• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Obama's tax relief question........

redgtxdi

Diamond Member
Jun 23, 2004
5,458
7
81
I've heard this now, more than once, so I'm curious as to a solid answer.....


Of the tax relief given to 95% of working families.........if we assume the 40% number for those who pay no taxes at all (for whatever reason)......do they get anything out of this tax relief??

Reason I ask is I've heard suggestions that they'll just get a check.

Anybody know for certain??
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,537
9,531
126
Ah okay, I see, you're talking about those who have no federal income tax liability after credits Text

That's not the same as "no taxes at all." For example, a nice elderly lady living on social security and a pension probably doesn't pay any federal income taxes (because those income sources are usually non-taxable), but she probably does pay a variety of state and local taxes, like property, sales, etc. And that elderly lady and those like her make up probably as much if not more of the non-payers than the working poor.

So you're abusing numbers here just like the lefties do with that 45 million uninsured bit. Ah well.

That link I posted above is informative. I was quite interested in the fact that the overwhelming majority of non-payers live in red states. The 1st 19 states ranked by percentages were all red in 2004, and of those, only New Mexico is likely to turn blue this year. What does this mean, I wonder?
 

Viditor

Diamond Member
Oct 25, 1999
3,290
0
0
Originally posted by: redgtxdi
I've heard this now, more than once, so I'm curious as to a solid answer.....


Of the tax relief given to 95% of working families.........if we assume the 40% number for those who pay no taxes at all (for whatever reason)......do they get anything out of this tax relief??

Reason I ask is I've heard suggestions that they'll just get a check.

Anybody know for certain??
1. It's 95% of all taxpayers (not just working families)
2. No taxes raised, many have taxes lowered
3. No check, but Health Care will not be left to a tax credit either. For example, if you are one of those in greatest need, you pay very little tax and you also have very little cash for medical help. Obama is setting up a system that makes the health care itself cheaper, McCain is allowing for a $5k tax credit and paying for that with a tax on existing health care from businesses...
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
199
101
1) anyone who believes the BS being fed to them by both candidates about tax plans is stupid. The tax plan they tout now will likely have very little resemblance to what would actually happen during their term(s), since your taxes will increase significantly (directly or indirectly) regardless of who gets elected.

2) letting the Bush tax cuts expire is a de facto tax increase. Obama's proclamation of a tax decrease (or at least no increase) for 95% of tax payers is a flat out lie in that context.

3) McCain's plan is irrelevant, since if he were to become the president he would not be able to do anything with taxes as congress will be in strong dem control. McCain could only serve as a "check" on a stupid congress.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,830
2
0
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
1) anyone who believes the BS being fed to them by both candidates about tax plans is stupid. The tax plan they tout now will likely have very little resemblance to what would actually happen during their term(s), since your taxes will increase significantly (directly or indirectly) regardless of who gets elected.

2) letting the Bush tax cuts expire is a de facto tax increase. Obama's proclamation of a tax decrease (or at least no increase) for 95% of tax payers is a flat out lie in that context.

3) McCain's plan is irrelevant, since if he were to become the president he would not be able to do anything with taxes as congress will be in strong dem control. McCain could only serve as a "check" on a stupid congress.
1) Glad you believe that. Don't vote, it won't matter who wins.

2) What makes you think the Bush tax cuts wouldn't expire under McCain?

3) A check on social justice and doing what's right? Maybe we do need a Republican president to save us from being on par with the rest of civilization.
 

Fingolfin269

Lifer
Feb 28, 2003
17,948
31
91
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
1) anyone who believes the BS being fed to them by both candidates about tax plans is stupid. The tax plan they tout now will likely have very little resemblance to what would actually happen during their term(s), since your taxes will increase significantly (directly or indirectly) regardless of who gets elected.

2) letting the Bush tax cuts expire is a de facto tax increase. Obama's proclamation of a tax decrease (or at least no increase) for 95% of tax payers is a flat out lie in that context.

3) McCain's plan is irrelevant, since if he were to become the president he would not be able to do anything with taxes as congress will be in strong dem control. McCain could only serve as a "check" on a stupid congress.
1) Glad you believe that. Don't vote, it won't matter who wins.

2) What makes you think the Bush tax cuts wouldn't expire under McCain?

3) A check on social justice and doing what's right? Maybe we do need a Republican president to save us from being on par with the rest of civilization.
#2 doesn't matter in relation to McCain because I don't remember him touting tax cuts. I could have missed it though.

 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
199
101
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
1) anyone who believes the BS being fed to them by both candidates about tax plans is stupid. The tax plan they tout now will likely have very little resemblance to what would actually happen during their term(s), since your taxes will increase significantly (directly or indirectly) regardless of who gets elected.

2) letting the Bush tax cuts expire is a de facto tax increase. Obama's proclamation of a tax decrease (or at least no increase) for 95% of tax payers is a flat out lie in that context.

3) McCain's plan is irrelevant, since if he were to become the president he would not be able to do anything with taxes as congress will be in strong dem control. McCain could only serve as a "check" on a stupid congress.
1) Glad you believe that. Don't vote, it won't matter who wins.

2) What makes you think the Bush tax cuts wouldn't expire under McCain?

3) A check on social justice and doing what's right? Maybe we do need a Republican president to save us from being on par with the rest of civilization.

1) Yes, it does matter who wins, but I'm not naive enough to believe the promises politicians make during election season, especially as it relates to taxes.

2) Indeed, they would, see item #3.

3) "social justice" is usually code for "socialism", "forced redistribution of wealth", and "political correctness gone crazy", I can only hope there's some check in place. The real issues that need to be addressed would have enough support to pass anyway.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,830
2
0
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
1) anyone who believes the BS being fed to them by both candidates about tax plans is stupid. The tax plan they tout now will likely have very little resemblance to what would actually happen during their term(s), since your taxes will increase significantly (directly or indirectly) regardless of who gets elected.

2) letting the Bush tax cuts expire is a de facto tax increase. Obama's proclamation of a tax decrease (or at least no increase) for 95% of tax payers is a flat out lie in that context.

3) McCain's plan is irrelevant, since if he were to become the president he would not be able to do anything with taxes as congress will be in strong dem control. McCain could only serve as a "check" on a stupid congress.
1) Glad you believe that. Don't vote, it won't matter who wins.

2) What makes you think the Bush tax cuts wouldn't expire under McCain?

3) A check on social justice and doing what's right? Maybe we do need a Republican president to save us from being on par with the rest of civilization.

1) Yes, it does matter who wins, but I'm not naive enough to believe the promises politicians make during election season, especially as it relates to taxes.

2) Indeed, they would, see item #3.

3) "social justice" is usually code for "socialism", "forced redistribution of wealth", and "political correctness gone crazy", I can only hope there's some check in place. The real issues that need to be addressed would have enough support to pass anyway.
If you hate socialism so much, why don't you waive your rights to be protected by the military, use public roads, GPS, the internet, electricity, oceanographic data, microwave ovens, fossil fuels from public lands, etc?

I know why. It's because you're all for socialism until it comes to education and healthcare.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,061
494
126
Originally posted by: Vic
Ah okay, I see, you're talking about those who have no federal income tax liability after credits Text

That's not the same as "no taxes at all." For example, a nice elderly lady living on social security and a pension probably doesn't pay any federal income taxes (because those income sources are usually non-taxable), but she probably does pay a variety of state and local taxes, like property, sales, etc. And that elderly lady and those like her make up probably as much if not more of the non-payers than the working poor.

So you're abusing numbers here just like the lefties do with that 45 million uninsured bit. Ah well.

That link I posted above is informative. I was quite interested in the fact that the overwhelming majority of non-payers live in red states. The 1st 19 states ranked by percentages were all red in 2004, and of those, only New Mexico is likely to turn blue this year. What does this mean, I wonder?
Typically blue states have higher incomes and arent in the south. So it shouldnt be a surprise red states see a higher % of people who effectively pay 0 in federal income taxes.

However the question I have and I am sure there is a study on this. Obama's make work refundable tax credits. It sounds like he is squeezing blood from a turnip by injecting it with blood from the higher income brackets?

That link you have there is interesting as they wonder how tax breaks can be sold when such a large % of the population doesnt pay said tax? I think they are being naive in this regards. Politicians have no problem telling us the higher income brackets made out like bandits(higher tax rebates under bush tax cuts) while the poor got screwed(little tax rebate because they dont pay much). And people believe it. Hell if anybody has spent any time on P&N and watched the discussion on this topic will know a lot of people dont seem to grasp that simple concept. When you dont pay in to the tax system, a tax break doesnt apply to you. And it is very apparent and surprising despite the rhetoric that Bush's cuts and tax policy has actually decreased the burden on the working poor in this country.

I think the end of the dempgaphics information from your link sums up my feelings as well.

In 2004, a record 42.5 million tax returns ? one-third of all returns filed ? had no income tax liability because of the available credits and deductions in the tax code. This is a 42 percent increase in the number of zero-tax filers in just four years. In addition to these zero-tax filers are the 15 million individuals or households who do not earn enough to file a tax return. Overall, nearly 58 million taxable households are outside of the income tax system.

These findings raise serious questions about the future of the U.S. income tax system. Are any future tax cuts, or even tax reforms, possible when the lion?s share of the tax burden is increasingly borne by a shrinking pool of taxpayers who ? at least on paper ? appear to be "upper-income"? And will the expanding pool of non-payers demand even higher income taxes? These are questions lawmakers must begin to debate.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/542.html

Most are young single workers.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: redgtxdi
I've heard this now, more than once, so I'm curious as to a solid answer.....


Of the tax relief given to 95% of working families.........if we assume the 40% number for those who pay no taxes at all (for whatever reason)......do they get anything out of this tax relief??

Reason I ask is I've heard suggestions that they'll just get a check.

Anybody know for certain??
Obama's supposed lower taxes(which is a lie if you start from tax levels right now) relies heavily on tax-credits which allow for bigger refunds even if you don't have any tax liability. It's the worst kind of redistribution because it can be sold as a "tax cut" when it is nothing more than a hand out.

I've stated here more than once(in fact I believe hundreds if not thousands) that all income tax should be NET-ZERO. Meaning, you can no receive a check for more than you paid in.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
10,041
4,084
136
I've stated here more than once(in fact I believe hundreds if not thousands) that all income tax should be NET-ZERO. Meaning, you can no receive a check for more than you paid in.
Can't believe I agree with you on something, but :thumbsup:
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
199
101
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
If you hate socialism so much, why don't you waive your rights to be protected by the military, use public roads, GPS, the internet, electricity, oceanographic data, microwave ovens, fossil fuels from public lands, etc?

I know why. It's because you're all for socialism until it comes to education and healthcare.
None of those things you mentioned have anything to do with socialism or the forced redistribution of wealth. Nice try though.

 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,830
2
0
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
If you hate socialism so much, why don't you waive your rights to be protected by the military, use public roads, GPS, the internet, electricity, oceanographic data, microwave ovens, fossil fuels from public lands, etc?

I know why. It's because you're all for socialism until it comes to education and healthcare.
None of those things you mentioned have anything to do with socialism or the forced redistribution of wealth. Nice try though.
How do you figure they are less socialistic than government health insurance??

Subsidies to oil companies (cash and land), and farm subsidies are "forced redistribution of wealth"
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,061
494
126
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
If you hate socialism so much, why don't you waive your rights to be protected by the military, use public roads, GPS, the internet, electricity, oceanographic data, microwave ovens, fossil fuels from public lands, etc?

I know why. It's because you're all for socialism until it comes to education and healthcare.
None of those things you mentioned have anything to do with socialism or the forced redistribution of wealth. Nice try though.
How do you figure they are less socialistic than government health insurance??

Subsidies to oil companies (cash and land), and farm subsidies are "forced redistribution of wealth"
Funneling public dollars into private entities is fascism, not socialism. Of your list only the military and public road infrastructure can be considered "socialized" even though imo they dont carry the shame of being "socialism".
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,980
849
126
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
1) anyone who believes the BS being fed to them by both candidates about tax plans is stupid. The tax plan they tout now will likely have very little resemblance to what would actually happen during their term(s), since your taxes will increase significantly (directly or indirectly) regardless of who gets elected.

2) letting the Bush tax cuts expire is a de facto tax increase. Obama's proclamation of a tax decrease (or at least no increase) for 95% of tax payers is a flat out lie in that context.

3) McCain's plan is irrelevant, since if he were to become the president he would not be able to do anything with taxes as congress will be in strong dem control. McCain could only serve as a "check" on a stupid congress.
But unless there is a 70% sitting of Dems the same lame duck congress will exist. They wont do shit as evidenced by the last 3 years.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
factcheck clarifies a little bit:

Tax Cut Recipients

Obama overstated how many people would save on taxes under his plan:

Obama: My definition ? here's what I can tell the American people: 95 percent of you will get a tax cut. And if you make less than $250,000, less than a quarter-million dollars a year, then you will not see one dime's worth of tax increase.

That should be 95 percent of families, not 95 percent of "American people." An analysis by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center found that Obama's plan would decrease taxes for 95.5 percent of families with children. Overall, 81.3 percent of households would get a tax cut under his proposal.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
199
101
Originally posted by: jonks
factcheck clarifies a little bit:

Tax Cut Recipients

Obama overstated how many people would save on taxes under his plan:

Obama: My definition ? here's what I can tell the American people: 95 percent of you will get a tax cut. And if you make less than $250,000, less than a quarter-million dollars a year, then you will not see one dime's worth of tax increase.

That should be 95 percent of families, not 95 percent of "American people." An analysis by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center found that Obama's plan would decrease taxes for 95.5 percent of families with children. Overall, 81.3 percent of households would get a tax cut under his proposal.
... and of course none of that would happen regardless. The reality is that by the time congress is through with it and all the pork etc has been attached, the final version would be vastly different from anything promised. Not to mention that someone's going to have to pay for all the bailouts and additional spending that is coming, so taxes will go up -- way up -- no matter who is president.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: Vic
-snip-
but she probably does pay a variety of state and local taxes, like property, sales, etc.
Yes, and being state/local the federal government has no control over them.

There are many other *hidden* federal taxes (income tax revenue accounts for about half of the gov's revenue), but how Obama is going to cut taxes on 95% remains an unanswered question. Personally, I don't think he (or anyone else for that matter) can do it.

I'll add that his latest proposal - to cut cap gains tax on small businesses - seemingly makes no sense. IMO, he and McCain are tied in the quest to see who can propose the least relevant and most stupid policies to address our current economic problems.

Fern
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY