To be perfectly honest I'm not one of those nuts who necessarily hate paying taxes. No one knows more than I that I've been damn lucky in life and business, though I'd like to think at times that skill had at least a little something to do with it. Our nation has certain basic needs that require we all sacrifice for the common good. Some of us may disagree on what constitutes "basic needs," but we all agree that without taxes of some kind and amount, the defense of this country and the maintenance of it's infrastructure would be impossible.
What bothers me most about Obama's tax plans are the blatant lies he seems to promote in order to sell it to the electorate at large. Never underestimate the willingness of folks anywhere to want what they consider "free" money. Obama would have you believe (really, no shit) that he plans to cut taxes for 95% of American taxpayers by increasing taxes on "others" who he capriciously thinks make too much.
Ned Barnett over at The American Thinker has written a prescient article on the matter.
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.
Next, we have Obama attempting to move the goalposts on that bellweather $250,000 amount. From Byron York at The Corner:
Obama's position in the past was that he would raise taxes on families making more than $250,000 a year and individuals making more than $200,000. But in his new ad, "Defining Moment," he seems to lower it to $200,000 for families. "Here's what I'll do as president," Obama says in the ad. "To deal with our current emergency I'll launch a rescue plan for the middle class That begins with a tax cut for 95 percent of working Americans. If you have a job, pay taxes and make less than $200,000 a year, you'll get a tax cut." That seems kind of ambiguous, but the graphic on the screen says clearly: "Famlies making less than $200,000 get tax cut."
Then there's the little matter of Obama's running mate, Senator Joe Biden from Delaware, though during this election you'd think he was Pennsylvania's senior senator...from Scanton.
Senator Biden said tax relief should only go to "middle class people — people making under 150,000 dollars a year." It's interesting how their definition of rich has a way of creeping down. At this rate, it won't be long before Senator Obama is right back to his vote that Americans making just 42,000 dollars a year should get a tax increase," said John McCain earlier this morning in Hershey, Pennsylvania.
So what is it fellas? $250K? $200K? $150K? At this rate, the Obama campaign is going to have employ some savant from eBay and figure out a way to do a reverse auction with "bidders," meaning you and I... the taxpayers who will be paying what Obama and the Democrat majority in Congress deems our "fair share" to the lowest amount possible. Obama won't mention a lower number until after the election. Writes the eponymous Dan Riehl:
It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to know where this is going. A newly installed Obama will come on TV and tell the American people how tough things are right now. How they are tough for the government, too. Those tax breaks? Well, maybe some earners are going to have to do without. And as for tax increases? Well, come on down!
It's the only way his economics even begin to wash budget-wise. That wealth he's going to tax will end up hidden away tax free and he'll come after the real middle-class because that's where the bulk of the money is.
It ain't change, folks, just progressive Democrat tax and spend policies, as usual. You've seen it before if you've been around long enough.
Finally there's this, from Philip Klein over at the Spectator:
"We are going to cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans," Barack Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, said in the spin room here at Hofstra University following the final debate of the 2008 presidential election.
Plouffe was repeating one of the boldest claims made by the Obama campaign. It's a claim that the Wall Street Journal editorial board dubbed "Obama's 95% Illusion," noting that more than a third of Americans don't pay any income taxes, and that what Obama's plan does do is offer a raft of subsidies and government payments to individuals and families that he redefines as "tax cuts." His proposal looks more like a redistribution scheme than an honest effort to reduce taxes -- as he revealed on Monday when he told a now famous Ohio plumber that his plan aimed to "spread the wealth around."
So when Plouffe reiterated the 95 percent claim, I asked him a simple question aimed at clarifying whether Obama's tax plan was about cutting rates, or merely handing out government checks. "What rates would actually go down"? I asked.
"Middle class people are going to see, systemically, their taxes reduced, and small businesses," Plouffe responded.
"But what rate would go down for lower-income Americans?" I persisted, seeking more information.
"We'll have to get you the exact details on that," Obama's campaign manager told me.
I followed up, recapping the claim he had just made moments ago: "Well, you said that there's going to be a tax cut on 95 percent, so what rate would go down?"
He replied, "I'll have to get you the exact rate differential."
Given that he wasn't clear on the actual rate changes involved, I asked, "but which type of tax would go down?"
He insisted that under Obama's plan, income taxes would be lower, as well as capital gains taxes on start up businesses and small entrepreneurs (though the capital gains tax would otherwise increase).
SHORTLY AFTER my exchange with Plouffe, I was listening to David Axelrod, Obama's senior strategist, and I decided to put the question to him slightly differently: "Let's say you're making $50,000 a year," I posited. "What taxes would you see go lower under the Obama plan?"
Axelrod replied, "You would get a $500 cut in your taxes. If you're a couple, $1,000."
I queried as to whether that money would come in the form of a check, or a lower rate. "You would see a reduction in your taxes, in the taxes that you pay," he insisted. After further questioning, he added, "The mechanism for it has to do with deferring part of the withholding taxes, but you should talk to our budget folks on that."
Later in the evening, Brian Deese, an Obama economics adviser, emailed me the following information, at Plouffe's request:
OVERALL IMPACT OF OBAMA TAX PLAN:
- The Obama plan would reduce income tax rates for a typical family of four the lowest level in more than 50 years (4.32%). [Tax Policy Center]
- Obama's plan will cut taxes as a share of the economy to 18.2% -- below the level that prevailed under Ronald Reagan. [Tax Policy Center 9/12/08]
I could not find a reference to the first statistic after viewing the study cited by Deese. In its analysis, the Tax Policy Center (a venture of the left-leaning Brookings Institution and Urban Institute), sides with the Obama campaign by categorizing as "tax cuts" government payments such as the $1,000 to couples, $4,000 for college tuition, and 10% payment to offset mortgage interest expenses. But the study does not repeat the Obama campaign's 95 percent claim. (In a late night email, I raised these points with Deese, and also asked him to explain the criteria under which the campaign arrived at the 95 percent number, but did not hear back as of this writing.)
If Barack Obama can effectively claim that his plan cuts taxes on 95 percent of Americans, then the term "tax cut" has no meaning.
I'm not sure why the McCain campaign hasn't seized on this opportunity to bring to the forefront the allusion that Obama can actually cut taxes for "95%" of working Americans without requiring him to say exactly how he would do so BEFORE the election. Perhaps that just one of the reasons I abstained from voting in the Presidential race this year.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." -Thomas Jefferson
Mike
0 comments:
Post a Comment