Obama's tax plan

[jreeves]

Time and again, the rookie Senator has said he would not raise taxes on middle-class earners, whom he describes as people with annual income lower than between $200,000 and $250,000. On Wednesday night, he repeated the vow. "I not only have pledged not to raise their taxes," said the Senator, "I've been the first candidate in this race to specifically say I would cut their taxes."

But Mr. Obama has also said he's open to raising – indeed, nearly doubling to 28% – the current top capital gains tax rate of 15%, which would in fact be a tax hike on some 100 million Americans who own stock, including millions of people who fit Mr. Obama's definition of middle class.

Mr. Gibson dared to point out this inconsistency, which regularly goes unmentioned in Mr. Obama's fawning press coverage. But Mr. Gibson also probed a little deeper, asking the candidate why he wants to increase the capital gains tax when history shows that a higher rate brings in less revenue.

"Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20%," said Mr. Gibson. "And George Bush has taken it down to 15%. And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28%, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120847505709424727.html?mod=googlenews_wsj



How do democrats justify a tax increase on capital gains taxes when ultimately it will be an increase on the middle class? Which in turn contradicts their purpose of class warfare on the rich.

 

[William Joyce]

How do democrats justify a tax increase on capital gains taxes when ultimately it will be an increase on the middle class?

Democrats don't represent the middle class. They represent the ultra-rich, who don't mind tax increases, and the criminals and welfare recipients who do actually benefit from tax increases.

 

[jreeves]

Democrats don't represent the middle class. They represent the ultra-rich, who don't mind tax increases, and the criminals and welfare recipients who do actually benefit from tax increases.

Regardless, Obama has pledged not to raise taxes on the middle class, which ultimately he would be doing by raising capital gains taxes. In addition, using historical facts, he would also decrease tax revenues.

 

[jillian]

Regardless, Obama has pledged not to raise taxes on the middle class, which ultimately he would be doing by raising capital gains taxes. In addition, using historical facts, he would also decrease tax revenues.

you don't really think that capital gains predominently hits the middle class, do you?

 

[jreeves]

you don't really think that capital gains predominently hits the middle class, do you?

I would say that a good number of the middle class do benefit from capital gains.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

you don't really think that capital gains predominently hits the middle class, do you?

Doesn't have to be predominately. Obama made a statement that he would NOT raise Taxes on those people and would in fact CUT them. Yet he supports a tax increase that in fact DOES raise taxes on the very people he claims he will cut taxes on. Further I notice you ignored the part about how lowering the tax resulted in INCREASED tax income.

 

[Swamp Fox]

Democrats don't represent the middle class. They represent the ultra-rich, who don't mind tax increases, and the criminals and welfare recipients who do actually benefit from tax increases.

Actually, Democrats are the ultra rich, pretending to be poor and humble, representing the criminals and welfare class because people who are dependent upon the government will not question it.

 

[Gunny]

you don't really think that capital gains predominently hits the middle class, do you?

Somebody has to pay, and you aren't REALLY buying that he's only going to cut taxes for the wealthy are you?

I can already see that bill now after all the lobbyists get done buying Congress lunch and making a few donations to favorite charities. We got the same thing in 92 and it fell on OUR backs, not the wealthy.

 

[Foxfyre]

"Obama's tax increase would saddle the United States with the highest marginal tax rate in the world -- higher even than countries like Sweden. Studies based on the WEFA macroeconomic model, a metric developed by economists at the Wharton School of Business and employed widely by Fortune 500 companies, suggest that they would cost the United States as much as $136 billion in lost economic growth over the next 10 years, and as many as 1.1 million lost jobs. In exchange for this economic catastrophe, we would gain surprisingly little in terms of Social Security's finances. Even completely eliminating the cap, without allowing any additional credit toward benefits, would result in only eight additional years of cash-flow solvency. Rather than beginning to run a deficit in 2017, Social Security would continue to run a surplus until 2025. That's very little gain for so much pain."

http://www.cato.org/view_ddispatch.php?viewdate=20080212

Obama has maybe a trillion dollars in expenditures in all that he plans to do for the American people if he is elected President and all manner of creative ways to pay for it which involves mostly soaking the rich or cutting defense. A thorough knowledge of the CATO Institute fiscal hawks, however, shows some definite problems with the game plan.

And this:

In his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama appeals strongly to young people. His message to college students and graduates has been one of "hope" and "change," but in the long run, he offers them remarkably little of either.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9218

What Obama has not yet learned is that you cannot punish the rich for their success without hurting the less affluent and dooming the poor to even more poverty.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Cap gains increase will have a huge affect on the middle class. Building up a company and selling it, only to have the govt come along and impose a huge tax increase, serves no purpose and does nothing other than to fill govt coffers and take away from the hard working citizen. But then again, I wouldn't expect Obama to understand simple economics. It really is sad.

