Joe Miner Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 The real question is who did stuck hate and blame everything on before the democratic party was even invented? The Federalists? Anti-Masonics? Free Soil Party? Anit-Nebraska Party? Greenback Party? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Ok, enough of my being lazy That is a flat out lie. Why is no one calling out on that? It may be a bit misleading, but it's true. Where is the flat lie? He is giving a $500 tax credit each ($1000 for a married couple), everyone gets it, whether they pay taxes or not, if they make under 200K-250K taxable income. That's 95% and may even be 98% of the population. (This is probably the discrepancy in the last sentence below) Obama's tax credits represent a tax cut to most workers who make less than $200,000. Obama's plan offers a $500 tax credit to people who work as a way of offsetting payroll taxes. This is the policy proposal that allows Obama to make accurate statements such as that he gives 95 percent of workers a tax cut. The credit is refundable, which means that if you don't owe any taxes you will get a check from the government. Republicans have recently called this aspect of Obama's plan welfare, an attack we checked out here. In practice, though, Obama's plan means many people with incomes less than $200,000 will see reduced taxes or bigger refunds under his plan. The tax credits do phase out, however, and people who make around $150,000 may get only a partial credit or none. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Well if you're grossing more than 200-250K, good for you. You can't be too pissed. All he wants to do is go back to the taxes of the late 90s Clinton era for the people in the highest 2-5%, and lower taxes or keep them the same for the people in the lower 95-98%. That's doesn't seem so outrageous, catastrophic or impossible to accomplish. Pissed? No. I just think our leaders should be a little more honest. $200k-$250k isn't 'rich' if you live in an area of the country were a starter house is $500k, income, sales, gas and property taxes are all outrageously high, it costs $4k per year to do the environmentally right thing and take the train to work, it costs $15k per year to send your kid to college because there are no loans for you, childcare is expensive unless one of you stays home (and now you're only making half of the income) etc., etc. A working couple each making $100k is certainly not driving Bentleys around like Obama wants people to think. I understand that certain idiots on this board believe $200k = "Wall Street CEO", but it's simply not the case. Does it allow you to send your kid to college, take some nice vacations and save for your own retirement? Sure; but the vast majority of those people are working pretty hard for that money, so I find Obama's characterization to be disingenuous. I'm not all that concerned about a net increase of $1000 in taxes next year. My underlying concern is that politicians like Obama want to continue to vilify and punish the small percentage of people who are responsible for a large portion of the job creation -- so that we can promise more and more giveaways to an increasing share of the populous. IMO, that is not sustainable and it's setting ourselves up for an economic disaster far worse than anything that's happening today. That's why I fully expect his magic 'rich' number to continue to fall. $250K.....$200K......how low can he go? I know it's not going to happen much on the campaign trail, but I sure hope once he's in his message to people is "live within your means" rather than "the government will take care of you as long as you vote me in again". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Pissed? No. I just think our leaders should be a little more honest. $200k-$250k isn't 'rich' if you live in an area of the country were a starter house is $500k, income, sales, gas and property taxes are all outrageously high, it costs $4k per year to do the environmentally right thing and take the train to work, it costs $15k per year to send your kid to college because there are no loans for you, childcare is expensive unless one of you stays home (and now you're only making half of the income) etc., etc. A working couple each making $100k is certainly not driving Bentleys around like Obama wants people to think. I understand that certain idiots on this board believe $200k = "Wall Street CEO", but it's simply not the case. Does it allow you to send your kid to college, take some nice vacations and save for your own retirement? Sure; but the vast majority of those people are working pretty hard for that money, so I find Obama's characterization to be disingenuous. I'm not all that concerned about a net increase of $1000 in taxes next year. My underlying concern is that politicians like Obama want to continue to vilify and punish the small percentage of people who are responsible for a large portion of the job creation -- so that we can promise more and more giveaways to an increasing share of the populous. IMO, that is not sustainable and it's setting ourselves up for an economic disaster far worse than anything that's happening today. That's why I fully expect his magic 'rich' number to continue to fall. $250K.....