Seems like BHO isn’t being truthful again. A lot of people will be paying more in tax under the chosen one’s plan…including the middle class.
Those who don’t pay any tax’s however will do pretty well.
Seems to me if you tax productive workers you will get less of them and if you subsidize those who don’t work or pay tax’s you’ll get more of them. Pretty basic.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Seems like BHO isn’t being truthful again. A lot of people will be paying more in tax under the chosen one’s plan…including the middle class.
Those who don’t pay any tax’s however will do pretty well.
Seems to me if you tax productive workers you will get less of them and if you subsidize those who don’t work or pay tax’s you’ll get more of them. Pretty basic.[/quote]
Well, you incentivize the behavior you want.
SHUT UP AND SPREAD THE WEALTH YOU GREEDY BASTARDS
[quote]hedo wrote:
Seems like BHO isn’t being truthful again. A lot of people will be paying more in tax under the chosen one’s plan…including the middle class.[/quote]
Your article certainly didn’t say that…here’s what it said:
It’s a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he’s also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever [u]on the other 5%.[/u]
What the article is questioning is the change in terminology from “tax credit” to “tax cut.” It’s still a “tax cut” (or “tax credit” if you will) on the bottom 95%.
Seems you’re not being truthful, or your a poor reader.
[quote]
Those who don’t pay any tax’s however will do pretty well.
Seems to me if you tax productive workers you will get less of them and if you subsidize those who don’t work or pay tax’s you’ll get more of them. Pretty basic.[/quote]
This is actually a decent point. 'Course when were talking about the top 5% vs the bottom 95% we’re talking pure populist politics. When that’s measured against the last ten years where the top 2-3% have absorbed almost all the country’s growth (see my plentiful other posts and links on this subject) It’s not too surprising that populist politics came up, now is it?
See the chart in the link you provided? Notice how the numbers start at 250,000/year? What exactly is your definition of “middle class”?
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
hedo wrote:
Seems like BHO isn’t being truthful again. A lot of people will be paying more in tax under the chosen one’s plan…including the middle class.
Your article certainly didn’t say that…here’s what it said:
It’s a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he’s also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever [u]on the other 5%.[/u]
What the article is questioning is the change in terminology from “tax credit” to “tax cut.” It’s still a “tax cut” (or “tax credit” if you will) on the bottom 95%.
Seems you’re not being truthful, or your a poor reader.
Those who don’t pay any tax’s however will do pretty well.
Seems to me if you tax productive workers you will get less of them and if you subsidize those who don’t work or pay tax’s you’ll get more of them. Pretty basic.
This is actually a decent point. 'Course when were talking about the top 5% vs the bottom 95% we’re talking pure populist politics. When that’s measured against the last ten years where the top 2-3% have absorbed almost all the country’s growth (see my plentiful other posts and links on this subject) It’s not too surprising that populist politics came up, now is it?
See the chart in the link you provided? Notice how the numbers start at 250,000/year? What exactly is your definition of “middle class”? [/quote]
I’m a fine reader and can actually read a chart too!
The numbers start at $25,000. The line on top is Obama’s proposals. If you can read a chart it means the higher number.
Your plentiful posts on the subject have been equally misguided, much like Obama’s.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
hedo wrote:
Seems like BHO isn’t being truthful again. A lot of people will be paying more in tax under the chosen one’s plan…including the middle class.
Your article certainly didn’t say that…here’s what it said:
It’s a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he’s also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever [u]on the other 5%.[/u]
What the article is questioning is the change in terminology from “tax credit” to “tax cut.” It’s still a “tax cut” (or “tax credit” if you will) on the bottom 95%.
Seems you’re not being truthful, or your a poor reader.
Those who don’t pay any tax’s however will do pretty well.
Seems to me if you tax productive workers you will get less of them and if you subsidize those who don’t work or pay tax’s you’ll get more of them. Pretty basic.
This is actually a decent point. 'Course when were talking about the top 5% vs the bottom 95% we’re talking pure populist politics. When that’s measured against the last ten years where the top 2-3% have absorbed almost all the country’s growth (see my plentiful other posts and links on this subject) It’s not too surprising that populist politics came up, now is it?
See the chart in the link you provided? Notice how the numbers start at 250,000/year? What exactly is your definition of “middle class”? [/quote]
You mean 25K? Poor reader?
[quote]hedo wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
hedo wrote:
Seems like BHO isn’t being truthful again. A lot of people will be paying more in tax under the chosen one’s plan…including the middle class.
Your article certainly didn’t say that…here’s what it said:
It’s a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he’s also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever [u]on the other 5%.[/u]
What the article is questioning is the change in terminology from “tax credit” to “tax cut.” It’s still a “tax cut” (or “tax credit” if you will) on the bottom 95%.
