductible is 2/3 higher than yours and we met our deductible in the first week of our plan year. I was not a happy camper when we had to switch to this high deductible plan. It is important to know what's covered and not covered so there aren't any surprises. Once you know your coverage you fight to get the things covered that should be covered. Some insurance companies we've used over the years were better than others. Some wrongly denied so often that it was my full-time job to make sure things were paid correctly. If you added up all the claims I got the insurance company to pay and called that my income Obama would have considered me "wealthy". ;-)
Pages