|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/06/2008 05:34:03 PM · #1251 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
Otherwise, he will prove himself to simply be another tax and spend liberal. |
Or the first. Where did that phrase even come from? |
How come no one will answer my question, as to why it's more responsible to borrow and spend -- and let our descendants pay for it -- than to tax ourselves to pay for that we get? (see my previously-ignored post).
Basically, every one of those unaborted fetuses comes into their citizenship owing the Federal government almost $30,000 -- how is that a "responsible" fiscal policy?
I just heard someone (on the radio) commenting on the fact that there's probably $300 billion in uncollected taxes out there, because auditing priorities over at the IRS have been shifted from checking out offshore tax shelters maintained by the top 1% to those collecting the EIC -- the Earned Income Credit for low-income wage earners ... if you're a single parent flipping burgers for Minimum Wage and claim the EIC you're more likely to get audited than some hedge fund manager and their $10 million bonus and Grand Cayman Islands PO Box "headquarters" ... |
|
|
|
11/06/2008 05:40:17 PM · #1252 |
single parents flipping burgers typically don't have lawyers to fight for them and find loopholes, tying up the audit for years until they can "escape" or cover it up. :(
Message edited by author 2008-11-06 17:42:30. |
|
|
|
11/06/2008 05:42:08 PM · #1253 |
Originally posted by karmat:
single parents don't have lawyers to fight for them and find loopholes. :( |
The problem is that right now they don't need the lawyers -- no one is checking out the loopholes in the first place. If they were getting audited, then they'd need their lawyers. |
|
|
|
11/06/2008 05:44:07 PM · #1254 |
| my point was that it is *easier* to go after the single parent than the hedgehog in Cayman |
|
|
|
11/06/2008 05:49:08 PM · #1255 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
The US hasn't been the land of opportunity for everyone for a very long time. From what I've read of Obama's plans for tax reform is to leave more money in the pockets of the middle and lower classes so they have a chance to succeed. This is not welfare.
Maybe there's another part of the plan you can point us to. You are obviously so disillusioned with the current state of your welfare system and think anything that is giving tax cuts to those who most need it is like welfare.
... and I asked where in his plan is he raising taxes and increasing welfare? Where are you getting this info from and what are you calling welfare? |
Colette, do you know what a "refundable" tax credit is? Here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia article:
"Refundable or non-wastable tax credits can reduce the tax owed below zero, and result in a net payment to the taxpayer beyond their own payments into the tax system, appearing to be a moderate form of negative income tax.
. . .
Conservatives or libertarians, who generally favor tax cuts, often criticize refundable tax credits, saying that they are actually subsidies disguised as tax cuts. In other words, they are spending in the form of direct transfers from the treasury to individuals, except that they are administered by the tax authorities rather than the agencies usually responsible for welfare."
Now look closely at Obama's tax policy and see how many of the elements of his tax policy are not really "cuts" in taxes, but are, instead, refundable tax credits.
Now consider that over 40% of the wage earners in the U.S. currently pay ZERO income tax. Yet they will still be entitled to those refundable tax credits, so that under the Obama plan, they, and others whose refundable tax credits exceed what their tax liability would have been otherwise, will now actually be RECEIVING money from the government beyond what they paid in.
Some are inclined to call that "welfare". |
|
|
|
11/06/2008 06:51:37 PM · #1256 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
The US hasn't been the land of opportunity for everyone for a very long time. From what I've read of Obama's plans for tax reform is to leave more money in the pockets of the middle and lower classes so they have a chance to succeed. This is not welfare.
Maybe there's another part of the plan you can point us to. You are obviously so disillusioned with the current state of your welfare system and think anything that is giving tax cuts to those who most need it is like welfare.
... and I asked where in his plan is he raising taxes and increasing welfare? Where are you getting this info from and what are you calling welfare? |
Colette, do you know what a "refundable" tax credit is? Here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia article:
"Refundable or non-wastable tax credits can reduce the tax owed below zero, and result in a net payment to the taxpayer beyond their own payments into the tax system, appearing to be a moderate form of negative income tax.
. . .
Conservatives or libertarians, who generally favor tax cuts, often criticize refundable tax credits, saying that they are actually subsidies disguised as tax cuts. In other words, they are spending in the form of direct transfers from the treasury to individuals, except that they are administered by the tax authorities rather than the agencies usually responsible for welfare."
Now look closely at Obama's tax policy and see how many of the elements of his tax policy are not really "cuts" in taxes, but are, instead, refundable tax credits.
Now consider that over 40% of the wage earners in the U.S. currently pay ZERO income tax. Yet they will still be entitled to those refundable tax credits, so that under the Obama plan, they, and others whose refundable tax credits exceed what their tax liability would have been otherwise, will now actually be RECEIVING money from the government beyond what they paid in.
Some are inclined to call that "welfare". |
You say over 40% of wage earners in the U.S. pay zero income tax. I wonder why that is? Their income is so low that they are considered impoverished and can barely make ends meet or is it that they have a slick tax lawyer that knows all the loopholes to bring down taxable income? I'm guessing there's a bit of both. Which do think is deserving of Obama's tax plan? Former, latter, both, neither?
