Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on October 20, 2008, 08:44:07 AM
-
when 40 percent don't pay taxes? This according to McCain on the campaign trail today. If true, why the heck didn't he raise this during the debates?
-
Several respected economists have raised this point. McCain missed the timing on this issue.
He will cut income taxes on 95% of people that pay taxes...thats the catch!
He is also giving tax credits to a great # who don't even pay taxes. Thats wrong.
Also, it does not apply to his idea to raise capital gains, dividens, payroll, inheritance and marriage taxes. The point is that Obama will make more money available to the US gov via taxation.
-
Several respected economists have raised this point. McCain missed the timing on this issue.
He will cut income taxes on 95% of people that pay taxes...thats the catch!
He is also giving tax credits to a great # who don't even pay taxes. Thats wrong.
Also, it does not apply to his idea to raise capital gains, dividens, payroll, inheritance and marriage taxes. The point is that Obama will make more money available to the US gov via taxation.
Ah so. Thanks. I agree we shouldn't be giving tax credits to people who don't pay taxes.
-
jeeez,
because niether ticket wants to alienate those 40 million people, you could not figure that out on your own?
Mccain will bring it up to his own crowd of nutcases at the ralleys but he would be mocking them on national tv...
was that really that hard to figure out?
-
jeeez,
because niether ticket wants to alienate those 40 million people, you could not figure that out on your own?
Mccain will bring it up to his own crowd of nutcases at the ralleys but he would be mocking them on national tv...
was that really that hard to figure out?
Where did you get your "40 million people" figure from?
-
1-2% of Americans pay 39% of all taxes and around 40% pay nothing at all.
They are all liars and willing to manipulate the data in any way we're stupid enough to believe.
Remember what Disraeli wrote. There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies and statistics. :)
-
Slayer, do you really believe people that don't pay taxes should get tax credits? That is insane.
-
For the record, when Obama becomes president, I hope he does well and that some of our concerns are put to rest. I hope he does not raise additional taxes beyond his current platform, though that is one of my fears. I hope he swings more to the middle and is the candidate he was at the beginning of the race bringing people together. I hope he is the president to all people not just some. He must fight for all Americans, not just the poor or minority. I hope he takes advantage of his unique position to reach out to many different Americans and help change our culture for the better.
I am excited to see more diplomacy and less $ spent fighting wars and I think he can improve our reputation internationally. I just hope he doesn't push the country down a socialistic path...and makes only the regulations necessary when dealing with major issues in the private sector. I am also encouraged that he is a supporter of stem cell research and wish to see more support in that area.
-
when 40 percent don't pay taxes? This according to McCain on the campaign trail today. If true, why the heck didn't he raise this during the debates?
Then those 40 percents taxes wont get raised since they dont pay taxes dummies. I own 2 businesses. I dont pay Federal taxes. I reinvest enough in my business so I dont give my money to the Feds to send overseas
-
For the record, when Obama becomes president, I hope he does well and that some of our concerns are put to rest. I hope he does not raise additional taxes beyond his current platform, though that is one of my fears. I hope he swings more to the middle and is the candidate he was at the beginning of the race bringing people together. I hope he is the president to all people not just some. He must fight for all Americans, not just the poor or minority. I hope he takes advantage of his unique position to reach out to many different Americans and help change our culture for the better.
I am excited to see more diplomacy and less $ spent fighting wars and I think he can improve our reputation internationally. I just hope he doesn't push the country down a socialistic path...and makes only the regulations necessary when dealing with major issues in the private sector. I am also encouraged that he is a supporter of stem cell research and wish to see more support in that area.
Good comments. I hope he succeeds as president if he wins the election, but I do think the kinds of things he wants to do will be bad for the country.
If he wins, he will be a one-term president IMO.
-
Then those 40 percents taxes wont get raised since they dont pay taxes dummies. I own 2 businesses. I dont pay Federal taxes. I reinvest enough in my business so I dont give my money to the Feds to send overseas
The question was how do they get a tax cut if they don't pay taxes to begin with. Shoot gave one plausible answer (carefully worded comments by Obama limiting tax cuts to those who actually pay taxes). But I have heard Obama say repeatedly without qualification that 95 percent of Americans (or anyone who makes less than $250K a year) will get a tax cut.
