Friday, October 31, 2008
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Why Can't You Just Support Leftism?!!?
I really don't get liberal hacks:
Let me now defend white males. We can't possibly be as dumb as the polls showing we are John McCain's most reliable voting base would indicate. Do we white men believe for an instant that a vote for McCain would not represent more of President Bush's failed economic policies at home and costly military adventures abroad? If we don't hold such a belief, why are a majority of us expected to vote against the positive change that Barack Obama so clearly represents?The author of this article, Robert Scheer, is an economist. Apparently, like Nobel Prize winning, leftist economist Paul Krugman, numbers and reason aren't necessary when you have your own column.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Obama on ACORN
....really?....He was Acorn's lawyer for a time in Chicago and his campaign paid $800,000 this past year to hire Acorn to "Get out the vote" for him. Additionally, what about that videotape of him onstage at an Acorn event telling them that he wants their input in helping to shape the agenda for the next president? (video below)
Obama's tax-cut threshold shrinking?: $250,000, $200,000, now $150,000
Obama's tax-cut threshold shrinking?: $250,000, $200,000, now $150,000
WorldNetDaily ^ | October 28, 2008 | Drew Zahn
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2008; antichrist; obama; socialism; taxcuts; taxes
McCain ad: Obama/ACORN
WorldNetDaily ^ | October 28, 2008 | Drew Zahn
Posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:22:20 PM by MountainLoop
A new video advertisement released by the Obama campaign says the candidate's promised tax cuts are for citizens making less than $200,000 a year, not the widely reported figure of $250,000. Adding to the confusion, Obama's running mate, Joe Biden, said in an interview yesterday the cuts are for even fewer people, limited to incomes of $150,000 or less. Depending on the source of information, just who will have their taxes raised and who will have them cut under Obama's plan varies. The campaign's homepage, for example, accessed today, reads, "Obama said he wanted to give a tax break to all families making under $250,000 per year, which he said was 95 percent of American workers." Yet in the "Defining Moment" ad released on YouTube last week and viewable below, Obama says the tax cut "for 95 percent of working Americans" is only for those who make less than $200,000 per year.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2008; antichrist; obama; socialism; taxcuts; taxes
To: MountainLoop
They just can’t stick to one thing.
To: wastedyears
It will drop to $50k shortly after election day, if they win.
3 posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:25:10 PM by bamahead (Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master. -- Sallust)
To: MountainLoop
It’s the old bait and switch method...keep talking Biden.
4 posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:25:27 PM by Snappy1MarineMom (Don't Blame me I voted for Keys)
To: MountainLoop
This needs to go out in a commercial and a press statement of some kind with Joe the Plumber’s words about it being 250,000 one day and then what the next
To: wastedyears
The real numbers have always been $25,000, $20,000, and $15,000.
To: MountainLoop
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/search?m=all;o=time;q=quick;s=$250,000
in case you think somebody missed it...
7 posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:26:28 PM by xcamel (Conservatives start smart, and get rich, liberals start rich, and get stupid.)
To: bamahead
It will drop to $50k shortly after election day, if they win.
And to $25K by January.
To: All
Liar Obama, people need to wake up from their kool-aid stupor and see who they are really supporting here, a liar and deceiver. Thanks God that us FReepers can see through the smoke and mirrors. These are the people (sheeple) that will follow the antichrist in the end times, the ones that will be deceived-—now I can see how that could really happen-—this is just a dress rehearsal of what’s to come.
9 posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:28:36 PM by LegalEagle61 (If you are going to burn our flag, please make sure you are wearing it when you do!)
To: GunsareOK
All you need to know is the break point for Social Security ~ that's where folks living on pensions and savings have to pay taxes on their Social Security income.
If you are below that point they'll give you a tax cut of about $500. If you are above that point they'll leave the tax rates and conditions unchanged from that point to about double that amount.
Folks from the doubling point on up will be taxed into penury, sent to camps, and turned into cheap, untanned leather sent to China to be turned into Gucci purses.