You also say that refundable tax credits will refund monies not put into the system? Maybe not in income tax but income tax is not the only tax out there. What about sales tax? (I know some states don't have it but this is just an example)
What about the cost of living? Do all wages increase at the rate of inflation? My guess is, NO. Does everyone have the same opportunities in life? Absolutely not.
Obama's tax plan is just one piece of the puzzle to improve the standard of living for all Americans. |
|
|
|
11/06/2008 07:03:34 PM · #1257 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
The US hasn't been the land of opportunity for everyone for a very long time. From what I've read of Obama's plans for tax reform is to leave more money in the pockets of the middle and lower classes so they have a chance to succeed. This is not welfare.
Maybe there's another part of the plan you can point us to. You are obviously so disillusioned with the current state of your welfare system and think anything that is giving tax cuts to those who most need it is like welfare.
... and I asked where in his plan is he raising taxes and increasing welfare? Where are you getting this info from and what are you calling welfare? |
Colette, do you know what a "refundable" tax credit is? Here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia article:
"Refundable or non-wastable tax credits can reduce the tax owed below zero, and result in a net payment to the taxpayer beyond their own payments into the tax system, appearing to be a moderate form of negative income tax.
. . .
Conservatives or libertarians, who generally favor tax cuts, often criticize refundable tax credits, saying that they are actually subsidies disguised as tax cuts. In other words, they are spending in the form of direct transfers from the treasury to individuals, except that they are administered by the tax authorities rather than the agencies usually responsible for welfare."
Now look closely at Obama's tax policy and see how many of the elements of his tax policy are not really "cuts" in taxes, but are, instead, refundable tax credits.
Now consider that over 40% of the wage earners in the U.S. currently pay ZERO income tax. Yet they will still be entitled to those refundable tax credits, so that under the Obama plan, they, and others whose refundable tax credits exceed what their tax liability would have been otherwise, will now actually be RECEIVING money from the government beyond what they paid in.
Some are inclined to call that "welfare". |
Ron,
With all due respect, (and I dont expect you to answer this since I am jumping in the middle but I am curious what your opinion is on this),
- Do you think someone who has zero income can claim a refundable tax credit? My understanding is one has to have an income to report based on which the tax credit will be decided. No?
- Now for someone who is actually working and making their ends meet.. no matter what they do.. but they 'work'.. and then file taxes.. and then they get a tax credit lets say effectively making a net payment to them by the treasury. If you call that welfare, I would say it is a good thing. It is to help those who are trying. and not just sitting around or involved in illegal activities. Whats wrong with that? I would say it will empower more lower middle class and middle class families to have a bit extra of what they 'earn'. And I am excluding those families that do not work hard but just wait around for a cheque.
- There are already federal assistance projects valued at about $400 Billion in place.. no matter what the government is (democrat or republican). Would you be against that? How else can underprivileged do better... if not by getting opportunities to better health, and better education?
- Now lets say someone made a really great career for him/herself rising up from an underprivileged class. Of course they deserve every penny of what they earn... but their taxes do not cut margins from their healthcare or their family education costs. On the other hand, of a low income family can get to keep more from their tax payments, it will really help them. Perhaps paying for that extra course their kids need.
In the end, the way I see it, even the ones that may be eligible for a tax credit 'earn' their living the hard way, and in a way they are keeping their own money back, not someone else's.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2008 07:22:24 PM · #1258 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
Otherwise, he will prove himself to simply be another tax and spend liberal. |
Or the first. Where did that phrase even come from? |
How come no one will answer my question, as to why it's more responsible to borrow and spend -- and let our descendants pay for it -- than to tax ourselves to pay for that we get? (see my previously-ignored post).
Basically, every one of those unaborted fetuses comes into their citizenship owing the Federal government almost $30,000 -- how is that a "responsible" fiscal policy?
I just heard someone (on the radio) commenting on the fact that there's probably $300 billion in uncollected taxes out there, because auditing priorities over at the IRS have been shifted from checking out offshore tax shelters maintained by the top 1% to those collecting the EIC -- the Earned Income Credit for low-income wage earners ... if you're a single parent flipping burgers for Minimum Wage and claim the EIC you're more likely to get audited than some hedge fund manager and their $10 million bonus and Grand Cayman Islands PO Box "headquarters" ... |
It is a very interesting point that you bring. What people generally forget is that the nation as a whole also needs to be self sustained. It is very easy to borrow some money, spend it off on things not needed, and be happy thinking you are rich. When in fact, there are collection agencies waiting outside (I am referring to the lending countries like China) to be repaid. Ultimately it is the taxpayers who will have to pay that anyways.. and guess what: with proper interest. There is no other way money will flow in and the debt will magically disappear.
In light of all this, I would rather pay a little extra tax and keep the nation debt free rather than seeing my kids struggling for survival. The 'living on credit' is not a very wise one for me personally and nationally (unless there is no choice). |
|
|
|
11/06/2008 08:40:34 PM · #1259 |
Originally posted by Prash:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
The US hasn't been the land of opportunity for everyone for a very long time. From what I've read of Obama's plans for tax reform is to leave more money in the pockets of the middle and lower classes so they have a chance to succeed. This is not welfare.
Maybe there's another part of the plan you can point us to. You are obviously so disillusioned with the current state of your welfare system and think anything that is giving tax cuts to those who most need it is like welfare.