 

[Turboswede]

How do democrats justify a tax increase on capital gains taxes when ultimately it will be an increase on the middle class?

I am still voting Obama, but this is a very bad idea that will send ripples through the economy. For years now one of the goals of financial planning has been to stuff as much onto the capital gains schedule as possible. This kind of hits the pocketbooks of Obama’s professional middle class backers unless there is some form of graduated capital gains rate or some kind of floor where the cap gains rate kicks in.

If he classifies dividends as taxable at ordinary income rates and institutes a higher cap gain rate it will slow down investment. Is this his plan to increase consumer spending? If so it is very short sighted.

 

[Turboswede]

Democrats don't represent the middle class. They represent the ultra-rich, who don't mind tax increases, and the criminals and welfare recipients who do actually benefit from tax increases.

Now thats just silly.

 

[editec]

If they do nothing, this happens:

Whoever wins will have to address the capital gains tax by the end of 2010, when the current 15% rate is set to expire. The rate will then revert back to 20%, where it stood before the Bush administration changed the tax laws in 2003.

I thought this was rather interesting:

Experts: Limited benefit

Most tax experts, however, said that the difference in the candidates' stances is of minimal importance.

For one thing, the jury is out on whether shareholders change their behavior based on shifts in the capital gains rate, said Clint Stretch, managing principal of tax policy at Deloitte in Washington. It would only make a difference to someone with the potential to have an extraordinary gain, suchas the case of successful small business owner who is looking to sell.

Those making more than $1 million, who would get 66% of the benefit, would see their federal tax bill drop by $72,255, on average, while their average federal tax rate would fall by 2.3 percentage points, according to a Tax Policy Center analysis.

Meanwhile, those earning between $75,000 and $100,000, who would get 0.8% of the benefit, would see their taxes drop by $31, on average, but get no reduction on their tax rate, the analysis found.

If anything, slashing the capital gains tax for two years may prompt more people to sell by the end of 2010, injecting more volatility into the stock markets, experts said.

So much for the hurting middle class folks with capital gains taxes, myth.

The vast majority of people who realize any capital gains (those making between $75,000 and $100,000) wouldn't see much of a change, at all.

Per usual, the real tax advantages go to those lucky few with incomes of $1 million and more.

Those who pay capital gains just enjoyed a 25% decrease for the last five years, with another two years to enjoy that benefit, assuming nothing is changes.

An tax cut of $72 grand a year isn't good enough?

I confess to a certain compassion fatigure for America's wealthier class, folks, I really do.

 

[jreeves]

If they do nothing, this happens:



I thought this was rather interesting:



So much for the hurting middle class folks with capital gains taxes, myth.

The vast majority of people who realize any capital gains (those making between $75,000 and $100,000) wouldn't see much of a change, at all.

Per usual, the real tax advantages go to those lucky few with incomes of $1 million and more.

Those who pay capital gains just enjoyed a 25% decrease for the last five years, with another two years to enjoy that benefit, assuming nothing is changes.

An tax cut of $72 grand a year isn't good enough?

I confess to a certain compassion fatigure for America's wealthier class, folks, I really do.

Is this his position at the moment?

RNC: Obama's Tax Shift | Reuters

Today, Obama Claimed That A Family Making Less Than $250,000 Will Not See
Higher Taxes Under His Plan:

Obama: "If you are a family making less than $250,000, my plan will not raise
your taxes - not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital
gains taxes, not any of your taxes."(Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks On Taxes,
Kaukauna, WI, 6/12/08)

NOTE: Earlier Today, Obama Campaign National Co-Chair Sen. Claire McCaskill
(D-MO) Contradicted Obama, Saying Americans Earning "Under $150,000 A Year
Would See No Tax Increase Of Any Kind":

Sen. McCaskill Said Americans Earning Less Than $150,000 Wouldn't See HigherTaxes - Not The $250,000 That Obama Claims. "[Sen. Claire] McCaskill called
Obama middle-class tax cut 'massive' and stressed that those making 'under
$150,000 a year would see no tax increase of any kind' -- not payroll tax, not
capital gains, 'not a single tax,' [New Hampshire Congressman Paul] Hodes
said."(Domenico Montanaro, "Obama V. McCain On Middle Class," MSNBC's "First
Read" Blog, firstread.msnbc.msn.com, 6/12/08)

Obama Has Provided Varied Numbers On Who Would See Higher Tax Rates:

