ObamaTax 3.0

Nude_IHB

Nude_IHB

New member
<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122091851312912585.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks">From the WSJ:</a>

<blockquote>Under ObamaTax 1.0, he would have repealed all the Bush tax cuts, lifted the cap on wages subject to the payroll tax, put the top marginal rate up to 39.8% and raised the rate on capital gains and dividends to at least 25% from 15% now. The official campaign line was that tax rates really don't matter to economic growth.



Summer arrived, the Clinton challenge was history and with the general election ahead came ObamaTax 2.0. It posited that the top rate on capital gains now would be 20%, described on this page August 14 by economic advisers Jason Furman and Austan Goolsbee as "almost a third lower than the rate President Reagan set in 1986." This was progress.



Now with the big vote less than 60 days off and John McCain pounding him as a tax-raiser and pulling ahead in some polls, the Democratic nominee has decided to release ObamaTax 3.0, the most interesting upgrade so far. If the economy is still weak in January, a President Obama might defer all of the planned increases.</blockquote>
I doubt he'll be deferring the new programs he's been promising as a part of "change", which leaves him no choice but to increase deficit-spending to fund them. I wonder if he realizes exactly how screwed he is if he wins?
 
He won't be screwed. He'll simply say that he's studied the situation, and there is no way to avoid raising taxes on anyone who earns more than $30k. (He's already voted for tax increases on anyone making $42k, but "universal health care" doesn't grown on trees. Everyone is going to have to pay for the grand liberal vision.)
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1220984767]He won't be screwed. He'll simply say that he's studied the situation, and there is no way to avoid raising taxes on anyone who earns more than $30k. (He's already voted for tax increases on anyone making $42k, but "universal health care" doesn't grown on trees. Everyone is going to have to pay for the grand liberal vision.)</blockquote>


Yeah, we are going to need that health care. Once we have to start paying for all the Bush debt, we are going to have a rash of stress-related illnesses. We can't keep following the "lower taxes; spend more" Republican plan for long. Even though they are trying to make up for it with volume, it doesn't seem to be working.
 
T!m, I'd just be just fine with a "tax more, spend less" candidate if I had that option. So far, it looks like "tax less, spend more" and "tax less, spend same" are the only choices.
 
I'm not sure what to think now. You say both candidates want to tax less, but WINEX says Obama wants to tax more. Which is it? :-S
 
[quote author="T!m" date=1221008290]I'm not sure what to think now. You say both candidates want to tax less, but WINEX says Obama wants to tax more. Which is it? :-S</blockquote>
Obama on ABC:

<blockquote>Mr. Stephanopoulos: "So even if we're in a recession next January, you come into office, you'll still go through with your tax increases?"



Senator Obama: "No, no, no, no, no. What I've said, George, is that even if we're still in a recession, I'm going to go through with my tax cuts. That's my priority."



Mr. Stephanopoulos: "But not the increases?"



Senator Obama: "I think we've got to take a look and see where the economy is. The economy is weak right now. The news with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, I think, along with the unemployment numbers indicates that we're fragile. I want to accelerate those tax cuts through a second stimulus package, get more money into the pockets of ordinary Americans, see if we can stabilize the housing market, and then we're going to have to reevaluate at the beginning of the year to see what kind of hole we're in."</blockquote>
A second round of "stimulus" allows targeted tax refunds to some people and nothing (again) for others, which does "lower" taxes while simultaneously raising deficit spending through the reduction of tax revenue. I have no doubt that Obama would be inclined to raise taxes at the first hint of any easing of a recession.
 
I had seen a comment on another site that had worried me about Obama's tax plan. It said he'd raise capital gains tax, and my "security" income comes from capital gains income. Also, it said he would start taxing gains made on housing sales, which also really worried me.



So of course I had to waste a lot of time fact checking. Long story short: Capital gains tax would be raised if your income is more than 250k a year. Profits made from sale of your primary home remains the same for the first 250k of profit (indvidual) or 500k (married). Taxes raised if you make more than that from the sale of your primary home, or if you are selling a non-primary home property.



End result for me: I'm happy. I don't have a problem paying more taxes if I'm making more than 250k a year, or more than 500k in profit from the sale of my primary home.



Long story:

Capital gains tax:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/08/obama-clarifies.html

House sale tax:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200806120006
 
If the past eight years have not shown that the Republican "cut taxes and increase spending" have not been a resounding success I don't know what will. Perhaps it will take another eight years of the same program to convince me?



The Republican party can criticize Obama's tax proposals all they want. It is VERY clear that the Republicans have no plan to increase the US Government's fiscal stability that has not been previously tried in Brazil, Argentina, and Chile. It is fine to clamour for lower taxes but with the Republican party controlling every branch of the Federal government I saw our fiscal situation get worse, not better. Our currency is headed towards massive inflation if we don't get our spending/taxation in order. Inflation is a hidden tax designed to bail out the goverment by cheapening the dollars they pay back in the future at the expense of the population who will NOT recieve wage increases to match the inflation rate.



The Republican party will scream "tax and spend democrats!" with absolutely no plan to stabilize the currency, and we will end up paying the inflation tax in the end because the Republicans have completely abandoned spending cuts as a way to balance the budget.



Dick "Deficits Don't Matter" Cheny
 
Yeah, FailedAgent, I'm with you. I understand the concepts of "reduce taxation and reduce the size of the fed govt with private companies doing more" and "increase taxation and grow the size of the fed govt to provide more services". I understand how intelligent people can disagree over which of those to pursue. I don't understand how an intelligent person can want to pursue "reduce taxes and grow the fed govt". We need to do something else now.
 
[quote author="T!m" date=1221004352][quote author="WINEX" date=1220984767]He won't be screwed. He'll simply say that he's studied the situation, and there is no way to avoid raising taxes on anyone who earns more than $30k. (He's already voted for tax increases on anyone making $42k, but "universal health care" doesn't grown on trees. Everyone is going to have to pay for the grand liberal vision.)</blockquote>


Yeah, we are going to need that health care. Once we have to start paying for all the Bush debt, we are going to have a rash of stress-related illnesses. We can't keep following the "lower taxes; spend more" Republican plan for long. Even though they are trying to make up for it with volume, it doesn't seem to be working.</blockquote>


Would you care to explain how implementing a multi-trillion dollar universal health care program will bring about fiscal balance?



From my perspective, the less things the government is involved in, the better off we are as citizens of this country. With that as a guiding philosophy, the Feds should only be involved in things they are constitutionally obligated to be involved in.
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1221124139]

From my perspective, the less things the government is involved in, the better off we are as citizens of this country. With that as a guiding philosophy, the Feds should only be involved in things they are constitutionally obligated to be involved in.</blockquote>


So then you aren't voting for either major candidate this year?
 
[quote author="T!m" date=1221528510]<a href="http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/09/the_mccain_tax_increasescontin.html">The McCain tax increase.</a></blockquote>


Didn't you hear? He's going to cut the earmarks - all that pork. That will save about <b>1-2%</b> (or a couple of months in Iraq) of the federal budget and is sure to balance out everything. Maybe the magical trickle-down fairy will make this miracle work.



Where is the sarcasm tag?
 
I'm so glad that McCain is going to win this election. Just think if Obama won, he would raise taxes pay for the AIG, Fanny, Freddy, Bear Stears, Merrill Lynch bailouts. Did I mention the the Iraq War, the Afghanistan War, the War on Terror, the Drug War, the defending Georgia against Russia war, the support Israel at all costs war? No New Taxes! There's a reason Orange County always votes Republican.
 
The tax thing is stupid. The AMT makes the tax argument mute. My wife and I have a combined income over 400K but I would gladly pay more taxes to preserve the environment, stop our GIs from getting killed, and keep these religious lunatics from telling everyone how to live. According to Pailin the earth is only about 2000

years old.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top