... and I asked where in his plan is he raising taxes and increasing welfare? Where are you getting this info from and what are you calling welfare? |
Colette, do you know what a "refundable" tax credit is? Here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia article:
"Refundable or non-wastable tax credits can reduce the tax owed below zero, and result in a net payment to the taxpayer beyond their own payments into the tax system, appearing to be a moderate form of negative income tax.
. . .
Conservatives or libertarians, who generally favor tax cuts, often criticize refundable tax credits, saying that they are actually subsidies disguised as tax cuts. In other words, they are spending in the form of direct transfers from the treasury to individuals, except that they are administered by the tax authorities rather than the agencies usually responsible for welfare."
Now look closely at Obama's tax policy and see how many of the elements of his tax policy are not really "cuts" in taxes, but are, instead, refundable tax credits.
Now consider that over 40% of the wage earners in the U.S. currently pay ZERO income tax. Yet they will still be entitled to those refundable tax credits, so that under the Obama plan, they, and others whose refundable tax credits exceed what their tax liability would have been otherwise, will now actually be RECEIVING money from the government beyond what they paid in.
Some are inclined to call that "welfare". |
Ron,
With all due respect, (and I dont expect you to answer this since I am jumping in the middle but I am curious what your opinion is on this), |
No problem, Prash, I'm always willing to answer non-baiting questions. Mind you, I'm not a tax "expert" so will just give you my opinions ( which is what you requested ).
Originally posted by Prash:
- Do you think someone who has zero income can claim a refundable tax credit? My understanding is one has to have an income to report based on which the tax credit will be decided. No? |
In my opinion, as long as they file a return showing that they would qualify for one of the tax credits - e.g. have a mortgage, pay for college - then they will be entitled to claim the credit ( and get the "refund" ) even if they had no "income" to start with. Of course, they could always "lie" and say that they "earned" a total of $600 doing laundry for their neighbors, pay $30 in taxes, then claim the $30 back plus the refundable credits. Tax fraud doesn't only happen at the top.
Originally posted by Prash:
- Now for someone who is actually working and making their ends meet.. no matter what they do.. but they 'work'.. and then file taxes.. and then they get a tax credit lets say effectively making a net payment to them by the treasury. If you call that welfare, I would say it is a good thing. It is to help those who are trying. and not just sitting around or involved in illegal activities. Whats wrong with that? |
There is nothing "wrong" with that as long as it is called what it is - welfare -, is subject to the normal criteria for obtaining welfare, and is administered by the Department of Social Services, not the IRS.
Originally posted by Prash:
I would say it will empower more lower middle class and middle class families to have a bit extra of what they 'earn'. |
But they didn't "earn" the money in the first place. It's not just "their" money being returned, it's their money PLUS money paid in by "others" that is being given to them.
Originally posted by Prash:
And I am excluding those families that do not work hard but just wait around for a cheque. |
We agree on that.
Originally posted by Prash:
- There are already federal assistance projects valued at about $400 Billion in place.. no matter what the government is (democrat or republican). Would you be against that? |
I'm not "against" that, but, as an American taxpayer I feel entitled to gripe about how poorly the federal gov't runs the programs - I feel that they would be much more efficient and less open to fraud if administered by local gov'ts. How often do we hear of Medicare fraud, people continuing to collect Social Security for parents who have been dead for YEARS?, just as two examples.
Originally posted by Prash:
How else can underprivileged do better... if not by getting opportunities to better health, and better education? |
By the development of BETTER gov't programs that are designed to BREAK the cycle. For example: free childcare, free medical screenings, free maternity care, and free transportation for up to x-months WHILE a person attends free job training courses ( based on a free evaluation of what types of jobs one has an aptitude for ). After that, you've used up all of your gov't freebies except unemployment and catastrophic care for the rest of your working years.
Originally posted by Prash:
- Now lets say someone made a really great career for him/herself rising up from an underprivileged class. Of course they deserve every penny of what they earn... but their taxes do not cut margins from their healthcare or their family education costs. On the other hand, of a low income family can get to keep more from their tax payments, it will really help them. Perhaps paying for that extra course their kids need. |
I do not see a problem with having a "moderately" progressive income tax, or a progressive cost for health care insurance based on actuarial tables.
Originally posted by Prash:
In the end, the way I see it, even the ones that may be eligible for a tax credit 'earn' their living the hard way, and in a way they are keeping their own money back, not someone else's. |
I don't have a problem with them keeping their OWN money back, I'm opposed to giving them OTHER Peoples money via redistribution by the IRS under the guise of a tax CUT. |
|
|
|
11/06/2008 08:58:37 PM · #1260 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Prash:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
The US hasn't been the land of opportunity for everyone for a very long time. From what I've read of Obama's plans for tax reform is to leave more money in the pockets of the middle and lower classes so they have a chance to succeed. This is not welfare.
Maybe there's another part of the plan you can point us to. You are obviously so disillusioned with the current state of your welfare system and think anything that is giving tax cuts to those who most need it is like welfare.
... and I asked where in his plan is he raising taxes and increasing welfare? Where are you getting this info from and what are you calling welfare? |
Colette, do you know what a "refundable" tax credit is? Here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia article:
"Refundable or non-wastable tax credits can reduce the tax owed below zero, and result in a net payment to the taxpayer beyond their own payments into the tax system, appearing to be a moderate form of negative income tax.