No one in his right mind can possibly vote for Obama.
To: MountainLoop
I believe he's also weasel-wording those numbers; that's household income, meaning two wage earners. Divide by two for single wage-earner threshold.
11 posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:30:07 PM by Steely Tom (RKBA: last line of defense against vote fraud)
To: GunsareOK
That's the way Clinton did it in '93. In his campaign, he started out talking about a tax cut. Then after the election it switched to a tax increase, but only on "the rich". By the time Clinton and the 'Rat Congress got through, anyone making over about $22,000 ended up paying more in taxes. I guess that was the 'Rat definition of "the rich", 22 bills a year.
Elect 'Rats, and you get a tax increase. It's what they do. They will never change. I don't understand why the stupid sheeple can't get that through their stupid heads.
To: Snappy1MarineMom
Sad thing is a lot of people have already voted. NOW the news is getting out. I hate the media.
To: MountainLoop
If you take that $150,000 figure and spread that out over the four years of an awful Obama presidency, you will get taxed for making about $102/day. This is a little more than what the average person might make, but it shows how sneaky the numbers are.
To: MountainLoop
0bama has voted for tax increases no less than 94 times.
I rilly rilly rilly believe he's going to lower taxes when it's to raise money for his budget and his pet pogroms...
15 posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:31:30 PM by null and void (Socialism doesn't work because of people./People don't work because of socialism...)
To: MountainLoop
Funny how we have to commit to a candidate based on what he says, but he doesn’t have to commit to what he says.
To: LegalEagle61
Obama is such a pathological liar, I want to say “Yeah, that’s the ticket” every time he opens his mouth.
17 posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:33:25 PM by autumnraine (Churchill: " we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall never surrender")
To: null and void
Yep, you have the “progroms” correct. That is how these socialists deal with Israel.
To: MountainLoop
Shades of Bill Clinton 1993.
To: MountainLoop
It doesn’t matter what they say during the campaign. Your taxes are going up under the Democrats unless you are on welfare.
20 posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:40:21 PM by Always Right (Obama: more arrogant than Bill Clinton, more naive than Jimmy Carter, and more liberal than LBJ.)
To: MountainLoop
Obama tax cuts? That’s a fantasy!
Obama and the democrats will first let the Bush tax cuts expire, which will result in a tax increase to everybody. Obama will then take the tax increases to send welfare checks to those that don’t pay taxes to begin with.
When is the last time that the tax and spend democrats actually cut taxes? When is the last time that the tax and spend democrats actually cut spending? When is the last time that Santa Klaus actually brought anyone any presents? When is the last time that the real tooth fairy actually left anyone a dollar under the mattress or pillow?
Other than going back almost 50 years to Kennedy, taxes have never actually been cut by any democrat except perhaps on the local level.
So then, why are people actually giving any kind of credibility at all to anything that a democrat by the name of Obama says in regards to cutting taxes?
The only reason for Obama and the democrats are proposing “tax cuts” or “spending cuts” is for the votes that those promises might bring them on Nov 4th. Obama’s history and the democratic party’s history should be enough to convince people that, if it’s not in their nature, it ain’t gonna happen and therefore, expecting tax cuts or spending cuts is equivalent to believing in Santa Klaus or the tooth-fairy.
Obama and the current leadership in the senate and in the house are big believers in lying to obtain their end results. That’s the communist way.
Once elected, they’ll activate the same old excuse and lie, the one that Bill Clinton also used, that, “because of unforeseen circumstances or conditions beyond our control”, “we cannot follow up on the previously promised tax cuts or spending cuts”.
The democrats and their leadership, including the president (when democrat), have always lied about tax cuts and spending cuts. Anybody believing any of their lies are just plain stupid or easily duped or brainless.
To: ladyvet
I know, they disgust me too. I own a business with my husband and we keep saying that there is no point to even have a business under Obama. Why should we work so hard for him to take it and pass it out to people who are lazy? He is also going to waste it on his big government programs.
What happened to the American Dream?