This Week, Obama Told Reporters He Would Raise Taxes On The Top 5 Percent Of
Earners. "Speaking to reporters in St. Louis, he said he would eliminate the
capital gains tax 'for the small businesses and startups that are the backbone
of our economy.' His income tax plans, Obama said, would cut taxes for 95
percent of U.S. workers, while rolling back the Bush administration's tax
reductions for the highest-earning 5 percent." (Matt Apuzzo and Charles
Babington, "McCain, Obama Trade Jabs On Economy, Taxes," The Associated Press,
6/11/08)

-- In 2005, The Cut Off For The Top 5 Percent Of Earners Began At
$145,283
- Well Below Obama's $250,000. "Including all tax returns that
had a positive AGI, those taxpayers with an AGI of $145,283 or more in
2005 constituted the nation's top 5 percent of
earners."(Gerald Prante, "Summary Of Latest Federal Individual
Income Tax Data," The Tax Foundation - Educating Taxpayers Since 1937, 10/5/07)



Obama Said Americans Earning $100,000 Or Less Don't Deserve To Pay Higher
Taxes; Implied Americans Earning More Could See Higher Taxes. Obama: "And what
I have said is, I will institute a middle-class tax cut. So, if you're making
$75,000, if you're making $50,000 a year, you will see an extra $1,000 a year
offsetting on your payroll tax." CNN's Wolf Blitzer: "Define middle class."
Obama: "Well you know I think the definitions are a little bit rough, but
let's just take it this way, if you're making $100,000 a year or less then
you're pretty solidly middle class and you deserve relief right now as opposed
to paying higher taxes. On the other hand, if you're making more than n
$100,000, and certainly if you're making more than $200,000 or $250,000, then
you're doing pretty well." (CNN's "The Situation Room," 5/8/08)During The Philadelphia Debate, Obama Said Americans Earning $200,000 --
$250,000 Would Be Subject To Higher Taxes. ABC's Charles Gibson: "Senator
Obama, you both have now just taken this pledge [not to raise taxes] on people
under $250,000 -- and 200-and-what? $250,000?" Obama: "Well, it depends on
how you calculate it, but it would be between $200,000 and $250,000." (ABC
Democrat Presidential Candidates Debate, Philadelphia, PA, 4/16/08)

Obama Has Called For Lifting The Earnings Cap On The Payroll Tax, Which Would
Raise Taxes On Americans Earning Over $102,000:

Obama: "The best idea I think, is to raise the cap on the payroll tax. Now,
let me explain. Right now you only pay on the first $102,000 that you earn.
After that you don't pay payroll tax. What that means is, is that for 95
percent of the people, you pay payroll tax every dime you earn, you're paying
payroll tax. But for that top 5, 6 percent of the people who earn more than
that, they're getting a little bit of a break. And my friend Warren Buffet who
earned - I don't know what he earned last year he had a good year last year,
year before that he earned about $46 million -- it means he's paying payroll
tax on only a fraction of his income. Now that's not fair. So what I've
suggested is, we look at the possibility of raising the cap so that it applies
to more of the income of very wealthy people."(Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At A
Campaign Event, New Albany, IN, 4/23/08)

Obama Is Comfortable Raising Payroll Taxes On Americans Earning $102,000 A
Year Or More. Obama: "And in terms of raising the payroll tax, raising the cap
on the payroll tax, right now everybody who is making $102,000 or less pays
100 percent, payroll tax on 100 percent of their income. There are about 3 - 4
percent of Americans who are above $102,000 in income every year. So if you
want to talk about who's middle class, me giving cuts to folks making $60,000,
$70,000 and potentially asking more from friends of mine like Warren buffet
who I have no idea what he made last year, you know, that's a debate I'm happy
to have with John McCain." (Fox News' "Fox New Sunday," 4/27/08)

Obama Called For A Higher Capital Gains Tax, And Argued That The "Average
Person" Wouldn't Be Affected:

Obama Said He'd Raise The Capital Gains Rate To 20 Percent Or Higher, And Said
That Wouldn't Impact The "Average Person." Obama: "In terms of capital gains,
I've suggested we might go back up to 20 (percent), because..." Fox News'
Chris Wallace: "You had suggested 28 (percent)." Obama: "Well, what I've said
is I certainly would not raise it higher than it was under Ronald Reagan, but
the fact is that I'm mindful that we've got to keep our capital gains tax to a
point where we can actually get more revenue. But that's not something that's
going to affect the average person with a 401(k) when people start talking
about how, 'Well, there are, you know, millions of Americans who own stock,'
most of them own stock in 401(k)s where their taxes are deferred and they pay
ordinary income taxes when they finally cash out."(Fox News' "Fox New Sunday,"
4/ 27/08)

