Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple. - A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition. - A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies). - A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000. - An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support. - A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year. - A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.
Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.
The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS. The total annual expenditures on refundable "tax credits" would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as "tax credits," the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.
This is what social justice means to him. Abandoning the history and foundation of America and embracing a socialist state.
Last edited by BigJon3475; 10-13-2008 at 06:56 AM..
You do realize that by posting this you are likely to convince more people to vote for Obama don't you?
More people will end up getting refunds and less people will have to pay taxes. Most people will really like that.
We all like something for free. But the rich don't like giving away all their money so just like in any socialist country the system will collapse once the rich move away or hide their money.
This is what social justice means to him. Abandoning the history and foundation of America and embracing a socialist state.
Or we can go on reducing the middle class, pushing more and more people towards the poorer side, and a very small few to the wealthy side. The pieces of the pie get larger as the middle class gets poorer.
We all like something for free. But the rich don't like giving away all their money so just like in any socialist country the system will collapse once the rich move away or hide their money.
Bingo!!! Most people do not understand this...there will not be anymore "rich" people in a socialist country. So where do you think the money will come from?
Ironically the US has already become more Socialistic than France. Just look at the government takeovers of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the failed banks and companies.
Ironically the US has already become more Socialistic than France. Just look at the government takeovers of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the failed banks and companies.
Yes, and it has become surprisingly socialist under the leadership of a Republican president who was desperate to correct the mistakes that he and his Congress made in taxing, in deficit spending, and in increasing the debt of the United states.
Also, I am old. I remember several times that electing a more liberal president was thought of as the end of the United States, the end of the ability to secure wealth, the death of the middle class, etc. It hasn't happened. We do have more social programs, but people still get wealthy and will continue to get wealthy no matter who the president is.
I also know that income has been distributed toward the top earners for the last 8 years. It needs to at least be re-distributed enough so that we do not lose our middle class.
Yes, and it has become surprisingly socialist under the leadership of a Republican president who was desperate to correct the mistakes that he and his Congress made in taxing, in deficit spending, and in increasing the debt of the United states.
Also, I am old. I remember several times that electing a more liberal president was thought of as the end of the United States, the end of the ability to secure wealth, the death of the middle class, etc. It hasn't happened. We do have more social programs, but people still get wealthy and will continue to get wealthy no matter who the president is.
I also know that income has been distributed toward the top earners for the last 8 years. It needs to at least be re-distributed enough so that we do not lose our middle class.
Yes, and it has become surprisingly socialist under the leadership of a Republican president who was desperate to correct the mistakes that he and his Congress made in taxing, in deficit spending, and in increasing the debt of the United states.
Also, I am old. I remember several times that electing a more liberal president was thought of as the end of the United States, the end of the ability to secure wealth, the death of the middle class, etc. It hasn't happened. We do have more social programs, but people still get wealthy and will continue to get wealthy no matter who the president is.
I also know that income has been distributed toward the top earners for the last 8 years. It needs to at least be re-distributed enough so that we do not lose our middle class.
The tax decreases were to turn around the oncoming recession from the tech bubble and 9/11. If we go into a socialist state we can never go back. From where it is now will move towards your job being dictated. Where you live...etc.
Let me copy and paste a reply from a friend.
"a communism can not be explained in words ...you must to live uder the regime in order to see ...and feel what it is all about.Tell you what guys....some theories are o'k on a paper but in real it could have the opposite effect....exactly what happen to the communist countries.The Bas***ds tried to enforce the fu**ing theory in practice...
bottom line is we all struggled in order a few people from the authorities to live a life and sha* the beautiful women....
"Some people think that now it is all democracy after the communism collapsed in our eastern europe.....no my friends it is still there but now its tentacles are invisible...if you know what i mean.Generations must to come and go before some change happens...........
forgot to tell you fellow americans...communism taught us not to believe in god...there was some times they were thinking to ban the churches....and as it is very very hard to do even in communism regime ,they decided to " recruit" the priest in their favor....and let them squeal the enemy......i.e. the public Joe from the streets...."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