-
1-2% of Americans pay 39% of all taxes and around 40% pay nothing at all.
They are all liars and willing to manipulate the data in any way we're stupid enough to believe.
Remember what Disraeli wrote. There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies and statistics. :)
I'm quite sure that statistic is mostly a game of words for example:
Warren Buffet have X% of very large companies and they pay Y% of the taxes thus he pay his relative part in taxes.
On the surface seems the same but it's not.
-
when 40 percent don't pay taxes? This according to McCain on the campaign trail today. If true, why the heck didn't he raise this during the debates?
McCain admitted he knows LITTLE pertaining to economics.
what would you expect ? ::)
NT
-
when 40 percent don't pay taxes? This according to McCain on the campaign trail today. If true, why the heck didn't he raise this during the debates?
BB - no offense intended but haven't you learned by now that McCain lies all the time.
I'm not trying to be partisan here but the guy who I once liked has become a pathological liar
Even your own instincts probably tell you that there's no way that 40% of American's don't pay any taxes.
Anyone paid on a w-2 pays social security at the very least
-
Every working working person pays taxes. Payroll taxes . McCain was referring to annual federal income taxes.
That distinction is what makes the whole "1% of the rich pays 90% of the taxes " or whatever misleading. Payroll taxes of the 95% majority are far greater than the annual income taxes of the rich minority.
-
Wasn't Obama referring to federal income taxes too? Is McCain's statement false?
-
Wasn't Obama referring to federal income taxes too? Is McCain's statement false?
I think both candidates position can be perceived as confusing and even by some standards misleading
but the problem is that most people can't pay attention long enough to digest a detailed explanation.
I'd love to see an hour long (or longer) explanation in detail of how we currently collect and spend OUR money and how each candidate would propose to change both the collection of taxes (and other forms of revenue) and how they would propose to change spending. Unfortunately it will never happen and most people wouldn't watch so instead we get sound bites
-
there's a chart that I have somewhere that shows how payroll taxes have risen over the past 50 years while corporate taxes have dropped. It's quite clear that the tax burden was slowly shifted to the worker which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing if there was a corresponding shift in services provided in relation to increased taxation.
-
The question was how do they get a tax cut if they don't pay taxes to begin with. Shoot gave one plausible answer (carefully worded comments by Obama limiting tax cuts to those who actually pay taxes). But I have heard Obama say repeatedly without qualification that 95 percent of Americans (or anyone who makes less than $250K a year) will get a tax cut.
THis is a common sense question....why do you play dumb? 95% of Americans fall into the category to get a TAX CUT or Stay the same... so if 40% doesnt pay taxex... ahhh they fall into that bracket, butt they dont qualify..how hard is that to understand?
-
Wasn't Obama referring to federal income taxes too? Is McCain's statement false?
No. This is one of the reasons I've been so bothered by the Joe Plumber thing.
If you've read an analysis of Obama's tax plan, he's not really discussing cutting federal income taxes or "redistributing wealth"... the whole thing hinges on how much you have withheld. You'll be getting a percentage of that back.
Some conservative sites have been trying to make it appear as though his plan takes from the rich and gives to the poor, which isn't the case.
-
THis is a common sense question....why do you play dumb? 95% of Americans fall into the category to get a TAX CUT or Stay the same... so if 40% doesnt pay taxex... ahhh they fall into that bracket, butt they dont qualify..how hard is that to understand?
The point you're missing is Obama said 95 percent will get a tax cut. That's completely different from saying a person's taxes will not be increased. Cutting and status quo are not synonymous.
-
No. This is one of the reasons I've been so bothered by the Joe Plumber thing.
If you've read an analysis of Obama's tax plan, he's not really discussing cutting federal income taxes or "redistributing wealth"... the whole thing hinges on how much you have withheld. You'll be getting a percentage of that back.