Obama Claimed That The Argument That Middle Income Americans Would Be Hurt By
A Capital Gains Tax Increase Is "A Phony Argument." CNN's Wolf Blitzer:
"Because they're arguing already that you want to increase capital gains taxes
for example, on investments and stocks and things like that. A lot of middle
class people have those kinds of accounts." Obama: "If they have -- Wolf, if
they have a 401(k) then they are going to see those taxes deferred and they're
going to pay ordinary income when they finally cash out. So that's a phony
argument and this is something that you've seen the Republicans consistently
do is they try to make this broad-based argument about he's going to raise
your taxes as a cover for them eliminating taxes for people like myself and
you who can afford to pay a little bit more."(CNN's "T he Situation Room,"
5/8/08)

NOTE: It Wasn't Until This Week That Obama Definitively Clarified That Middle
Income Americans Would Be Exempted From His Capital Gains Tax Hike. Obama:
"You know, I generally define well off as people who are making $250,000 a
year or more, and that means, for example if we raise the capital gains tax, I
would exempt people who are essentially small investors and really capture
those who have done very, very well over the last two decades." (CNBC's "Your
Money, Your Vote: McCain Vs. Obama," 6/10/08)

Obama's Health Care Plan Calls On Employers That Don't Provide Insurance To
Forfeit A Percentage Of Their Payroll, Which Is Really Using The Employer To
Collect Taxes From The Workers:

Obama's Health Care Plan Calls On Employers That Don't Provide Insurance To
Forfeit A Percentage Of Their Payroll. Obama For America: "Employers that do
not offer meaningful coverage or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of
quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a
percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan." (Obama For
America Website, Welcome to Obama for America, Accessed 1/8/08)

-- According To University Of Pennsylvania Professor Mark Pauly, "The
Employer Mandate Is Really Using The Employer To Collect Taxes From
The
Workers..." (Sara Lubbes, "Perils And Pluses Of 'Play Or
Pay' Insurance Mandates," CQ HealthBeat News, 9/18/07)



-- The Cost Of Government-Mandated Health Insurance Would Likely Be
"Passed On To The Employee In The Form Of A Wage Cut."
"But more likely, the cost of the government-mandated insurance
would be passed on to the employee in the form of a wage cut, said
Mark
Pauly, a professor of health care systems at Wharton School at the
University of Pennsylvania." (Sara Lubbes, "Perils And Pluses
Of 'Play Or Pay' Insurance Mandates," CQ HealthBeat News,
9/18/07)



-- Obama's Plan "Would Result In Lower Wages For Some
Employees." "Mandates that require employers to provide health
benefits or pay a percentage of their payrolls as a tax -- a proposal
backed by Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama -- would result in
lower wages for some employees."(Guy Boulton, "Better Benefits
Or Higher Wages?" The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 5/5/08)



Small Businesses Would Be Hardest Hit. "The biggest impact would be on small
businesses, which are less likely to offer health benefits, and industries
that employ more low-wage workers."(Guy Boulton, "Better Benefits Or Higher
Wages?" The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 5/5/08)

A Product Of The RNC Research Department

Paid for by the Republican National Committee.

Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

SOURCE Republican National Committee
This is curious, his ever redefining of what rich, really is.

 

[elvis]

Regardless, Obama has pledged not to raise taxes on the middle class, which ultimately he would be doing by raising capital gains taxes. In addition, using historical facts, he would also decrease tax revenues.

Why would he admit to raising taxes on the middle class? do you think he wants to lose?

 

[elvis]

you don't really think that capital gains predominently hits the middle class, do you?

If any middle class people have stocks, it does.

 

[editec]

A Product Of The RNC Research Department

Paid for by the Republican National Committee.

You'll excuse me for doubting that the RNC is capable of speaking honestly on behalf of the Obama tax proposals, won't you?

When I want to know what Obama is really proposing I go to the source

Just as when I want to know what McCain's plan for the economy is, I don't ask the DNC what it is, I go to this source

 

[jreeves]

You'll excuse me for doubting that the RNC is capable of speaking honestly on behalf of the Obama tax proposals, won't you?

When I want to know what Obama is really proposing I go to the source

Just as when I want to know what McCain's plan for the economy is, I don't ask the DNC what it is, I go to this source

I didn't hide the source. But did you notice with each position that Obama had there was a newspaper article or television interview source cited? If you would like show where the RNC misstated Obama or his Chairperson.

 

[editec]

When one wants to know the FULL STORY, going to the place where the FULL STORY is available, just seems like a sensible thing to do.

I do so get tired of these half truths that are being passed off as the whole story that are happening to both Obama and McCain.

 

[jreeves]

When one wants to know the FULL STORY, going to the place where the FULL STORY is available, just seems like a sensible thing to do.

I do so get tired of these half truths that are being passed off as the whole story that are happening to both Obama and McCain.

Is this good enough for you....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpSDBu35K-8]YouTube - Obama: Raise Taxes, Capital Gains - "For Purposes of Fairness"[/ame]