. . .
Conservatives or libertarians, who generally favor tax cuts, often criticize refundable tax credits, saying that they are actually subsidies disguised as tax cuts. In other words, they are spending in the form of direct transfers from the treasury to individuals, except that they are administered by the tax authorities rather than the agencies usually responsible for welfare."
Now look closely at Obama's tax policy and see how many of the elements of his tax policy are not really "cuts" in taxes, but are, instead, refundable tax credits.
Now consider that over 40% of the wage earners in the U.S. currently pay ZERO income tax. Yet they will still be entitled to those refundable tax credits, so that under the Obama plan, they, and others whose refundable tax credits exceed what their tax liability would have been otherwise, will now actually be RECEIVING money from the government beyond what they paid in.
Some are inclined to call that "welfare". |
Ron,
With all due respect, (and I dont expect you to answer this since I am jumping in the middle but I am curious what your opinion is on this), |
No problem, Prash, I'm always willing to answer non-baiting questions. Mind you, I'm not a tax "expert" so will just give you my opinions ( which is what you requested ).
Originally posted by Prash:
- Do you think someone who has zero income can claim a refundable tax credit? My understanding is one has to have an income to report based on which the tax credit will be decided. No? |
In my opinion, as long as they file a return showing that they would qualify for one of the tax credits - e.g. have a mortgage, pay for college - then they will be entitled to claim the credit ( and get the "refund" ) even if they had no "income" to start with. Of course, they could always "lie" and say that they "earned" a total of $600 doing laundry for their neighbors, pay $30 in taxes, then claim the $30 back plus the refundable credits. Tax fraud doesn't only happen at the top.
Originally posted by Prash:
- Now for someone who is actually working and making their ends meet.. no matter what they do.. but they 'work'.. and then file taxes.. and then they get a tax credit lets say effectively making a net payment to them by the treasury. If you call that welfare, I would say it is a good thing. It is to help those who are trying. and not just sitting around or involved in illegal activities. Whats wrong with that? |
There is nothing "wrong" with that as long as it is called what it is - welfare -, is subject to the normal criteria for obtaining welfare, and is administered by the Department of Social Services, not the IRS.
Originally posted by Prash:
I would say it will empower more lower middle class and middle class families to have a bit extra of what they 'earn'. |
But they didn't "earn" the money in the first place. It's not just "their" money being returned, it's their money PLUS money paid in by "others" that is being given to them.
Originally posted by Prash:
And I am excluding those families that do not work hard but just wait around for a cheque. |
We agree on that.
Originally posted by Prash:
- There are already federal assistance projects valued at about $400 Billion in place.. no matter what the government is (democrat or republican). Would you be against that? |
I'm not "against" that, but, as an American taxpayer I feel entitled to gripe about how poorly the federal gov't runs the programs - I feel that they would be much more efficient and less open to fraud if administered by local gov'ts. How often do we hear of Medicare fraud, people continuing to collect Social Security for parents who have been dead for YEARS?, just as two examples.
Originally posted by Prash:
How else can underprivileged do better... if not by getting opportunities to better health, and better education? |
By the development of BETTER gov't programs that are designed to BREAK the cycle. For example: free childcare, free medical screenings, free maternity care, and free transportation for up to x-months WHILE a person attends free job training courses ( based on a free evaluation of what types of jobs one has an aptitude for ). After that, you've used up all of your gov't freebies except unemployment and catastrophic care for the rest of your working years.
Originally posted by Prash:
- Now lets say someone made a really great career for him/herself rising up from an underprivileged class. Of course they deserve every penny of what they earn... but their taxes do not cut margins from their healthcare or their family education costs. On the other hand, of a low income family can get to keep more from their tax payments, it will really help them. Perhaps paying for that extra course their kids need. |
I do not see a problem with having a "moderately" progressive income tax, or a progressive cost for health care insurance based on actuarial tables.
Originally posted by Prash:
In the end, the way I see it, even the ones that may be eligible for a tax credit 'earn' their living the hard way, and in a way they are keeping their own money back, not someone else's. |
I don't have a problem with them keeping their OWN money back, I'm opposed to giving them OTHER Peoples money via redistribution by the IRS under the guise of a tax CUT. |
Ron,
Before I delve into the details, I must thank you for replying. I am still digesting everything you just wrote, and may take sometime to respond. |
|
|
|
11/06/2008 08:59:28 PM · #1261 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
The US hasn't been the land of opportunity for everyone for a very long time. From what I've read of Obama's plans for tax reform is to leave more money in the pockets of the middle and lower classes so they have a chance to succeed. This is not welfare.
Maybe there's another part of the plan you can point us to. You are obviously so disillusioned with the current state of your welfare system and think anything that is giving tax cuts to those who most need it is like welfare.
... and I asked where in his plan is he raising taxes and increasing welfare? Where are you getting this info from and what are you calling welfare? |
Colette, do you know what a "refundable" tax credit is? Here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia article:
"Refundable or non-wastable tax credits can reduce the tax owed below zero, and result in a net payment to the taxpayer beyond their own payments into the tax system, appearing to be a moderate form of negative income tax.
. . .