22 posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:43:10 PM by Snappy1MarineMom (Don't Blame me I voted for Keys)
To: chimera
Reminds me of when Dick Gephardt said in ‘99 that people making more than $75,000 a year were rich and needed to be taxed more.
To: MountainLoop
What he isn’t telling the crowds is that $200,000 is in Mexican pesos, not US dollars.
To: truthingod
Did I misspell 'programs'? Dear me, the spell checker missed that one.
*blush* How embarrassing!
25 posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:48:27 PM by null and void (Socialism doesn't work because of people./People don't work because of socialism...)
To: muawiyah
Folks from the doubling point on up will be taxed into penury, sent to camps, and turned into cheap, untanned leather sent to China to be turned into Gucci purses.
The ones with interesting tattoos will be particularly fashionable...
26 posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:50:19 PM by null and void (Socialism doesn't work because of people./People don't work because of socialism...)
To: Snappy1MarineMom
I know how you feel. I ran a small bus before I had kids. Became a stay at home mom. Now my last two are almost out of H.S. and I was planning on running one again. No way now, if these people get their way. Sigh....I guess I’ll take up knitting.
To: MountainLoop
Obama's tax-cut threshold shrinking?: $250,000, $200,000, now $150,000
Gee, looks just like my 401(k)!
To: null and void
no problem—this is supposed to be a little light forum, right?
To: MountainLoop
NEXT STOP: $30,000.....
To: MountainLoop
This is just like Animal Farm. “Two legs good, four legs better” changed to “Four legs good, two legs better” by the end of the book.
31 posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:55:32 PM by Pearls Before Swine (Is /sarc really necessary?)
To: Yo-Yo
Yeah. You DO know they are floating the "let's nationalize all the 401(k)s" trial balloon right now, don't you?
After all, since the private sector lost so much of the value of yours, its time to entrust it to the Government as they are only here to help you...
32 posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:57:44 PM by null and void (Socialism doesn't work because of people./People don't work because of socialism...)
To: ladyvet
Pretty sad huh? I thought 0bama was the candidate of hope?
He is killing the American Dream! LoL on the knitting.
33 posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:58:51 PM by Snappy1MarineMom (Don't Blame me I voted for Keys)
To: MountainLoop
"I know I know I campaigned for a middle class tax cut but Ive never worked so hard on something in my life ..." so I'm going to raise your taxes, and retroactively to boot. Sounds familiar?
To: MountainLoop
Isn’t anyone in the media thinking to themselves, “Hey, that’s applying to me!?! I’m not rich!”?
35 posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:59:14 PM by autumnraine (Churchill: " we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall never surrender")
To: Snappy1MarineMom
keep talking Biden.
Initially, this was my thought too. However, having Biden say this to a very small crowd is cover after election day when the true threshhold is unveiled. When people squwack, he can say, "We told you before the election it was going to be $50K/$100K/$150K (pick one). Didn't you get the memo?"
I think this is planned.
To: mlocher
I am getting that same feeling on this issue. I think it’s planned too. We know the truth and that’s why we are so mad. We aren’t gullible like the other side is.
37 posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 4:04:14 PM by Snappy1MarineMom (Don't Blame me I voted for Keys)
To: adorno
You're mostly right. Obama will not be able to wait for the Bush tax cuts to expire, he'll have to end them immediately and enact his tax increases across the board. He can't wait until 2011 for the Bush cuts to expire, he has reparations to dole out. In case you missed his 2001 audio tape, he's not talking about spreading the wealth to poor people, he's specifically talking about reparations. As if we haven't already been paying since 1964. I guess he's in a hurry now.
38 posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 4:07:19 PM by bitterohiogunclinger (Never argue with an idiot, they always wear you down and beat you with experience)
To: bamahead
In the Dem’s tax plan this year it was $42,000.
39 posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 4:12:05 PM by Straight Vermonter (Posting from deep behind the Maple Curtain)
To: MAexile
And to $25K by January.
Doubt it. Obama wants just over half of the voters off the tax rolls and on the welfare rolls (though they won't be called welfare rolls). It's all about control.
