How is Obama cutting taxes for 95 percent of Americans

[Al Doggity]

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.

[Dos Equis]

 

[Al Doggity]

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:

 

[Straw Man]

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

[Dos Equis]

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."       

[Al Doggity]

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.

[Straw Man]

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

[Dos Equis]

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.   

[w8tlftr]

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?

[George Whorewell]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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:

[George Whorewell]

Racism. Pure and simple.

[IFBBwannaB]

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?

[Al Doggity]

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.

[w8tlftr]

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?

[Dos Equis]

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.   

[Al Doggity]

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.