$200K......how low can he go? I know it's not going to happen much on the campaign trail, but I sure hope once he's in his message to people is "live within your means" rather than "the government will take care of you as long as you vote me in again". Yet more people that live in the most expensive areas of the country, like New York City and San Francisco, support Obama's plans over McCain's. Even some of the richest people, like Warren Buffet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 It may be a bit misleading, but it's true. Where is the flat lie? He is giving a $500 tax credit each ($1000 for a married couple), everyone gets it, whether they pay taxes or not, if they make under 200K-250K taxable income. That's 95% and may even be 98% of the population. (This is probably the discrepancy in the last sentence below) VERY misleading. If anyone making under $250k sells a security for a long term gain their taxes will go up from 15% to whatever he's raising it to. There are plenty of people making less than $250k that own taxable mutual funds. He never says income taxes he says taxes. There are many more types of taxes than income taxes. And BTW what's he planning on raising the SS tax phase out to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UBinVA Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Was obviously aimed at people who live in small towns. Clinging their guns and bible I assume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 That is a flat out lie. Why is no one calling out on that? CNN Fact Checker The Verdict:True. Obama is promising tax credits to 95 percent of American workers to offset payroll taxes. The credits would be funded in part by tax hikes on individuals making $200,000 or families making $250,000. Politifact We checked a similar claim of Obama's recently, that 95 percent of working families would get lower taxes under Obama's plan, and found it to be True. The Tax Foundation The "95 percent" figure is correct. Even though many conservatives have argued that you can't cut taxes for people who pay no income taxes, most of those who are receiving refundable tax credits on the income tax side are still net taxpayers given that they do pay payroll taxes, corporate income tax, excise taxes, etc. (And even that assumes the fact that a person is a net taxpayer even matters, versus the net fiscal incidence of the person, and once we go down that road, at least we are actually getting somewhere on the core questions of public finance and the role of government in distributional outcomes.) and the lie is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Yet more people that live in the most expensive areas of the country, like New York City and San Francisco, support Obama's plans over McCain's. Even some of the richest people, like Warren Buffet. That's my point. The Obama message is "Let's tax everyone over $200K because Warren Buffet can afford it!" Unless his proposal is limited to people worth more than $30 BILLION, than why is Warren Buffet being mentioned? Why isn't Obama talking about Joe the Plumber? It's easy to support things when you have money to burn. But 95% of the people Obama intends to punish are not anywhere near that level. That makes his message misleading and dishonest IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 CNN Fact Checker Politifact The Tax Foundation and the lie is? Do people making $250k own taxable mutual funds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 That's my point. The Obama message is "Let's tax everyone over $200K because Warren Buffet can afford it!" Unless his proposal is limited to people worth more than $30 BILLION, than why is Warren Buffet being mentioned? Why isn't Obama talking about Joe the Plumber? It's easy to support things when you have money to burn. But 95% of the people Obama intends to punish are not anywhere near that level. That makes his message misleading and dishonest IMO. Joe the Plumber isn't affected, 99% of plumbers make less than 250k. People did fine under the Clinton tax rates, which is what they would go back to. They would still be less than what they were under Reagan. If I ever get to making 250k, I'll be happy to pay a higher rate than those making less. I have no problem paying a higher rate than those making less than me now. A rising tide lifts all boats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UBinVA Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Speaking of raising taxes. I'll ask again. Is The Big O saying he's only raising taxes on people making $250k does he say taxes or income taxes? Does it really matter? Biden now lowers the figure to $150K. But what the hell, those people making $150K are rich too. With a $1.5 Trillion spend increase for his programs, they will have to tax everyone making over $50K. Of course Obama's tax and spend policies will not work as proven by history. You need money to make money, everyone knows that. If the incentive is gone and capital is taxed at outrageous rates, the money will flow overseas where the returns are better. Look how Ireland turned it's economy around by lowering corporate taxes. You Obama supporters are ignorant and