40 posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 4:14:09 PM by Entrepreneur (The environmental movement is filled with watermelons - green on the outside, red on the inside)
To: chimera
McCain needs to tell people that if elected, BO is gonna retroactively let the Bush tax cuts expire to January 1, 2009. That’s a tax increase for all wage earners, all income brackets. And it puts the marriage penalty back into law.
The tax cuts are set to expire in 2010. The RATS have already rejected making them permanent. They obviously do not want this expiration to occur in an election year. Hence, they will accelerate the tax increase.
Tell your friends, spread the word.
To: chimera
It doesn't matter what number he use. If he get elected, he will just say, “We can't cut taxes right now. We didn't know how bad things really were until we got in and took a look. We will have to raise taxes in order to clean up the mess Bush left.”
Then everybody that was expecting tax cuts will look around and say...WTF?
I just want to say one more thing. I don't believe G-D brought us this far to leave us now. I believe there was divine intervention in the founding of this Great Nation and on Nov. 5th, Freepers will know that G-D has intervened again. Remember to, "PRAY FOR THE PEACE OF JERUSALEM" PSALM 122:6
42 posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:08:31 PM by killerw ("I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me" (John 14:6).)
To: MountainLoop
The campaign's homepage, for example, accessed today, reads, "Obama said he wanted to give a tax break to all families making under $250,000 per year, which he said was 95 percent of American workers."
And I wanted to give my wife a new tractor and chainsaw for Christmas, too.
Obama says the tax cut "for 95 percent of working Americans" is only for those who make less than $200,000 per year.
Meaning the group earning between $200K and $250K will remain as they are, neither cut nor raised, meaning that since they didn't get raised, it is a cut for them, too?
And now, Fox News reports Biden told a Scranton, Pa., TV station yesterday that Obama's tax break "should go to middle class people – people making under $150,000 a year."
But, Biden added, "just because it SHOULD only go to that smaller group, my dunderheaed Marxist running mate wants to spread the wealth around even more than that. Besides, consistency is not our strong suit."
And I SHOULD rethink my plans for my wife's Christmas gifts.
43 posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 7:17:49 PM by ApplegateRanch (The Great Obamanation of Desolation, attempting to sit in the Oval Office, where he ought not..)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
Senator Obama's Four Tax Increases for People Earning Under $250k
October 27, 2008 (American Thinker)
Senator Obama's Four Tax Increases for People Earning Under $250k
By Ned Barnett
I confess. Senator Obama's two tax promises: to limit tax increases to only those making over $250,000 a year, and to not raise taxes on 95% of "working Americans," intrigued me. As a hard-working small business owner, over the past ten years I've earned from $50,000 to $100,000 per year. If Senator Obama is shooting straight with us, under his presidency I could look forward to paying no additional Federal taxes -- I might even get a break -- and as I struggle to support a family and pay for two boys in college, a reliable tax freeze is nearly as welcome as further tax cuts.
However, Senator Obama's dual claims seemed implausible, especially when it came to my Federal income taxes. Those implausible promises made me look at what I'd been paying before President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, as well as what I paid after those tax cuts became law. I chose the 2000 tax tables as my baseline -- they reflect the tax rates that Senator Obama will restore by letting the "Bush Tax Cuts" lapse. I wanted to see what that meant from my tax bill.
I've worked as the state level media and strategy director on three Presidential election campaigns -- I know how "promises" work -- so I analyzed Senator Obama's promises by looking for loopholes.
The first loophole was easy to find: Senator Obama doesn't "count" allowing the Bush tax cuts to lapse as a tax increase. Unless the cuts are re-enacted, rates will automatically return to the 2000 level. Senator Obama claims that letting a tax cut lapse -- allowing the rates to return to a higher levels -- is not actually a "tax increase." It's just the lapsing of a tax cut.
See the difference?
Neither do I.
When those cuts lapse, my taxes are going up -- a lot -- but by parsing words, Senator Obama justifies his claim that he won't actively raise taxes on 95 percent of working Americans, even while he's passively allowing tax rates to go up for 100% of Americans who actually pay Federal income taxes.
Making this personal, my Federal Income Tax will increase by $3,824 when those tax cuts lapse. That not-insignificant sum would cover a couple of house payments or help my two boys through another month or two of college.
No matter what Senator Obama calls it, requiring us to pay more taxes amounts to a tax increase. This got me wondering what other Americans will have to pay when the tax cuts lapse.
For a married family, filing jointly and earning $75,000 a year, this increase will be $3,074. For those making just $50,000, this increase will be $1,512. Despite Senator Obama's claim, even struggling American families making just $25,000 a year will see a tax increase -- they'll pay $715 more in 2010 than they did in 2007. Across the board, when the tax cuts lapse, working Americans will see significant increases in their taxes, even if their household income is as low as $25,000. See the tables at the end of this article.
Check this for yourself. Go to http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/ and pull up the 1040 instructions for 2000 and 2007 and go to the tax tables. Based on your 2007 income, check your taxes rates for 2000 and 2007, and apply them to your taxable income for 2007. In 2000 -- Senator Obama's benchmark year -- you would have paid significantly more taxes for the income you earned in 2007. The Bush Tax Cuts, which Senator Obama has said he will allow to lapse, saved you money, and without those cuts, your taxes will go back up to the 2000 level. Senator Obama doesn't call it a "tax increase," but your taxes under "President" Obama will increase -- significantly.
Senator Obama is willfully deceiving you and me when he says that no one making under $250,000 will see an increase in their taxes. If I were keeping score, I'd call that Tax Lie #1.
The next loophole involves the payroll tax that you pay to support the Social Security system. Currently, there is an inflation-adjusted cap, and according to the non-profit Tax Foundation, in 2006 -- the most recent year for which tax data is available -- only the first $94,700 of an unmarried individual's earnings were subject to the 12.4 percent payroll tax. However, Senator Obama has proposed lifting that cap, adding an additional 12.4 percent tax on every dollar earned above that cap -- and in spite of his promise, impacting all those who earn between $94,700 and $249,999.
By doing this, he plans to raise an additional $1 trillion dollars (another $662.50 out of my pocket -- and how much out of yours?) to help fund Social Security. Half of this tax would be paid by employees and half by employers -- but employers will either cut the payroll or pass along this tax to their customers through higher prices. Either way, some individual will pay the price for the employer's share of the tax increase.
However, when challenged to explain how he could eliminate the cap AND not raise taxes on Americans earning under $250,000, Senator Obama suggested on his website that he "might" create a "donut" -- an exemption from this payroll tax for wages between $94,700 and $250,000. But that donut would mean he couldn't raise anywhere near that $1 trillion dollars for Social Security. When this was pointed out, Senator Obama's "donut plan" was quietly removed from his website.
This "explanation" sounds like another one of those loopholes. If I were keeping score, I'd call this Tax Lie #2.
(updated) Senator Obama has also said that he will raise capital gains taxes from 15 percent to 20 percent. He says he's aiming at "fat cats" who make above $250,000. However, while only 1 percent of Americans make a quarter-million dollars, roughly 50 percent of all Americans own stock – and while investments that are through IRAs, 401Ks and in pension plans are not subject to capital gains, those stocks in personal portfolios are subject to capital gains, no matter what the owner’s income is. However, according to the US Congress’s Joint Economic Committee Study, “Recent data released by the Federal Reserve shows that nearly half of all U.S. households are stockholders. In the last decade alone, the number of stockholders has jumped by over fifty percent.” This is clear – a significant number of all Americans who earn well under $250,000 a year will feel this rise in their capital gains taxes.
Under "President" Obama, if you sell off stock and earn a $100,000 gain -- perhaps to help put your children through college -- instead of paying $15,000 in capital gains taxes today, you'll pay $20,000 under Obama's plan. That's a full one-third more, and it applies no matter how much you earn.