Some conservative sites have been trying to make it appear as though his plan takes from the rich and gives to the poor, which isn't the case.
Why do you say "no" when withholdings involve federal income taxes?
You can deny his redistribution of wealth plan, but he said plain as day we need to "spread the wealth around." Someone posted a clip or article a little while back of Michelle Obama talking about people getting a smaller piece of the pie so others can get theirs (or something like that).
What he is proposing is little more than the old liberal "targeted tax cuts." It really is class warfare.
-
Why do you say "no" when withholdings involve federal income taxes?
McCain's statement is only true if he is talking about annual federal taxes.
It is a complete lie if he is referring to withholdings.
-
Read this.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/13/obama-tax-cut-refunds-those-who-dont-pay/print/
-
Read this.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/13/obama-tax-cut-refunds-those-who-dont-pay/print/
Busted you should read this.
Thanks for posting this shoot. Here is the story from the link:
Obama tax cut 'refunds' those who don't pay
Donald Lambro (Contact)
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.
-
I know Beach Bum has a problem reading long passages, so he probably didn't get very far in the article he just posted.
From the article:
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."
This is what I've been saying throughout the thread.
-
::)
-
What? The article you posted to prove a point actually contained the information I'd repeated over and over throughout the thread. I can only assume that, for some reason, you didn't (or couldn't) complete the article. You've stated previously that you tend to ignore things like that.
I'll save you the trouble of posting this:
::)
-
What? The article you posted to prove a point actually contained the information I'd repeated over and over throughout the thread. I can only assume that, for some reason, you didn't (or couldn't) complete the article. You've stated previously that you tend to ignore things like that.
I'll save you the trouble of posting this:
::)
That's Beach Bum's equivalent of taking his ball and going home.
One is left to presume that he can't support his own view or he would have done so
-
What? The article you posted to prove a point actually contained the information I'd repeated over and over throughout the thread. I can only assume that, for some reason, you didn't (or couldn't) complete the article. You've stated previously that you tend to ignore things like that.
I'll save you the trouble of posting this:
::)
Nah. The eye roll is reserved for dumb comments. There are some here who get them a lot, because they have a penchant for making dumb comments. :) You have shown the liberal tendency to make things up as you go along (like inventing supposed quotes by me, which obviously can't be substantiated). What I don't typically do is waste my time responding. Unless you have some kind of intelligent point to make.
The article actually confirms McCain's statements that people who don't pay taxes are getting a "tax cut" in the form of refundable credits. It's nothing more than welfare (as the article says) and part of Obama's plan to "spread the wealth around."
-
The article actually confirms McCain's statements that people who don't pay taxes are getting a "tax cut" in the form of refundable credits. It's nothing more than welfare (as the article says) and part of Obama's plan to "spread the wealth around."
Yes. I'm the one who makes things up. ::)
Your original question was whether or not it was true that only 40% of Americans paid taxes. The article explained that it's not true.
Once you step outside of the unethically partisan slant of the article, you are left with one indisputable fact: 95% of Americans will receive refunds from the taxes they have paid.
-
Nah. The eye roll is reserved for dumb comments. There are some here who get them a lot, because they have a penchant for making dumb comments. :) You have shown the liberal tendency to make things up as you go along (like inventing supposed quotes by me, which obviously can't be substantiated). What I don't typically do is waste my time responding. Unless you have some kind of intelligent point to make.
The article actually confirms McCain's statements that people who don't pay taxes are getting a "tax cut" in the form of refundable credits. It's nothing more than welfare (as the article says) and part of Obama's plan to "spread the wealth around."
so you did have something more to say afterall
-
Yes. I'm the one who makes things up. ::)
Your original question was whether or not it was true that only 40% of Americans paid taxes. The article explained that it's not true.
Once you step outside of the unethically partisan slant of the article, you are left with one indisputable fact: 95% of Americans will receive refunds from the taxes they have paid.
Yes, you did. ::)
Part of the article did answer one of my original questions:
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.