Conservatives or libertarians, who generally favor tax cuts, often criticize refundable tax credits, saying that they are actually subsidies disguised as tax cuts. In other words, they are spending in the form of direct transfers from the treasury to individuals, except that they are administered by the tax authorities rather than the agencies usually responsible for welfare."
Now look closely at Obama's tax policy and see how many of the elements of his tax policy are not really "cuts" in taxes, but are, instead, refundable tax credits.
Now consider that over 40% of the wage earners in the U.S. currently pay ZERO income tax. Yet they will still be entitled to those refundable tax credits, so that under the Obama plan, they, and others whose refundable tax credits exceed what their tax liability would have been otherwise, will now actually be RECEIVING money from the government beyond what they paid in.
Some are inclined to call that "welfare". |
You say over 40% of wage earners in the U.S. pay zero income tax. I wonder why that is? Their income is so low that they are considered impoverished and can barely make ends meet or is it that they have a slick tax lawyer that knows all the loopholes to bring down taxable income? I'm guessing there's a bit of both. Which do think is deserving of Obama's tax plan? Former, latter, both, neither?
You also say that refundable tax credits will refund monies not put into the system? Maybe not in income tax but income tax is not the only tax out there. What about sales tax? (I know some states don't have it but this is just an example)
What about the cost of living? Do all wages increase at the rate of inflation? My guess is, NO. Does everyone have the same opportunities in life? Absolutely not.
Obama's tax plan is just one piece of the puzzle to improve the standard of living for all Americans. |
That's all well and good but call it for what it is. Obama didn't do that. Instead he kept saying he'll give 95% of Americans tax cuts and that's just a lie. |
|
|
|
11/06/2008 09:06:58 PM · #1262 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
The US hasn't been the land of opportunity for everyone for a very long time. From what I've read of Obama's plans for tax reform is to leave more money in the pockets of the middle and lower classes so they have a chance to succeed. This is not welfare.
Maybe there's another part of the plan you can point us to. You are obviously so disillusioned with the current state of your welfare system and think anything that is giving tax cuts to those who most need it is like welfare.
... and I asked where in his plan is he raising taxes and increasing welfare? Where are you getting this info from and what are you calling welfare? |
Colette, do you know what a "refundable" tax credit is? Here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia article:
"Refundable or non-wastable tax credits can reduce the tax owed below zero, and result in a net payment to the taxpayer beyond their own payments into the tax system, appearing to be a moderate form of negative income tax.
. . .
Conservatives or libertarians, who generally favor tax cuts, often criticize refundable tax credits, saying that they are actually subsidies disguised as tax cuts. In other words, they are spending in the form of direct transfers from the treasury to individuals, except that they are administered by the tax authorities rather than the agencies usually responsible for welfare."
Now look closely at Obama's tax policy and see how many of the elements of his tax policy are not really "cuts" in taxes, but are, instead, refundable tax credits.
Now consider that over 40% of the wage earners in the U.S. currently pay ZERO income tax. Yet they will still be entitled to those refundable tax credits, so that under the Obama plan, they, and others whose refundable tax credits exceed what their tax liability would have been otherwise, will now actually be RECEIVING money from the government beyond what they paid in.
Some are inclined to call that "welfare". |
You say over 40% of wage earners in the U.S. pay zero income tax. I wonder why that is? Their income is so low that they are considered impoverished and can barely make ends meet or is it that they have a slick tax lawyer that knows all the loopholes to bring down taxable income? I'm guessing there's a bit of both. Which do think is deserving of Obama's tax plan? Former, latter, both, neither?
You also say that refundable tax credits will refund monies not put into the system? Maybe not in income tax but income tax is not the only tax out there. What about sales tax? (I know some states don't have it but this is just an example)
What about the cost of living? Do all wages increase at the rate of inflation? My guess is, NO. Does everyone have the same opportunities in life? Absolutely not.
Obama's tax plan is just one piece of the puzzle to improve the standard of living for all Americans. |
That's all well and good but call it for what it is. Obama didn't do that. Instead he kept saying he'll give 95% of Americans tax cuts and that's just a lie. |
I see what you're trying to point out. I just don't happen to agree with your assessment. If it's not a decrease in taxes then it would have to be an increase, which it isn't. It will be interesting to see how all his plans pan out in light of the current crisis. He did say it may take more than one term to accomplish his plans. I see the US being much better off as a country during his presidency and the US being seen in much better light by the rest of the world because of him.
Only time will tell though. |
|
|
|
11/06/2008 10:25:03 PM · #1263 |
Originally posted by yanko:
That's all well and good but call it for what it is. Obama didn't do that. Instead he kept saying he'll give 95% of Americans tax cuts and that's just a lie. |
Both candidates lied through their teeth when they were asked if the economic problems would change their plans. They both said No. Why? Because they were trying to get elected. An honest man could never get elected in this country.
The truth is that nobody has any f*(&ing idea what is going to happen to the global economy or how to fix it. Fasten your seatbelts! |
|
|
|
11/06/2008 10:56:42 PM · #1264 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by yanko:
That's all well and good but call it for what it is. Obama didn't do that. Instead he kept saying he'll give 95% of Americans tax cuts and that's just a lie. |
Both candidates lied through their teeth when they were asked if the economic problems would change their plans. They both said No. Why? Because they were trying to get elected. An honest man could never get elected in this country.