No question -- for about 50 percent of all Americans, this is Tax Lie #3.
Finally, Senator Obama has promised to raise taxes on businesses -- and to raise taxes a lot on oil companies. I still remember Econ-101 -- and I own a small business. From both theory and practice, I know what businesses do when taxes are raised. Corporations don't "pay" taxes -- they collect taxes from customers and pass them along to the government. When you buy a hot dog from a 7/11, you can see the clerk add the sales tax, but when a corporation's own taxes go up, you don't see it -- its automatic -- but they do the same thing. They build this tax into their product's price. Senator Obama knows this. He knows that even people who earn less than $250,000 will pay higher prices -- those pass-through taxes -- when corporate taxes go up.
No question: this is Tax Lie #4.
There's not a politician alive who hasn't be caught telling some minor truth-bender. However, when it comes to raising taxes, there are no small lies. When George H.W. Bush's "Read my lips -- no new taxes" proved false, he lost the support of his base -- and ultimately lost his re-election bid.
This year, however, we don't have to wait for the proof: Senator Obama has already promised to raise taxes, and we can believe him. However, while making that promise, he's also lied, in at least four significant ways, about who will pay those taxes. If Senator Obama becomes President Obama, when the tax man comes calling, we will all pay the price. And that's the truth.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/senator_obamas_four_tax_increa.html
* Go to website for tax charts!*
Senator Obama's Four Tax Increases for People Earning Under $250k
By Ned Barnett
I confess. Senator Obama's two tax promises: to limit tax increases to only those making over $250,000 a year, and to not raise taxes on 95% of "working Americans," intrigued me. As a hard-working small business owner, over the past ten years I've earned from $50,000 to $100,000 per year. If Senator Obama is shooting straight with us, under his presidency I could look forward to paying no additional Federal taxes -- I might even get a break -- and as I struggle to support a family and pay for two boys in college, a reliable tax freeze is nearly as welcome as further tax cuts.
However, Senator Obama's dual claims seemed implausible, especially when it came to my Federal income taxes. Those implausible promises made me look at what I'd been paying before President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, as well as what I paid after those tax cuts became law. I chose the 2000 tax tables as my baseline -- they reflect the tax rates that Senator Obama will restore by letting the "Bush Tax Cuts" lapse. I wanted to see what that meant from my tax bill.
I've worked as the state level media and strategy director on three Presidential election campaigns -- I know how "promises" work -- so I analyzed Senator Obama's promises by looking for loopholes.
The first loophole was easy to find: Senator Obama doesn't "count" allowing the Bush tax cuts to lapse as a tax increase. Unless the cuts are re-enacted, rates will automatically return to the 2000 level. Senator Obama claims that letting a tax cut lapse -- allowing the rates to return to a higher levels -- is not actually a "tax increase." It's just the lapsing of a tax cut.
See the difference?
Neither do I.
When those cuts lapse, my taxes are going up -- a lot -- but by parsing words, Senator Obama justifies his claim that he won't actively raise taxes on 95 percent of working Americans, even while he's passively allowing tax rates to go up for 100% of Americans who actually pay Federal income taxes.
Making this personal, my Federal Income Tax will increase by $3,824 when those tax cuts lapse. That not-insignificant sum would cover a couple of house payments or help my two boys through another month or two of college.
No matter what Senator Obama calls it, requiring us to pay more taxes amounts to a tax increase. This got me wondering what other Americans will have to pay when the tax cuts lapse.
For a married family, filing jointly and earning $75,000 a year, this increase will be $3,074. For those making just $50,000, this increase will be $1,512. Despite Senator Obama's claim, even struggling American families making just $25,000 a year will see a tax increase -- they'll pay $715 more in 2010 than they did in 2007. Across the board, when the tax cuts lapse, working Americans will see significant increases in their taxes, even if their household income is as low as $25,000. See the tables at the end of this article.
Check this for yourself. Go to http://www.irs.gov/formspu
Senator Obama is willfully deceiving you and me when he says that no one making under $250,000 will see an increase in their taxes. If I were keeping score, I'd call that Tax Lie #1.
