15
   

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

 
 
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 12:27 pm
@Woiyo9,
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.
Rockhead
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 12:31 pm
@Woiyo9,
Your argument does not begin to cover your all encompassing poor-bashing statement.

You said...

People earning less than the$18,000+ figure are not paying any taxes, and I say ~

You are full of ****.

And I'm not racist, I just think you do a piss poor job of representing my people...
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 12:33 pm
@engineer,
engineer wrote:

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.


Yeah, that's a bullshit argument Woiyo is presenting here. People were still working hard to get ahead when the top tax rates were in the 80 and 90% range! It isn't as if business ground to a halt then, people still wanted to get up that ladder.

What a crock of crap these guys sling out

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 12:40 pm
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.
Rockhead
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 12:41 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Yeah, Dave, Cheney is that guy, right...
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 12:48 pm
Cheney is WHAT guy ?
I like Cheney; I 've always liked him better than the Bushes.
David
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 12:50 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

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.

Based on... what? Not his proposed policies, his work in the IL Senate, his work in the US Senate, his speeches on the campaign trail, etc. Where is your secret insight into Obama's mind coming from?
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 01:09 pm
@Woiyo9,
Woiyo9 wrote:

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


for 8 years, the wealthiest individuals and large corporations have had it real easy in the tax department. breaks, incentives, credits.

and yet, rather than reinvest in america and americans, they have cut jobs and repeatedly exported jobs.

it's hard to believe that is good for the country.

good for the stockholders maybe, but not america and not for americans.
0 Replies
 
Woiyo9
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 01:43 pm
@Rockhead,
I provided you with specific details that addressed the issue that many people do not pay taxes.

If facts are **** in your opinion, then I am guilty as charged.

Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 01:46 pm
@Woiyo9,
Many was not part of your original statement, as I recall, and I am part of the group you omitted...
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 01:48 pm
I can t say that McCain is a perfect representation of Constitutional Originalism,
but even so, this election shows the divide between traditional
conservative individualist freedom, against collectivist-authoritarianism.





David
kuvasz
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 02:11 pm
@Woiyo9,
woiyo 9 said
Quote:
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?


The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was passed in the Senate 90-8-1 and in the House: 362-57-15. It was considered veto-proof by Clinton. Next time, at least do a google search before you cut and paste from your right wing depository of horse **** about legislation, you adle-brained moron. That is unless the public humiliation you heap upon yourself by constantly ignoring context somehow gives you a woodie.
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 02:17 pm
@kuvasz,
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???? Rolling Eyes


candidone1
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 03:24 pm
@kuvasz,
kuvasz wrote:
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.


I have a post asking republicans what they think of that bail out and all woiyo barfed up was "Clinton" something or other...

No, he has no idas what socialism is.
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 03:28 pm
@Woiyo9,
Quote:
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????


Are you a complete moron? I repeat, are you a complete moron?

Let me make it clear to you since you are obviously a high school drop-out and never paid attention in civics class.

All bills must pass both houses of Congress in the exact same form. Bills that pass both houses are sent to the President. He can either sign the bill, in which case it becomes law, or he can veto it.

In the case of a veto, the bill is sent back to Congress, and if both houses pass it by a two-thirds majority, the bill becomes law over the President's veto.

This is known as overriding a veto.

Bill Clinton would not have had to sign the bill for it to become law.

That is why I illustrated the voting in the House and the Senate

Don't you understand anything about the government you live under?

btw I blame the GOP. They ran both houses of Congress in 1999. Bush is a Republican, and he did NOTHING about rectifying the bill, ergo he too bears some responsibility. If you think that the current Democratic Congress would be able to overturn a Bush veto of a bill that would repeal the 1999 bill you are as clueless as you are stupid.

Can you understand that you drooling idiot?
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 03:39 pm
@Woiyo9,
Man....you can pretty much trace everything back to Clinton.
I bet it was 'ol billy on the grassy knoll.....
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 04:07 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
I'm sorry, but who would you consider more authoritarian, Clinton or Bush, Nixon or Carter?
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 04:12 pm
If poor people want handouts they should get involved in the mortgage business.
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 06:38 pm
btw

House GOP cancels meeting after administration 'refused' to send representative

Quote:
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.


http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0908/House_GOP_cancels_meeting_after_administration_refused_to_send_representative.html

A pretty clear signal that the administration thinks the House republicans would try to get some political mileage, and boost their re-election chances by pulling another stunt like the camp-out on the House floor.

Bush is giving them the presidential raspberry, and he doesn’t care who knows it.

McCain’s “The Republicans are coming to save you from the Republicans” is falling flat.
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  0  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 08:18 pm
@Woiyo9,
Just a simple question.
i am a die hard athiest.
my question is this.
If you are a religious person( irrespective of your affliation or attachment to any invisible god) do you think your adoraable God is a corporate controlled non-socialist?
Thanks for your forbearance.
Rama
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

"Makers" vs. "Takers" - Discussion by DrewDad
Begin the Kansas brain-drain - Discussion by DrewDad
Albany Tax Deal to Raise Rate for Highest Earners - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
MCCAIN-ONOMICS -- MORE SUPPLY SIDE - Discussion by Advocate
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/27/2022 at 01:27:45