You Obama guys help me out - Page 2 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #11 of 62 (permalink) Old 10-05-2008, 06:35 PM Thread Starter
Moderately subtle
 
edfreeman's Avatar
 
Date registered: Dec 2003
Vehicle: 94 E500, 97 500SL
Location: Soddy Daisy, TN
Posts: 8,502
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Send a message via AIM to edfreeman
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dope View Post
No accusation of racism,I wasn't clear. I meant the world isn't just in black,white or red. The word 'socialist' is a very broad term.
Oh, OK . . . misread, my bad.

Socialist is a broad term, indeed, it includes many things that wouldn't apply, but I would find such a "tax policy" as being somewhat socialistic.

edfreeman is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #12 of 62 (permalink) Old 10-05-2008, 06:42 PM Thread Starter
Moderately subtle
 
edfreeman's Avatar
 
Date registered: Dec 2003
Vehicle: 94 E500, 97 500SL
Location: Soddy Daisy, TN
Posts: 8,502
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Send a message via AIM to edfreeman
(Thread Starter)
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 he’s for cutting taxes — 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 — at the expense of others.
Does he think that is a the way for him to “buy” the election — with someone else’s money?
The Institute for Policy Innovation explains it this way:
“Currently, workers in the bottom 40 percent of income pay little or no income taxes. So how does a worker pay less tax than zero? Obama’s answer is a ‘refundable’ tax credit.
“For 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 won’t pay any tax and will get a check for the $400 difference.
“In other words, Obama would take money from some taxpayers and hand it to others. Folks, that’s not a tax cut; that’s welfare.”
The Institute for Policy Innovation says: “Under Obama’s 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.
“Such ‘tax credits’ are really government spending programs. Call it the New Tax Welfare. Obama’s refundable tax credits would involve government checks for child care, education, housing, retirement, health care, welfare and just outright giveaways.
“When 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.
“The Obama plan is the opposite of tax reform, which involves lowering tax rates and closing loopholes. This plan doesn’t cut taxes, it increases welfare.”
Where do you think Sen. Obama would get the “free” money he proposes to hand out in his appeal to buy votes?
He would get it either from taxing “you” 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 — 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 “free” money to others who are not paying any or much in taxes, does that make sound economic sense to you?
Isn’t Sen. McCain’s plan to spend less and tax less much better?

edfreeman is offline  
post #13 of 62 (permalink) Old 10-05-2008, 07:02 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by edfreeman View Post
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 he’s for cutting taxes — 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 — at the expense of others.
Does he think that is a the way for him to “buy” the election — with someone else’s money?
The Institute for Policy Innovation explains it this way:
“Currently, workers in the bottom 40 percent of income pay little or no income taxes. So how does a worker pay less tax than zero? Obama’s answer is a ‘refundable’ tax credit.
“For 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 won’t pay any tax and will get a check for the $400 difference.
“In other words, Obama would take money from some taxpayers and hand it to others. Folks, that’s not a tax cut; that’s welfare.”
The Institute for Policy Innovation says: “Under Obama’s 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.
“Such ‘tax credits’ are really government spending programs. Call it the New Tax Welfare. Obama’s refundable tax credits would involve government checks for child care, education, housing, retirement, health care, welfare and just outright giveaways.
“When 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.
“The Obama plan is the opposite of tax reform, which involves lowering tax rates and closing loopholes. This plan doesn’t cut taxes, it increases welfare.”
Where do you think Sen. Obama would get the “free” money he proposes to hand out in his appeal to buy votes?
He would get it either from taxing “you” 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 — 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 “free” money to others who are not paying any or much in taxes, does that make sound economic sense to you?
Isn’t Sen. McCain’s plan to spend less and tax less much better?
Reading that in as flat a fashion as I can, it looks to me like the writer is "enhancing" the speculation of just who gets what, when and how. The phrase "...40 percent of income pay little or no income taxes." insinuates that up to fourty precent of folks are going to get free money. There is simply no information that backs a claim like that, nor is there a breakdown as to what part of that 40% gets what, or pays what.

It is a somewhat misleading article. Some of if is very true but some of it is very misleading. That is were that Fear, Uncertainty and Dread comes in. And I have to say, the pundits on the right are exceptional at promoting FUD.

I note that he didn't mention how much MORE folks would pay under McCain, nor did he mention just how we are suppose to pay for Bush's $5Trillion of deficit spending. Just a bit more FUD.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #14 of 62 (permalink) Old 10-05-2008, 07:11 PM Thread Starter
Moderately subtle
 
edfreeman's Avatar
 
Date registered: Dec 2003
Vehicle: 94 E500, 97 500SL
Location: Soddy Daisy, TN
Posts: 8,502
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Send a message via AIM to edfreeman
(Thread Starter)
Eh, Bear, all that is beside the point. The race to give more voters more money isn't exactly the kind of politics the country needs, is it? I just wanna know if "refund" checks will be sent to folks with a $0 bill.

edfreeman is offline  
post #15 of 62 (permalink) Old 10-05-2008, 07:17 PM
Surely A Large Human
 
Qubes's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jun 2006
Vehicle: '08 C219
Location: Between Earth and Mars
Posts: 34,250
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
^ If someone pays $0 in personal income tax, that's not to say that no income taxes were collected on their behalf by employers.

It's a small number of people; it's a small amount of money (relatively speaking), that the wealthiest 5% of Americans can easily afford.

As others here have noted, the money we give back to poor people will ultimately make it back to the rich people anyway. It just makes the numbers that people focus on for the purposes of gambling at the NYSE Hotel & Casino Resort look more enticing.
Qubes is offline  
post #16 of 62 (permalink) Old 10-05-2008, 07:22 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by edfreeman View Post
Eh, Bear, all that is beside the point. The race to give more voters more money isn't exactly the kind of politics the country needs, is it? I just wanna know if "refund" checks will be sent to folks with a $0 bill.
Sure it was the point. Lesser taxes for the middleclass and lower were the main subjects of the article. And from that he derives that some will actually get cash back without having paid ANY taxes. But doesn't prove that assertion.

And, from what I keep reading on this board and others "giving more voters more money" is exactly what so many people proclaim. Conservatives and Libertarians both strongly urge LOWER TAXES. And if that isn't giving money back to the people, what is?

I think the issue that the author is avoiding is the distribution. He finds it inherently unfair that 95% of taxpayers should have to pay fewer taxes and 5%, those who make over $250K a year have to pay more. Now I don't know where he fits in on the chart but most of the time, if you are making $250K and UP, you have enough deductions that you don't end up paying even as much as those 95%. Warren Buffet said, last year that the system was broken when he was able to pay less in taxes than his executive secretary.

The point you originally asked was "will folks who paid $0.00 in taxes get a check?". And so far, there is 0.00 to clarify it. Anyone who has an answer to that specific question is ASSUMING.

And as I have said before, with the exception of broad strokes, these plans are not specific guaranteed. Everything has to work through Congress. And we saw just how that worked last week. So even if Obama called you personally and clarified, he would do so with the caveat that it has to be in Comprehensive Tax Reform Legislation.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #17 of 62 (permalink) Old 10-05-2008, 07:26 PM Thread Starter
Moderately subtle
 
edfreeman's Avatar
 
Date registered: Dec 2003
Vehicle: 94 E500, 97 500SL
Location: Soddy Daisy, TN
Posts: 8,502
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Send a message via AIM to edfreeman
(Thread Starter)
OK, I just want to know if he is proposing a tax refund for folks who paid no tax. Simple. I'll ignore the rest of the math if you will.

Libertarians and real conservatives propose less taxes by having less government. Both sides of the tax/spend equation come down.

It is very tough to find a website without spin, these days.

edfreeman is offline  
post #18 of 62 (permalink) Old 10-05-2008, 07:28 PM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by QBNCGAR View Post
^ If someone pays $0 in personal income tax, that's not to say that no income taxes were collected on their behalf by employers.

It's a small number of people; it's a small amount of money (relatively speaking), that the wealthiest 5% of Americans can easily afford.

As others here have noted, the money we give back to poor people will ultimately make it back to the rich people anyway. It just makes the numbers that people focus on for the purposes of gambling at the NYSE Hotel & Casino Resort look more enticing.
You need to apply the brakes in a hurry. You've gone from moderate-far right to far left in what, about a year?

And yeah, let's hand people with little or no income $1K. Trickle up economics suggests the money will find it's way back to the middle class via taverns, liquor stores and drug dealers.

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
post #19 of 62 (permalink) Old 10-05-2008, 07:31 PM Thread Starter
Moderately subtle
 
edfreeman's Avatar
 
Date registered: Dec 2003
Vehicle: 94 E500, 97 500SL
Location: Soddy Daisy, TN
Posts: 8,502
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Send a message via AIM to edfreeman
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by QBNCGAR View Post
^ If someone pays $0 in personal income tax, that's not to say that no income taxes were collected on their behalf by employers.

It's a small number of people; it's a small amount of money (relatively speaking), that the wealthiest 5% of Americans can easily afford.

As others here have noted, the money we give back to poor people will ultimately make it back to the rich people anyway. It just makes the numbers that people focus on for the purposes of gambling at the NYSE Hotel & Casino Resort look more enticing.
Who are you??? What did you do with Q? I can understand disgust with the GOP, but you've been assimilated.

Income taxes collected on their behalf by employers? You talking withholding?

edfreeman is offline  
post #20 of 62 (permalink) Old 10-05-2008, 07:33 PM
Surely A Large Human
 
Qubes's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jun 2006
Vehicle: '08 C219
Location: Between Earth and Mars
Posts: 34,250
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanStar View Post
You need to apply the brakes in a hurry. You've gone from moderate-far right to far left in what, about a year?

And yeah, let's hand people with little or no income $1K. Trickle up economics suggests the money will find it's way back to the middle class via taverns, liquor stores and drug dealers.
Trying it on for size. I still have bruises and scars from the ol' days of "principles".

Follow the whole money trail - that money eventually goes to rich people. They doth protest too much.

The people who bitch about this the most are the people who will A) not be receiving the tax break in question because they make too much, and B) will not receive the tax break indirectly because they don't own a successful business that deals either with consumers, or with other businesses. THAT'S where the money ultimately goes.

I'm in favor of abolishing all individual income taxes for this reason; the money will go to businesses, the net of which should be taxed at a fairly simple flat rate, eliminating all deductions & loopholes. Simplicity and standardization RULES!

How left is that?
Qubes is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    Obama guys, what IF its true? DestroyerW140 Off-Topic 65 06-06-2008 04:33 AM
    The Obama We Don't Know Jayhawk Off-Topic 16 06-05-2008 01:02 PM
    HEY GUYS NEW HERE SO I FIGURED ID SHOW OFF MY GIRL A BIT! [;)] YOU GUYS SHOULD LOVE IT!! [8D] BENZEL WASHINGTON W124 E,CE,D,TD Class 16 12-23-2006 10:34 PM
    Hey guys, do you guys know if the 98,99,00 ML models has a speed limiter? coz i was told t... BOY-6 W163 M-Class 11 03-07-2003 07:32 PM
    Need some help guys... Found a little magazine discrepancy, what do you guys think? bjwebster W163 M-Class 3 02-03-2002 09:48 PM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome