Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-14-2008, 07:48 PM
 
46 posts, read 99,934 times
Reputation: 26

Advertisements

Washington Times - Obama tax cut 'refunds' those who don't pay

Obama tax cut 'refunds' those who don't pay


Barack Obama says he will give 95 percent of all American workers a tax cut but does not mention that his plan would send checks to tens of millions of tax filers who pay no personal income taxes - payments that critics say look "suspiciously like welfare."
Mr. Obama's campaign promise, which he has repeated in his speeches and in the presidential debates, stems from his "Making Work Pay" tax cut that will give a $500 refundable tax credit to every worker or $1,000 to each working couple. But because this provision in his economic-recovery plan is "refundable," a large number of middle- to lower-income workers who have no income-tax liability after taking tax credits and deductions the that Internal Revenue Service allows, will be given the equivalent of the tax cut in the form of direct payments from the U.S. Treasury - funded by higher-income taxpayers.
Because the IRS says that nearly 46 million tax filers - one-third of all filers - had no tax liability in 2006, there is the question of how millions of Americans can receive an income "tax cut" when they pay no taxes.
"It's got to raise alarm bells when you claim you are going to cut taxes for 95 percent of working families when more than 40 percent of them pay no income taxes," said Phil Kerpen, policy director at Americans for Prosperity, a grass-roots free-market advocacy group.
"What he's really talking about doing is mailing a check, and to me, that looks more like a welfare program than the kind of real tax relief that would encourage work, savings and investments," Mr. Kerpen said.
The freshman senator's campaign Web site defines the Democrat's tax-relief proposal only in terms of offering workers "middle class tax cuts" and "for 10 million low-income Americans, will completely eliminate their federal income taxes."
But in a recent research paper on federal taxpayers, Scott Hodge, president of the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, said, "There will be 47 million tax returns with zero-income tax liability in 2009 under current law. That's one-third of all tax returns and those 47 million tax returns represent 96 million individuals."
Mr. Obama repeatedly says in his speeches that almost all workers and "working families" will benefit from his "tax cuts." In last week's second presidential debate with Sen. John McCain in Nashville, Tenn., he said, "What I want to do is provide a middle-class tax cut to 95 percent of working Americans."
At another point in that debate, he enlarged the universe of his tax-cut recipients, saying, "I want to provide a tax cut for 95 percent of Americans."
Investor's Business Daily pointed out earlier this month that Mr. Obama's " 'working families' does not include all households. Throw in singles, retirees, students and the unemployed, and the share getting some tax-related benefit is a good deal less."
The Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan policy analysis group established by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, estimates that about 80 percent of households would receive a tax cut.
But Investor's Business Daily also questioned whether Mr. Obama's "tax cut" was really a tax cut for people who don't pay taxes.
"There's the difference, not acknowledged by the Obama camp, between a real tax cut and the type of 'tax relief' that looks suspiciously like welfare," the newspaper editorialized.
"A true tax 'cut' is a reduction in the taxes you're paying. In contrast, much of the 'relief' in Mr. Obama's plan consists of 'refundable credit' - payments you get even if you owe no taxes at all," the paper said.
The Obama campaign dismisses such criticism, arguing that even if many working taxpayers owe no income taxes, they pay Social Security payroll taxes out of their earnings. The campaign also notes that Mr. McCain's economic plan also includes refundable tax credits.
"Senator Obama believes that the tens of millions of families working hard and paying payroll taxes do not think that tax cuts are a form of 'welfare' or 'redistribution' - they think it is only fair to reward work," said Jason Furman, the Obama campaign's chief economic adviser.
"Evidently, John McCain, who also proposes to make his health tax credit refundable, appears to agree," Mr. Furman told The Washington Times.
"One can argue that while you don't pay income taxes, you are paying Social Security payroll taxes and this is a tax cut against that," said Roberton Williams, principal research associate at the Tax Policy Center. "It depends on whether you consider [the taxpayers'] income tax liability or their total federal tax liability."
Mr. Williams did not necessarily dispute critics of Mr. Obama's tax plan who maintain that his refundable tax plan is a form of income redistribution from wealthier taxpayers in the top tax bracket who would see their taxes raised to pay for tax relief for middle- and lower-income taxpayers.
Asked whether the transfer of taxes from high earners to middle- and low-income earners was a way of redistributing the nation's income, Mr. Williams said, "You could certainly view it that way because both [tax] proposals are in the same tax plan. There's no question that's one way to perceive the tax plan."
To pay for his middle-class tax cuts, Mr. Obama would raise the top marginal tax rate on Americans earning more than $250,000 to 35 percent from 30.6 percent. According to the IRS, the top 5 percent of all income earners in 2004 paid 57.13 percent of all income taxes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-15-2008, 04:41 AM
 
Location: OH->FL->NJ
17,005 posts, read 12,595,161 times
Reputation: 8925
Short version.

Different take on expansion of the EIT.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2008, 04:46 AM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,232 posts, read 46,663,996 times
Reputation: 11084
Oddly enough, I don't qualify for EITC. I make between 20K and 24K and I PAY taxes on that amount.

Last year, I had to pay out around $750...but of course, the rebate knocked THAT down quite a bit. So I actually only PAID about $150. I don't count the $600 as "my" money anyhow.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2008, 05:12 AM
 
Location: Here and there
1,808 posts, read 4,039,197 times
Reputation: 2044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icenet View Post
Washington Times - Obama tax cut 'refunds' those who don't pay

Obama tax cut 'refunds' those who don't pay

Because the IRS says that nearly 46 million tax filers - one-third of all filers - had no tax liability in 2006, there is the question of how millions of Americans can receive an income "tax cut" when they pay no taxes.
With an average household income of approx. $50,000 (2007), just how do you propose that this 'one-third' pay taxes? Assuming that this one-third of non tax paying, low life scum are on the lower side of the $50k average... what do you propose we do? Tax them their 'fair' share and drive most below the poverty line?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2008, 05:34 AM
 
2,170 posts, read 2,861,685 times
Reputation: 883
It's called welfare. And if Obama is elected I predict sometime in the first six months of his administration a 'refinement' of his plans whereby the successful in society will be see their marginal tax rates ratcheted up well in the upper 40% range. All to support society's losers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2008, 05:43 AM
 
Location: Here and there
1,808 posts, read 4,039,197 times
Reputation: 2044
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZGACK View Post
It's called welfare. And if Obama is elected I predict sometime in the first six months of his administration a 'refinement' of his plans whereby the successful in society will be see their marginal tax rates ratcheted up well in the upper 40% range. All to support society's losers.
Lets see... welfare to insurance companies, check... welfare to mortgage lenders, check... welfare to banks, check...
all OK. But tax breaks to lower incomes not so good. What ever happened to true conservatism?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2008, 06:06 AM
 
Location: San Diego
50,315 posts, read 47,056,299 times
Reputation: 34087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldawgfan View Post
Lets see... welfare to insurance companies, check... welfare to mortgage lenders, check... welfare to banks, check...
all OK. But tax breaks to lower incomes not so good. What ever happened to true conservatism?
2 wrongs don't make a right but I know that taxing success is NOT a good thing. I wonder how many businesses will flee to Mexico in a year.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2008, 06:26 AM
 
Location: Here and there
1,808 posts, read 4,039,197 times
Reputation: 2044
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer View Post
2 wrongs don't make a right but I know that taxing success is NOT a good thing. I wonder how many businesses will flee to Mexico in a year.
If you do not tax success just what are you going to tax? If more taxes need to be collected do you go to people without money or people with money? I do not understand the 'blood from a stone' theory. Businesses can flee to Mexico all they want... if very few can afford the product it really does not matter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2008, 06:33 AM
 
Location: San Diego
50,315 posts, read 47,056,299 times
Reputation: 34087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldawgfan View Post
If you do not tax success just what are you going to tax? If more taxes need to be collected do you go to people without money or people with money? I do not understand the 'blood from a stone' theory. Businesses can flee to Mexico all they want... if very few can afford the product it really does not matter.
Taxing is ok, abusive tax is not. There are enough American jobs in Mexico already. Backing off Social Services should be looked at.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2008, 06:43 AM
 
Location: Here and there
1,808 posts, read 4,039,197 times
Reputation: 2044
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer View Post
Taxing is ok, abusive tax is not. There are enough American jobs in Mexico already. Backing off Social Services should be looked at.
I totally agree... too many social services and rampant abuse. But, with all due respect, do you really think that the lower middle class needs to be taxed more? You know, those flirting on the poverty line? Or should we collect more taxes from the upper middle class and wealthy?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:12 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top