And it's not a tax refund if you have zero tax liability. It's a welfare payment, taken from the people who do have tax liability.
-
Does anyone know Obama's position on the AMT and what his plans are to give relief to the growing number of American families that are affected by it every year?
Does he have any plans to help working families in high cost of living areas that are going to be penalized even more by his tax plan?
-
Free money for the poor helps everybody. Crime will go down because poor people will stop committing crimes to recieve extra revenue. Its simple math people. We should all pay our fair share instead of complaining about Obama.
-
Does anyone know Obama's position on the AMT and what his plans are to give relief to the growing number of American families that are affected by it every year?
Does he have any plans to help working families in high cost of living areas that are going to be penalized even more by his tax plan?
Yes. If you are a working family in a high cost of living area and have the misfortune of making at least $250K, then he has plans for you:
(http://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/images/Holdup.gif)
-
Racism. Pure and simple.
-
Free money for the poor helps everybody. Crime will go down because poor people will stop committing crimes to recieve extra revenue. Its simple math people. We should all pay our fair share instead of complaining about Obama.
NO!
Drug dealers/ mobsters/ or any other type of "successful" criminal make plenty of money to get back to normal life but choose not to.
What makes you think that throwing much less at people with less abilities (can't even do smart crimes) will make them contributing citizens?
-
Yes, you did. ::)
Part of the article did answer one of my original questions:
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.
And it's not a tax refund if you have zero tax liability. It's a welfare payment, taken from the people who do have tax liability.
This post just shows a complete misunderstanding of what you just read. "Because the IRS says that nearly 46 million tax filers - one-third of all filers - had no tax liability in 2006,"=this means they did not have to pay annual taxes. This does not mean that the government did not collect money from them throughout the year. For some reason, you paid attention to the part of the article that focuses on annual taxes, yet you ignored all the passages that addressed the difference between the two. I did pull those quotes for an earlier post of mine. I know it might be a struggle, but a least try to read it. the answers to all your questions are right there.
-
This post just shows a complete misunderstanding of what you just read. "Because the IRS says that nearly 46 million tax filers - one-third of all filers - had no tax liability in 2006,"=this means they did not have to pay annual taxes. This does not mean that the government did not collect money from them throughout the year. For some reason, you paid attention to the part of the article that focuses on annual taxes, yet you ignored all the passages that addressed the difference between the two. I did pull those quotes for an earlier post of mine. I know it might be a struggle, but a least try to read it. the answers to all your questions are right there.
Are you addressing income taxes or payroll taxes?
-
This post just shows a complete misunderstanding of what you just read. "Because the IRS says that nearly 46 million tax filers - one-third of all filers - had no tax liability in 2006,"=this means they did not have to pay annual taxes. This does not mean that the government did not collect money from them throughout the year. For some reason, you paid attention to the part of the article that focuses on annual taxes, yet you ignored all the passages that addressed the difference between the two. I did pull those quotes for an earlier post of mine. I know it might be a struggle, but a least try to read it. the answers to all your questions are right there.
What? lol . . You don't know what the heck you're talking about. I never said the government doesn't collect payroll taxes. Of course it does. What the article said is that millions of those people wind up with zero tax liability when all is said and done, because their deductions and credits exceed the money withheld by the government for federal taxes. The only way those people get a "tax cut" is through a government welfare check. If you can't understand that then I can't help you.
-
What? lol . . You don't know what the heck you're talking about. I never said the government doesn't collect payroll taxes. Of course it does. What the article said is that millions of those people wind up with zero tax liability when all is said and done, because their deductions and credits exceed the money withheld by the government for federal taxes. The only way those people get a "tax cut" is through a government welfare check. If you can't understand that then I can't help you.
The article never said this. Not having tax liability when you file taxes does not mean you refund exceeds the amount of withholdings.
When people receive refunds at the end of the year, it is from their withholdings. If you receive a refund after filing, then you have no tax liability.
I don't believe thay you honestly believe there are 40 million people who are not affected by any type of tax whatsoever. You are working very hard to misinterpret that article and you are just being stubborn.