uninformed. Hope, Change, Hope, Change. The only change you'll get with Obama is a change back to 1976 and even worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Do people making $250k own taxable mutual funds? of course, but if you're filing as a married couple and you're under $250K, the income tax and cap gains remain the same as they are today, and those over $250K only pay the new, higher rates on the difference. Am I missing something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Why isn't Obama talking about Joe the Plumber? Because he and his entire campaign are too busy laughing at him. And yes, the tax number keeps going down. Maybe not on paper, but everywhere they go, they change the way they're wording things because they know that the people gathering for their speeches are nowhere near the $250K range, so it doesn't matter to them. To them, it's just "the filthy rich," and how hard is it to find a bunch of middle class people who will happily be held accountable to do less so long as Obama will give them free money taken directly from "the filthy rich?" Answer: it's like shooting fish in a barrel. But y'know, for a guy who wants to be "my brother's keeper," you'd think he'd help out his aunt and brother before he tries to make the rest of us just like his brother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 30 million people watched that infomercial. And Probably 29, 999,000 were the KoolAid drinkers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 of course, but if you're filing as a married couple and you're under $250K, the income tax and cap gains remain the same as they are today, and those over $250K only pay the new, higher rates on the difference. Am I missing something? He is only raising the cap gains tax on people making more than $250? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 You Obama supporters are ignorant and uninformed. Hope, Change, Hope, Change. The only change you'll get with Obama is a change back to 1976 and even worse. Yeah, bell bottom pants and mini skirts! I can't wait! And Probably 29, 999,000 were the KoolAid drinkers. Kool-Aid, oh yeah! Who are the 1000 party poopers who don't like Kool-Aid?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Joe the Plumber isn't affected, 99% of plumbers make less than 250k. People did fine under the Clinton tax rates, which is what they would go back to. They would still be less than what they were under Reagan. If I ever get to making 250k, I'll be happy to pay a higher rate than those making less. I have no problem paying a higher rate than those making less than me now. A rising tide lifts all boats. First the new number is $200k, and there are lots of small businesses (including plumbers) that make $200k (we can call him Joe the Lawyer if that fits your stereotype better). Second, those people are already paying a higher rate than those making less. There is already a steep curve to the tax structure. Yes, a rising tide does lift all boats. But disincenting investment and enabling irresponsible behavior by the populous does not. The solution is not funneling more money through the government where it will be wasted and manipulated for political advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Of course, let's not forget this is coming from someone who's opinions are SO one-sided that your definitive opinions about these two candidates were formed before they were even born. Very good. Have you considered employment with the DNC? It's profitable - ask TerryMcAuliffe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UBinVA Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Joe the Plumber isn't affected, 99% of plumbers make less than 250k. People did fine under the Clinton tax rates, which is what they would go back to. They would still be less than what they were under Reagan. If I ever get to making 250k, I'll be happy to pay a higher rate than those making less. I have no problem paying a higher rate than those making less than me now. A rising tide lifts all boats. Funny you say that. Most wealthy liberals say they support higher taxes but then they hide their money in off shore accounts and hire the best CPA's to minimize their payments, setup B.S. corporations and find other loop holes. That is with their rights but come on, they are all hypocrites. I have not once seen a left wing higher tax supporting jackas$ once write a check to uncle sam because they feel they are not being taxed enough. Liberals = Hypocrisy Do as I say, not as I do. Has anyone seen Joe Biden's charitable contributions? Check it out, less than 1% Obama's is almost as bad. 1998 $215,432 $195 1999 $210,797 $120 2000 $219,953 $360 2001 $220,712 $360 2002 $227,811 $260 2003 $231,375 $260 2004 $234,271 $380 2005 $321,379 $380 2006 $248,459 $380 2007 $319,853 $995 Total $2,450,042 $3,690 Obama's 2006: 6.1% 2005: 4.7% 2004: 1.2% 2003: 1.4% 2002: 0.4% 2001: 0.5% 2000: 0.9% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 He is only raising the cap gains tax on people making more than $250? yes, only those in the new 36% and $39.6% brackets get a bump, and then it goes from 15% to 20%. Anyone under $250K pays the same as before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts