Date registered: Dec 2003
Vehicle: 94 E500, 97 500SL
Location: Soddy Daisy, TN
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 112 Post(s)
Here is the editorial. It is from the GOP side of the editorials (fair and balanced paper accomplished by publishing both extremes):
Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain has said plainly that heâs for cutting taxes â period.
But when it is pointed out that presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama is for raising taxes, he claims he wants higher taxes only on those earning $250,000 or above, and plans to give tax cuts for 95 percent of Americans.
What Sen. Obama really proposes is higher taxes for some â at the expense of others.
Does he think that is a the way for him to âbuyâ the election â with someone elseâs money?
The Institute for Policy Innovation explains it this way:
âCurrently, workers in the bottom 40 percent of income pay little or no income taxes. So how does a worker pay less tax than zero? Obamaâs answer is a ârefundableâ tax credit.
âFor example, if the government gives workers, say, a $1,000 refundable tax credit, those who owe no income taxes will actually get a check for $1,000. Those who owe, say, $600 in taxes wonât pay any tax and will get a check for the $400 difference.
âIn other words, Obama would take money from some taxpayers and hand it to others. Folks, thatâs not a tax cut; thatâs welfare.â
The Institute for Policy Innovation says: âUnder Obamaâs plan, these refundable tax credits are targeted to those who pay little or nothing in federal income taxes. The latest CBO (Congressional Budget Office) data shows the bottom 40 percent of income earners already pay no federal income taxes. Instead, they receive a net payment from the federal income tax system (i.e., taxpayers) equal to 3.8 percent of all federal income taxes, because of already-existing refundable tax credits.
âSuch âtax creditsâ are really government spending programs. Call it the New Tax Welfare. Obamaâs refundable tax credits would involve government checks for child care, education, housing, retirement, health care, welfare and just outright giveaways.
âWhen Obama says he will cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans, he is talking about his proposal for a $500 refundable income tax credit for all but the top 5 percent of income earners. For the bottom 40 percent, and more, this will be another check from the federal government, not a reduction in tax liability. Another increase in government spending rather than a tax cut.
âThe Obama plan is the opposite of tax reform, which involves lowering tax rates and closing loopholes. This plan doesnât cut taxes, it increases welfare.â
Where do you think Sen. Obama would get the âfreeâ money he proposes to hand out in his appeal to buy votes?
He would get it either from taxing âyouâ more, if you are not one of the handout recipients, or adding to the staggering national debt.
Do you want to elect a president who wants to spend more money and tax more â and hand out checks to people who pay little or no taxes?
Remember, the national debt is already $9.9 trillion, and annual budgets are in the red about $400 billion. So when Sen. Obama wants to tax some more, but then hand out âfreeâ money to others who are not paying any or much in taxes, does that make sound economic sense to you?
Isnât Sen. McCainâs plan to spend less and tax less much better?