Obama/Biden Tax Plan - Can you say SOCIALISM??

Although Obama is offering a new series of tax breaks, they undermine rather than improve economic incentives. First, whether or not you get those breaks will depend on your income. In Washington, taking away tax breaks as families work harder to make more money is called a “phase-out.” Economists have a different name for it"we call it a tax. Reducing a person’s tax credit as his income goes up also reduces his incentive to earn more income.

Second, Obama would make some credits refundable for families with credits bigger than their tax liability, which would also have the nefarious effect of raising marginal tax rates. For example, consider a worker in the 10 percent bracket with $1,000 of tax liability before credits who claims $1,200 in credits. The tax impact of earning an extra $100 depends on whether the credit is refundable. If it’s not refundable, there’s no tax penalty on earning the extra $100 because the worker’s tax liability stays at zero. But if the credit is refundable, earning the extra money pushes the tax up from negative $200 to negative $190"that’s a 10 percent penalty on earning income.

Don't have the time to discuss the second half of you post, but I can discuss the top quickly.

Woiyo9 wrote:

Although Obama is offering a new series of tax breaks, they undermine rather than improve economic incentives. First, whether or not you get those breaks will depend on your income. In Washington, taking away tax breaks as families work harder to make more money is called a “phase-out.” Economists have a different name for it"we call it a tax. Reducing a person’s tax credit as his income goes up also reduces his incentive to earn more income.

Somewhat true, but mostly false. There is plenty incentive to word hard to earn more even if tax rates were 50%. Pleople still want their paychecks to go up. As someone who sees these "phase-outs" every time I file a tax return, they don't cause me to want to earn less money. I still like the money, thank you.

Woiyo9 wrote:

Second, Obama would make some credits refundable for families with credits bigger than their tax liability, which would also have the nefarious effect of raising marginal tax rates. For example, consider a worker in the 10 percent bracket with $1,000 of tax liability before credits who claims $1,200 in credits. The tax impact of earning an extra $100 depends on whether the credit is refundable. If it’s not refundable, there’s no tax penalty on earning the extra $100 because the worker’s tax liability stays at zero. But if the credit is refundable, earning the extra money pushes the tax up from negative $200 to negative $190"that’s a 10 percent penalty on earning income.

But this continues the silly argument that people hate taxes so much that they would rather be paid less than pay a percentage of their earnings. Let's take your example above. If the credit is refundable, I get $200. If I earn another $100 and pay taxes of $10, I now have $290. But if the credit was not refundable, I get to keep the entire $100, leaving me with $100 total. Guess what? I'll take the $290. I've yet to meet anyone who will take the $100 to spite the government and its evil tax authority.

If Obama had the chance,
he 'd drag America as far as possible to the left,
as far away from personal freedom into socialist government control as possible.
He is no friend of freedom.

Although Obama is offering a new series of tax breaks, they undermine rather than improve economic incentives.

Re: kuvasz (Post 3405912)
The Feds had no choice and any responsible thinker would know that. Yet, that is not the issue.

But since you bring it up, who signed the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999?

I can't ******* believe that you could be so stupid as to post an attack on obama's tax plan being socialist when the same day a branch of the federal government's executive branch, run by republicans takes over a private company and is spending $85,000,000,000 of american tax payer money to do it.

let's just say that you have no clue about what socialism means.

Re: kuvasz (Post 3406195)
So..... WHAT.

That was the act that gave the drug to the user.

Everybody loved it then and Clinton signed it.

Now, it does not look so good and you blame.....BUSH and his policies????

House Minority Leader John Boehner said his conference was forced to cancel a meeting Thursday morning after the administration "refused" to send over a representative to brief House Republicans on the federal government's response to the latest financial turmoil.

Boehner did not give a reason for the no-show from the administration, the latest sign of deteriorating relations between congressional Republicans and the White House,

"I and all of my colleagues are concerned about the lack of information and the lack of consultation that has occurred," Boehner said of the admnistration's recent bailouts.