Re: Neither is Socialism
And is the help coming in the form of a check? Or is it coming in the form of reduced taxes?
Look here.
Obama is proposing to create or expand seven different tax credits:
- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.
- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.
- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).
- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.
- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.
- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.
- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.
When you read about them at the Obama site I linked you to, what do you notice about all except the clean car credit?
They are "refundable." Any idea what means? It means that you can receive the "credit" even if you have no income tax liability.
In other words, these credits are simply transfers of money. Who pays for these new and expanded credits? Those who are paying taxes.
Therefore, those who paying taxes will be funding the tax credits that non-taxpaying people will be receiving from the fed guvmint.
That is what Obama means when he says the rich should pay a little more to spread the wealth. It means direct payments to non-taxpayers.
Your cite doesn't clarify.
It didn't intend to. It was intended to demonstrate that Obama's statements substantiate my point that his reasoning on taxes is socialistic.
You can't cut something that doesn't exist.
And that's why Obama is straight up lying when he says he's going to cut taxes for 95% of those making under $250K. A sizeable number (approaching 45%) don't even pay federal income taxes. Hence, they cannot get a tax cut.
Obama is redefining tax cut to mean something other than reducing the tax rate so it include direct payments like tax credits.
I would prefer to address his proposals. His rationale is a rather vague thing that you are inferring; however, his proposals are written in black and white.
Well, I just did. His propoasals include tax credits that individuals with no tax liability are eligible to receive.
I see. And this relates to the discussion at hand how? I am not discussing whether or not Obama's proposal is a functional or appropriate idea, merely what it actually is.
You're discussing neither as you haven't cited a single Obama proposal.
Nonetheless, I noted what I did because Obama has been lying all along that the tax burden shifted from the rich to the middle class post-Bush tax cuts which is why he's promising shift the burden back and why you're blindly reciting his talking point about doing so.
The top quintile saw their total share of total fed taxes increase following the Bush tax cuts while everyone else saw their share decrease. So the premise underlying Obama's rationale is false and he knows this.
And increasing the tax on the oil companies in Alaska does a similar thing.
That Alaskan tax levy was not increasing any previous rate. It was negotiated as the price the oil companies had to pay to exploit Alaska's natural resources.
There is no equivalency to income taxes.
If you find you can't control yourself from making these sorts of accusations, you should prob'ly step away from your computer for a bit.
Hey, I am calling it as I see it. I present actual statements and data and you simply ignore it like it doesn;t exist or deny the obvious implication of such statements and data.