Seems you’re not being truthful, or your a poor reader.
Those who don’t pay any tax’s however will do pretty well.
Seems to me if you tax productive workers you will get less of them and if you subsidize those who don’t work or pay tax’s you’ll get more of them. Pretty basic.
This is actually a decent point. 'Course when were talking about the top 5% vs the bottom 95% we’re talking pure populist politics. When that’s measured against the last ten years where the top 2-3% have absorbed almost all the country’s growth (see my plentiful other posts and links on this subject) It’s not too surprising that populist politics came up, now is it?
See the chart in the link you provided? Notice how the numbers start at 250,000/year? What exactly is your definition of “middle class”?
I’m a fine reader and can actually read a chart too!
The numbers start at $25,000. The line on top is Obama’s proposals. If you can read a chart it means the higher number.
Your plentiful posts on the subject have been equally misguided, much like Obama’s.
[/quote]
Pay no attention to GL. He has demonstrated a keen talent in selective reading comprehension.
If you push him hard enough, he starts making up shit you said, as well.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
hedo wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
hedo wrote:
Seems like BHO isn’t being truthful again. A lot of people will be paying more in tax under the chosen one’s plan…including the middle class.
Your article certainly didn’t say that…here’s what it said:
It’s a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he’s also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever [u]on the other 5%.[/u]
What the article is questioning is the change in terminology from “tax credit” to “tax cut.” It’s still a “tax cut” (or “tax credit” if you will) on the bottom 95%.
Seems you’re not being truthful, or your a poor reader.
Those who don’t pay any tax’s however will do pretty well.
Seems to me if you tax productive workers you will get less of them and if you subsidize those who don’t work or pay tax’s you’ll get more of them. Pretty basic.
This is actually a decent point. 'Course when were talking about the top 5% vs the bottom 95% we’re talking pure populist politics. When that’s measured against the last ten years where the top 2-3% have absorbed almost all the country’s growth (see my plentiful other posts and links on this subject) It’s not too surprising that populist politics came up, now is it?
See the chart in the link you provided? Notice how the numbers start at 250,000/year? What exactly is your definition of “middle class”?
I’m a fine reader and can actually read a chart too!
The numbers start at $25,000. The line on top is Obama’s proposals. If you can read a chart it means the higher number.
Your plentiful posts on the subject have been equally misguided, much like Obama’s.
Pay no attention to GL. He has demonstrated a keen talent in selective reading comprehension.
If you push him hard enough, he starts making up shit you said, as well.
[/quote]
No doubt that won’t be far behind!
Obama’s tax cuts are only for people who are not racist. If you are racist, hillbilly, white trash hick, then you will have a hard time figuring out what Obama’s tax policy is.
But that just might be because you are an idiot white trash McCain supporter who is a dumb hick, can’t read, and probably can’t even tie his own shoes… Oh wait, hicks don’t wear shoes! HA!
What about the 40% of americans that don’t pay taxes? evidently they get a check. what a fucking good deal for them. i better get a christmas card.
I’m not sure about where anyone else comes from, but around Chicago I can honestly say that the “average” family doesn’t have two kids “one in college and one receiving child care”. That’s saying you have one child around 19 years old and one around 3 or 4 years old.
I’m not saying the liberal groups don’t also do it, but this opinion article from a very conservative group is clearly a case of “if you torture the data long enough, it will admit to anything.”
If they really wanted to examine the policy they could have just shown a graph of the total tax due on a y axis against income on the x axis. Oh and they could have actually chosen a more “average” circumstance than a couple having two kids 14 years apart.
Star Parker is straightforward and simplistically brilliant… not to mention correct:
uh-oh, looks like you boys caught me. I actually noticed that after I posted it and deleted my post, but I guess the mods added 'er back.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/13/news/economy/voting_for.moneymag/index3.htm
Here’s the damn liberal media’s take. Scroll down to see a nice chart.
There are still several segments of the population that get screwed which I think was the OPs point. And they aren’t all the “ubber rich.”
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
uh-oh, looks like you boys caught me. I actually noticed that after I posted it and deleted my post, but I guess the mods added 'er back.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/13/news/economy/voting_for.moneymag/index3.htm
Here’s the damn liberal media’s take. Scroll down to see a nice chart. [/quote]
I think both understand that if they want to increase tax receipts, they have to decrease taxes. The Bush tax cut increased tax receipts to the highest level ever. Unfortunately, Obama wants to increase taxes on the top 1%, which will only harm the middle class. The more of their money the rich keep, the more they will spend, which will help those who aren’t in the top 1%.