Welcome to PatsFans.com

Question on Obama & Taxes.

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by cupofjoe1962, Oct 4, 2008.

  1. cupofjoe1962

    cupofjoe1962 Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,553
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +30 / 12 / -2

    I cannot find an answer to this question.
    If anyone knows the answer, please enlighten me.

    Obama says he will not raise taxes on anyone making under $250,000

    He plans to change the max tax bracket from the Bush rate to the pre-Bush
    rate of $39.6%.

    What about the other tax brackets.
    Is he going to keep the other Bush tax rates or let them all expire at the end
    of 2010?

    I believe he is going to let them all expire.

    If he is going to allow all of the other Bush tax rates to expire, he will be
    raising taxes on all of the middle class.

    Look at the tax brackets .......(page down) under Appendix
    The President's Agenda for Tax Relief

    We would be going from the Bush plan on the right to the current code (pre-Bush) on the left.
  2. MrSparkle

    MrSparkle Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2007
    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Well, I see no one has answered you yet or I would not be doing it as I'm no expert on this. I think he is going to let them all expire. People making less then $250k will then get a tax rebate/credit of some sort hence the "lower taxes". My feeling is that he will do this for one year and then we are in the higher scale there after.

    If anyone can correct me please do.
  3. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    37,698
    Likes Received:
    257
    Ratings:
    +476 / 2 / -10

    #87 Jersey

    The actual number is $200,000 and not $250,000. Also ... Obama and the party are also up to something else. Through their get out the vote drive they are creating (through COMMUNITY ORGANIZING) a new voter block of voters who pay NO TAXES. This voter block will consist of 30% of the voting public ... COMMUNITY ORGANIZING IN 2008 ... :bricks:
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2008
  4. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,000
    Likes Received:
    179
    Ratings:
    +283 / 5 / -8

    Wow. That is incredibly threatening. People who don't pay sales tax? I mean they must shop-lift on a constant basis...

    If you mean they pay no income taxes, I can see where that too is a threateningly democratic concept, small "d." That would mean that the poor as well as the rich and the middle class would be voting.

    Wait, are you sneaking in "class warfare", as we call it when it's pointed out that the rich keep getting richer at the expense of the rest of us? Wait no, it doesn't count if you're making war on the poor.

    Welllll, I ain't buyin', FBN. I think it's fine that the poor vote.

    PFnV
  5. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    37,698
    Likes Received:
    257
    Ratings:
    +476 / 2 / -10

    #87 Jersey

    Of course it's fine that they vote ... it's the organizing part that is not so fine.
  6. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,320
    Likes Received:
    119
    Ratings:
    +246 / 7 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    Yes, letting tax cuts expire is not, by his definition, raising taxes. It's part of his game.

    Not only is he going to create new voters who pay no income tax he is also offering a "raise" to those who already pay no income tax by increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit which pays people out of tax money. He will also be raising taxes on some of those in the less than $250K range by increasing the capital gains tax. Speaking for myself, my wife and I make less than $250K but Obama would be raising our taxes through the tax cuts expiring and increased capital gains taxes. But by his definition, our taxes would not be raised.
  7. PF1996

    PF1996 Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    762
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0


    Email Palin for her accountant's number. Despite having income over $100,000, Palin apparently paid less than 10% in taxes in 2006 & less than 15% 2007. Guess that tax rate isn't set in stone when you can afford accountants to exploit the loopholes, oops, I mean "deductions". :rolleyes:
  8. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,320
    Likes Received:
    119
    Ratings:
    +246 / 7 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    What Palin paid is irrelevant to me. All I know is Obama the Liar says I won't pay more taxes as I make under $250K . . . but I would. More income tax and more capital gains tax.
  9. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,000
    Likes Received:
    179
    Ratings:
    +283 / 5 / -8

    You're against organizing to urge the poor to vote? I don't get why that's bad. What is wrong with that?
  10. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,320
    Likes Received:
    119
    Ratings:
    +246 / 7 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    I'm fine with the poor voting and organizing. However I think someone has to has a stake in what they're voting for. How about if Candidate X proposed a 100% tax on those making over, say, $10M. And the poor and middle class had "had enough" and went with it. Is that OK ? Should non property owners be able to vote on property tax increases ?

    We talk about taxation without representation; I have a problem with representation (on voting on taxes, etc) without taxation if you get what I'm saying.
  11. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,000
    Likes Received:
    179
    Ratings:
    +283 / 5 / -8

    Well, BF, it seems your argument is really with democracy, as it is practiced today.

    In Athens, a Male voted on behalf of himself, whatever women were under his control, and of course the slaves he owned. In the American South, that seemed a reasonable model, whereas in the North a less limited democracy was considered a better model (and one more in accord with a non-agrarian society.) In the 19th and 20th century, it became a given that one man or woman equaled one vote, and that we do not disenfranchise entire populations based on ownership of property.

    Yes, that means a man who does not pay taxes has an interest in tax policy. For example, he has an interest in still not paying taxes. Call that good or bad, it is his interest.

    He has an interest in getting health care, even though he cannot afford it. Yes, that health care will have to be paid somehow, most likely affecting tax policy.

    The list goes on.

    Similarly, I have no children of my own, although I am a step-dad of grown children. Therefore I could phrase myself as never having had a stake in the education of children. Or, I could phrase myself as needing good education for our children, out of some collectivist ideology (of course, I choose the latter.)

    Everybody has a stake in how much tax revenue the country must raise. Everybody has a stake in how it is spent.

    To only allow or encourage voting on the part of property owners and relatively high income obviously is a program to skew the results toward the desires of the upper reaches of the economic spectrum, when in fact the country's problems hit hardest at the bottom of the economic spectrum.

    A call for oligarchic restrictions on the franchise (i.e., the vote) is out of step not only with the 21st century, but also with the 20th and the late 19th.

    PFnV

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>