The truth is that nobody has any f*(&ing idea what is going to happen to the global economy or how to fix it. Fasten your seatbelts! |
All politicians lie. Period. By nature politics is a lie and so is each and everyone playing the game. They are nothing but selfserving slaves of their own need for greed and power. |
|
|
|
11/06/2008 11:00:18 PM · #1265 |
Along this theme, I recently came accross this "politician's motto":
If at first you don't mislead, lie, lie again. |
|
|
|
11/06/2008 11:17:14 PM · #1266 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
The US hasn't been the land of opportunity for everyone for a very long time. From what I've read of Obama's plans for tax reform is to leave more money in the pockets of the middle and lower classes so they have a chance to succeed. This is not welfare.
Maybe there's another part of the plan you can point us to. You are obviously so disillusioned with the current state of your welfare system and think anything that is giving tax cuts to those who most need it is like welfare.
... and I asked where in his plan is he raising taxes and increasing welfare? Where are you getting this info from and what are you calling welfare? |
Colette, do you know what a "refundable" tax credit is? Here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia article:
"Refundable or non-wastable tax credits can reduce the tax owed below zero, and result in a net payment to the taxpayer beyond their own payments into the tax system, appearing to be a moderate form of negative income tax.
. . .
Conservatives or libertarians, who generally favor tax cuts, often criticize refundable tax credits, saying that they are actually subsidies disguised as tax cuts. In other words, they are spending in the form of direct transfers from the treasury to individuals, except that they are administered by the tax authorities rather than the agencies usually responsible for welfare."
Now look closely at Obama's tax policy and see how many of the elements of his tax policy are not really "cuts" in taxes, but are, instead, refundable tax credits.
Now consider that over 40% of the wage earners in the U.S. currently pay ZERO income tax. Yet they will still be entitled to those refundable tax credits, so that under the Obama plan, they, and others whose refundable tax credits exceed what their tax liability would have been otherwise, will now actually be RECEIVING money from the government beyond what they paid in.
Some are inclined to call that "welfare". |
You say over 40% of wage earners in the U.S. pay zero income tax. I wonder why that is? Their income is so low that they are considered impoverished and can barely make ends meet or is it that they have a slick tax lawyer that knows all the loopholes to bring down taxable income? I'm guessing there's a bit of both. Which do think is deserving of Obama's tax plan? Former, latter, both, neither?
You also say that refundable tax credits will refund monies not put into the system? Maybe not in income tax but income tax is not the only tax out there. What about sales tax? (I know some states don't have it but this is just an example)
What about the cost of living? Do all wages increase at the rate of inflation? My guess is, NO. Does everyone have the same opportunities in life? Absolutely not.
Obama's tax plan is just one piece of the puzzle to improve the standard of living for all Americans. |
That's all well and good but call it for what it is. Obama didn't do that. Instead he kept saying he'll give 95% of Americans tax cuts and that's just a lie. |
Sorry I dont think I understood what you meant here,  Yanko. From this NPR article:
"All households, except those in the top 5 percent of the income scale, would benefit from Obama's tax cuts. "
So how is that a lie?It would be a lie if he could not extend the tax cuts according to his plan because of the economic crisis. No?
|
|
|
|
11/06/2008 11:18:42 PM · #1267 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by yanko:
That's all well and good but call it for what it is. Obama didn't do that. Instead he kept saying he'll give 95% of Americans tax cuts and that's just a lie. |
An honest man could never get elected in this country. |
I think I can say with fair confidence that a politician would lie at some point in ANY country, not just in the U.S. I dont think one can win an election without lying.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2008 01:15:42 AM · #1268 |
Originally posted by Prash:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
The US hasn't been the land of opportunity for everyone for a very long time. From what I've read of Obama's plans for tax reform is to leave more money in the pockets of the middle and lower classes so they have a chance to succeed. This is not welfare.
Maybe there's another part of the plan you can point us to. You are obviously so disillusioned with the current state of your welfare system and think anything that is giving tax cuts to those who most need it is like welfare.
... and I asked where in his plan is he raising taxes and increasing welfare? Where are you getting this info from and what are you calling welfare? |
Colette, do you know what a "refundable" tax credit is? Here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia article:
"Refundable or non-wastable tax credits can reduce the tax owed below zero, and result in a net payment to the taxpayer beyond their own payments into the tax system, appearing to be a moderate form of negative income tax.
. . .
Conservatives or libertarians, who generally favor tax cuts, often criticize refundable tax credits, saying that they are actually subsidies disguised as tax cuts. In other words, they are spending in the form of direct transfers from the treasury to individuals, except that they are administered by the tax authorities rather than the agencies usually responsible for welfare."
Now look closely at Obama's tax policy and see how many of the elements of his tax policy are not really "cuts" in taxes, but are, instead, refundable tax credits.
Now consider that over 40% of the wage earners in the U.S. currently pay ZERO income tax. Yet they will still be entitled to those refundable tax credits, so that under the Obama plan, they, and others whose refundable tax credits exceed what their tax liability would have been otherwise, will now actually be RECEIVING money from the government beyond what they paid in.
