http://www.greenfaucet.com/hanlons-pub/dueling-obama-tax-calculators/91256

Obama says his income tax plan will lower taxes for 95% of Americans. There is just one problem with this, 40% of Americans already pay no income tax. Obama’s response to this is that these people pay Social Security tax. Well, that’s not income tax, but a contribution to their retirement plan. So if he wins and implements his tax plan, for the first time in the history of Social Security, 40% of the people who will get retirement benefits will have paid nothing for them. Social Security will then loose all pretext of being a retirement plan, and will become a national welfare program.

This will cause Social Security to lose public support in a massive way. Leave Social Security contributions out of income tax plans. If you take some peoples income taxes to pay others Social Security taxes, Social Security will be destroyed forever.

http://strategicthought-charles77.blogspot.com/2008/10/obamas-tax-plan-will-destroy-social.html

You guys are lying to yourselves. You pay more taxes than people who pay no taxes, yet we all drive on those roads. You just gave money to poor people because you built roads for them. It does not matter if you use them also. Same thing with schools etc. The only reason this is easier to lie to yourselves about is because you think it is justified by you using the item as well.

As I just said, this is respected Keynesian economics, not wealth redistribution. Obama and his advisers are much less ideologically motivated and much more results oriented than to redistribute wealth.

America has the most progressive tax system in the world. The upper 50% of tax payers pay over 97% of the total tax revenue. The richest 1% of tax payers pay over 40% of taxes; this percentage of total taxes paid actually increased after the Bush tax cuts went into effect. The government got more money from rich people after rates were cut. Your assertion of “corporate welfare” is therefore nonsense. No other country in the world can boast of such progressive statistics.

Over 40% of the total U.S. population have no tax liability, and if they take advantage of EITC may actually recieve money from the government that they have not earned. Is that not welfare? This will increase with Obama as president.

Taking money from the middle class, in the form of taxes, and handing it over to the fatcat CEOs in the form of “tax breaks.”

“Trickle down?” Yeah, it trickles down, alright… trickles down the backs of the CEOs into the golden parachute sack they’re wearing around their shoulders.

Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
http://marciaford.blogspot.com

As I have pointed out earlier, all government programs are a form of wealth redistribution.

Except that’s not true. It’s not wealth-redistribution to take my money to pay for roads I drive on. Or to take my money to pay for an army that protects me. Or even to take my money to pay for national parks that I can go enjoy.

Wealth-redistribution is taking my money and handing it directly to someone else. That’s what the word means and it’s just obfuscation to try to define it otherwise.

Now, as I said, I understand that many people believe it’s ok to take my money and hand it to someone else because, the argument goes, that makes a more stable society which then benefits all of us. I respect that opinion. And I’m not opposed to some forms of welfare. Not at all. I just don’t think welfare should be engrained into our tax code because, as we’ve learned, unmanaged welfare is ineffective welfare.

It’s important to understand how these tax credits will quite likely work in an Obama administration.

Roads, bridges, national defense, law & order are all things we share. Even public education is for children only, and to ensure equality of opportunity, not equality of income as an adult.

You see no moral difference between funding the national guard, and giving away cash payments to individuals?

he rhetoric of tax cuts = economic growth does not hold up in all economic states!

Our country is already over-taxed and over-regulated. Compare our economic growth with countries that have even higher tax burdens and regulations and you will see that our GDP growth is almost always higher, and our unemployment is almost always lower.

Why not, my boss, who’s rich, takes my money by making more by paying me less. I feel happy, saying I’m struggling give me more money one way or the other.

So Jimmy, this happens every day of every year, welcome to a country where people take a stake in the society they live in and not just their immediate property. Actually, that seems to be every rational society.

Secondly, Obama could raise everyone’s taxes and they would still be relatively low! He could raise everyone’s taxes and still not reach the levels of Clinton or in some cases even Reagan because of the Bush tax cuts. And if you want to claim that tax cuts help our economy and tax increases hurt it you are out of your league, take a look at the last eight years, and the previous eight years. This is NOT solely because of the presidents, but clearly the rhetoric of tax cuts = economic growth does not hold up in all economic states! Geez, tax credit or tax cut, it is just another form of wealth redistribution and economics is a lot more complicated than “Me work harder you cut taxes”

Here is a link from CBS news that does a pretty good job of showing the effect.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/09/eveningnews/main4433097.shtml

From my limited understanding of the situation, it is the “refundable” tax credit that can give a person/family a refund check when no taxes were paid.

Despite Obama’s impressive campaign and presence, it is this pill that leaves me unable to vote for him. Of course, I wasn’t ever much of a fan of Robin Hood.

But as I looked over the specific credits, I was hard pressed to imagine how any individual or family in an economic position to get a full refund would also qualify for many, if any of those givebacks.

Credits are tricky business and, as a matter of tax philosophy, I’d prefer just a regular ole’ tax cut.

Sorry for the brevity of explanation in the post. I didn’t want to overburden it.