The next loophole involves the payroll tax that you pay to support the Social Security system. Currently, there is an inflation-adjusted cap, and according to the non-profit Tax Foundation, in 2006 -- the most recent year for which tax data is available -- only the first $94,700 of an unmarried individual's earnings were subject to the 12.4 percent payroll tax. However, Senator Obama has proposed lifting that cap, adding an additional 12.4 percent tax on every dollar earned above that cap -- and in spite of his promise, impacting all those who earn between $94,700 and $249,999.
By doing this, he plans to raise an additional $1 trillion dollars (another $662.50 out of my pocket -- and how much out of yours?) to help fund Social Security. Half of this tax would be paid by employees and half by employers -- but employers will either cut the payroll or pass along this tax to their customers through higher prices. Either way, some individual will pay the price for the employer's share of the tax increase.
However, when challenged to explain how he could eliminate the cap AND not raise taxes on Americans earning under $250,000, Senator Obama suggested on his website that he "might" create a "donut" -- an exemption from this payroll tax for wages between $94,700 and $250,000. But that donut would mean he couldn't raise anywhere near that $1 trillion dollars for Social Security. When this was pointed out, Senator Obama's "donut plan" was quietly removed from his website.
This "explanation" sounds like another one of those loopholes. If I were keeping score, I'd call this Tax Lie #2.
(updated) Senator Obama has also said that he will raise capital gains taxes from 15 percent to 20 percent. He says he's aiming at "fat cats" who make above $250,000. However, while only 1 percent of Americans make a quarter-million dollars, roughly 50 percent of all Americans own stock – and while investments that are through IRAs, 401Ks and in pension plans are not subject to capital gains, those stocks in personal portfolios are subject to capital gains, no matter what the owner’s income is. However, according to the US Congress’s Joint Economic Committee Study, “Recent data released by the Federal Reserve shows that nearly half of all U.S. households are stockholders. In the last decade alone, the number of stockholders has jumped by over fifty percent.” This is clear – a significant number of all Americans who earn well under $250,000 a year will feel this rise in their capital gains taxes.
Under "President" Obama, if you sell off stock and earn a $100,000 gain -- perhaps to help put your children through college -- instead of paying $15,000 in capital gains taxes today, you'll pay $20,000 under Obama's plan. That's a full one-third more, and it applies no matter how much you earn.
No question -- for about 50 percent of all Americans, this is Tax Lie #3.
Finally, Senator Obama has promised to raise taxes on businesses -- and to raise taxes a lot on oil companies. I still remember Econ-101 -- and I own a small business. From both theory and practice, I know what businesses do when taxes are raised. Corporations don't "pay" taxes -- they collect taxes from customers and pass them along to the government. When you buy a hot dog from a 7/11, you can see the clerk add the sales tax, but when a corporation's own taxes go up, you don't see it -- its automatic -- but they do the same thing. They build this tax into their product's price. Senator Obama knows this. He knows that even people who earn less than $250,000 will pay higher prices -- those pass-through taxes -- when corporate taxes go up.
No question: this is Tax Lie #4.
There's not a politician alive who hasn't be caught telling some minor truth-bender. However, when it comes to raising taxes, there are no small lies. When George H.W. Bush's "Read my lips -- no new taxes" proved false, he lost the support of his base -- and ultimately lost his re-election bid.
This year, however, we don't have to wait for the proof: Senator Obama has already promised to raise taxes, and we can believe him. However, while making that promise, he's also lied, in at least four significant ways, about who will pay those taxes. If Senator Obama becomes President Obama, when the tax man comes calling, we will all pay the price. And that's the truth.
http://www.americanthinker
* Go to website for tax charts!*
The Truth About the McCain Health Care Plan
|
--
To order my JUST RELEASED poetry book (Layers) please visit www.BuyStacysBooks.com
The Truth About the McCain Health Care Plan
|
--
To order my JUST RELEASED poetry book (Layers) please visit www.BuyStacysBooks.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