Some are inclined to call that "welfare". |
You say over 40% of wage earners in the U.S. pay zero income tax. I wonder why that is? Their income is so low that they are considered impoverished and can barely make ends meet or is it that they have a slick tax lawyer that knows all the loopholes to bring down taxable income? I'm guessing there's a bit of both. Which do think is deserving of Obama's tax plan? Former, latter, both, neither?
You also say that refundable tax credits will refund monies not put into the system? Maybe not in income tax but income tax is not the only tax out there. What about sales tax? (I know some states don't have it but this is just an example)
What about the cost of living? Do all wages increase at the rate of inflation? My guess is, NO. Does everyone have the same opportunities in life? Absolutely not.
Obama's tax plan is just one piece of the puzzle to improve the standard of living for all Americans. |
That's all well and good but call it for what it is. Obama didn't do that. Instead he kept saying he'll give 95% of Americans tax cuts and that's just a lie. |
Sorry I dont think I understood what you meant here, Yanko. From this NPR article:
"All households, except those in the top 5 percent of the income scale, would benefit from Obama's tax cuts. "
So how is that a lie?It would be a lie if he could not extend the tax cuts according to his plan because of the economic crisis. No? |
It is impossible to give 95% of Americans a tax cut when nearly half of the population doesn't pay taxes to begin with. Some will get a tax cut (i.e. money you paid to the government that is given back to you) while others will receive gifts (i.e. money just given to you).
Message edited by author 2008-11-07 01:21:50. |
|
|
|
11/07/2008 01:28:21 AM · #1269 |
Originally posted by Prash:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
The US hasn't been the land of opportunity for everyone for a very long time. From what I've read of Obama's plans for tax reform is to leave more money in the pockets of the middle and lower classes so they have a chance to succeed. This is not welfare.
Maybe there's another part of the plan you can point us to. You are obviously so disillusioned with the current state of your welfare system and think anything that is giving tax cuts to those who most need it is like welfare.
... and I asked where in his plan is he raising taxes and increasing welfare? Where are you getting this info from and what are you calling welfare? |
Colette, do you know what a "refundable" tax credit is? Here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia article:
"Refundable or non-wastable tax credits can reduce the tax owed below zero, and result in a net payment to the taxpayer beyond their own payments into the tax system, appearing to be a moderate form of negative income tax.
. . .
Conservatives or libertarians, who generally favor tax cuts, often criticize refundable tax credits, saying that they are actually subsidies disguised as tax cuts. In other words, they are spending in the form of direct transfers from the treasury to individuals, except that they are administered by the tax authorities rather than the agencies usually responsible for welfare."
Now look closely at Obama's tax policy and see how many of the elements of his tax policy are not really "cuts" in taxes, but are, instead, refundable tax credits.
Now consider that over 40% of the wage earners in the U.S. currently pay ZERO income tax. Yet they will still be entitled to those refundable tax credits, so that under the Obama plan, they, and others whose refundable tax credits exceed what their tax liability would have been otherwise, will now actually be RECEIVING money from the government beyond what they paid in.
Some are inclined to call that "welfare". |
You say over 40% of wage earners in the U.S. pay zero income tax. I wonder why that is? Their income is so low that they are considered impoverished and can barely make ends meet or is it that they have a slick tax lawyer that knows all the loopholes to bring down taxable income? I'm guessing there's a bit of both. Which do think is deserving of Obama's tax plan? Former, latter, both, neither?
You also say that refundable tax credits will refund monies not put into the system? Maybe not in income tax but income tax is not the only tax out there. What about sales tax? (I know some states don't have it but this is just an example)
What about the cost of living? Do all wages increase at the rate of inflation? My guess is, NO. Does everyone have the same opportunities in life? Absolutely not.
Obama's tax plan is just one piece of the puzzle to improve the standard of living for all Americans. |
That's all well and good but call it for what it is. Obama didn't do that. Instead he kept saying he'll give 95% of Americans tax cuts and that's just a lie. |
Sorry I dont think I understood what you meant here, Yanko. From this NPR article:
"All households, except those in the top 5 percent of the income scale, would benefit from Obama's tax cuts. "
So how is that a lie?It would be a lie if he could not extend the tax cuts according to his plan because of the economic crisis. No? |
Well the lie/mislead is that he isn't cutting taxes for a large group of individuals, he is actually increasing the amount the government gives them. It cant be a cut in taxes when you are not paying any taxes at all. If you receive more back than you put in and then someone comes along and gives you even more back than you were already receiving then that is not a cut, it's an increase in your government subsidies/welfare. He should had stated that he is cutting taxes for 55% of Americans and increasing the amount of welfare for 40% of Americans. It's all about spin in politics, a mincing of words to get the masses on your side.
I was typing slow and not trying to Yanko you:)
Message edited by author 2008-11-07 01:29:43. |
|
|
|
11/07/2008 07:56:30 AM · #1270 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Well the lie/mislead is that he isn't cutting taxes for a large group of individuals, he is actually increasing the amount the government gives them. It cant be a cut in taxes when you are not paying any taxes at all. If you receive more back than you put in and then someone comes along and gives you even more back than you were already receiving then that is not a cut, it's an increase in your government subsidies/welfare. He should had stated that he is cutting taxes for 55% of Americans and increasing the amount of welfare for 40% of Americans. It's all about spin in politics, a mincing of words to get the masses on your side.
I was typing slow and not trying to Yanko you:) |
If all people were given a "living wage" this would not be necessary. That's the bottom line to everything. I know people that work two full time jobs and can't pay their mortgage. These are the same people who used to have wonderful, good paying jobs that were yanked out from under them and sent to foreign countries. If the federal government expects people to bust their asses for five something an hour, they should expect to give them something for their efforts. It's as simple as that. Someone has to do those jobs. The salaries are never going to be good. Those people still need to live. I don't get all the welfare references. Do you really not understand how hard some people work for peanuts??? Do you really not understand how hard your life would be if everyone refused to work those types of jobs???? |
|
|
|
11/07/2008 09:07:42 AM · #1271 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Well the lie/mislead is that he isn't cutting taxes for a large group of individuals, he is actually increasing the amount the government gives them. It cant be a cut in taxes when you are not paying any taxes at all. If you receive more back than you put in and then someone comes along and gives you even more back than you were already receiving then that is not a cut, it's an increase in your government subsidies/welfare. He should had stated that he is cutting taxes for 55% of Americans and increasing the amount of welfare for 40% of Americans. It's all about spin in politics, a mincing of words to get the masses on your side.
I was typing slow and not trying to Yanko you:) |
If all people were given a "living wage" this would not be necessary. That's the bottom line to everything. I know people that work two full time jobs and can't pay their mortgage. These are the same people who used to have wonderful, good paying jobs that were yanked out from under them and sent to foreign countries. If the federal government expects people to bust their asses for five something an hour, they should expect to give them something for their efforts. It's as simple as that. Someone has to do those jobs. The salaries are never going to be good. Those people still need to live. I don't get all the welfare references. Do you really not understand how hard some people work for peanuts??? Do you really not understand how hard your life would be if everyone refused to work those types of jobs???? |
I used the term welfare b/c earned income tax credits are the very definition of welfare. I completely understand that there are hardworking individuals out there struggling to make ends meet, I work with them on a daily basis. I don't think anywhere in my statement did I advocate for or against earned income tax credits or types of welfare in general. My whole point is that it's not a tax cut when you are not paying taxes and it was represented as something different. |
|
|
|
11/07/2008 09:12:41 AM · #1272 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
My whole point is that it's not a tax cut when you are not paying taxes |
There are corporations and rather rich individuals who, after taking advantage of all the loopholes available, pay no taxes either... would you consider them as being welfare moochers too?
Ray |
|
|
|
11/07/2008 09:16:43 AM · #1273 |
Berlusconi says Obama is 'tanned'
Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has provoked criticism for describing Barack Obama as "young, handsome, and tanned".
He made the remarks after a meeting with the Russian president in Moscow.
Opposition politicians in Italy said Mr Berlusconi's remarks about the US president-elect were at worst, racist and at best, undiplomatic.
Mr Berlusconi shrugged off the criticism, saying those who disagreed with him were humourless "imbeciles". |
|
|
|
11/07/2008 09:21:30 AM · #1274 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
My whole point is that it's not a tax cut when you are not paying taxes and it was represented as something different. |
Why not? Don't you believe in negative numbers?
Message edited by author 2008-11-07 09:21:45. |
|
|
|
11/07/2008 09:23:44 AM · #1275 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Well the lie/mislead is that he isn't cutting taxes for a large group of individuals, he is actually increasing the amount the government gives them. It cant be a cut in taxes when you are not paying any taxes at all. If you receive more back than you put in and then someone comes along and gives you even more back than you were already receiving then that is not a cut, it's an increase in your government subsidies/welfare. He should had stated that he is cutting taxes for 55% of Americans and increasing the amount of welfare for 40% of Americans. It's all about spin in politics, a mincing of words to get the masses on your side.
I was typing slow and not trying to Yanko you:) |
If all people were given a "living wage" this would not be necessary. That's the bottom line to everything. I know people that work two full time jobs and can't pay their mortgage. These are the same people who used to have wonderful, good paying jobs that were yanked out from under them and sent to foreign countries. If the federal government expects people to bust their asses for five something an hour, they should expect to give them something for their efforts. It's as simple as that. Someone has to do those jobs. The salaries are never going to be good. Those people still need to live. I don't get all the welfare references. Do you really not understand how hard some people work for peanuts??? Do you really not understand how hard your life would be if everyone refused to work those types of jobs???? |
I used the term welfare b/c earned income tax credits are the very definition of welfare. I completely understand that there are hardworking individuals out there struggling to make ends meet, I work with them on a daily basis. I don't think anywhere in my statement did I advocate for or against earned income tax credits or types of welfare in general. My whole point is that it's not a tax cut when you are not paying taxes and it was represented as something different. |
Welfare is something people get for nothing. People on welfare do not get tax breaks because they are not working for the money. An earned income credit is just that "earned". These people you are referring to work hard. Often times, literally back breaking work. On their feet for 8 to 16 hours a day. And I find it offensive that you consider this to be welfare. They are not getting something for nothing. They are working for it! Would you rather all those low paying jobs went away? God forbid, who would make your coffee? Where in the world would you get a cheeseburger? And as others have asked, is it welfare for those big wigs getting all their tax breaks and paying squat? Arrgghhh! I've got to stay out of this thread. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 06:44:16 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 06:44:16 PM EDT.
|
