Yes, we can.

[Strangler Lewis]

Here's what I think Obama meant in his discussion of the civil rights movement. Two points: First, separate but equal was not overturned overnight. Thurgood Marshall litigated a number of cases that overturned a number of segregationist schemes by showing that--surprise--they were not, in fact, equal. Second, Marshall & co. scrupulously avoided all entreaties by socialists, communists and the like who claimed that the worker's struggle was also the black man's struggle. Thus, I think that Obama was lamenting that the civil rights movement did not do--or could not have done--more to ensure that black schools, whether segregated de facto or de jure were, in fact equal. I assume that if the issue is phrased as "everyone should be able to go to good schools" rather than as "redistribution" that you do not object even though it amounts to the same thing.

[scaeagles]

I suppose it does depend on how one defines redistribution of wealth. I am not one who regards access federal services as redistribution. Driving on an interstate, for example, I suppose could be regarded as some sort of strange redistribution of wealth considering those who pay no taxes still drive on them, but services are not what I am referring to, nor do I believe it is what Obama was referring to.

I am talking about taxes paid from the upper income families and giving that money directly to lower income families in the form of a redefined tax cut. He refers to this as a tax cut, but it isn't a tax cut. They have paid no taxes.

[Snowflake]

Is anyone besides me, feeling a bit encouraged at the massive rallies? I find it inspiring that 70,000-100,000 people turn out for one of these things. To sound trite, it does give me a sense of hope.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I am talking about taxes paid from the upper income families and giving that money directly to lower income families in the form of a redefined tax cut. He refers to this as a tax cut, but it isn't a tax cut. They have paid no taxes.

You can say that now, but they have always been called tax cuts in the past so it is disingenuous to now say that they aren't. Yes, some tax credits result in cash payouts when the tax liability is reduced to lower than zero. You can disagree with this philosophically but such increasing these credits has always been rhetorically placed under the umbrella of tax cuts to whomever supports them (just as with John McCain's proposed $5000 tax credit for medical insurance which will be paid even if the user owes no taxes).

Also, it is possible to cut taxes for a person who doesn't pay any. If you have a tax obligation of $750 dollars and qualify for $750 in tax deductions you don't pay any taxes. But it is entirely possible for new tax policies to reduce your obligation from $750 to $500. Your tax obligation was cut, your tax deductions still reduce what you owe to zero.

Finally, you have used this formulation several times "Obama says that 95% of people will receive a tax cut but 40% of people don't pay any income tax, how can that then be true." (That isn't a direct quote but I think it accurately reflects and I don't want to go look for the direct quote; I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong).

Two things. Obama almost always say "95% of working families" which is different from 95% of everybody and is essentially true (independent sources say 91-94%). However, I'm sure examples can be found of saying simply "95% of people" by Obama or campaign surrogates. When this is said, it is misleading.

However, you do something rhetorically in your formulation of the question that is also misleading. You change the units of measure. From "taxes" to "income taxes." Income taxes do not include the entirety of a persons tax burden as you well know. Even people who end up paying no income taxes still (if they have any legitimate income at all) end up paying payroll taxes. And part of Obama's plan is a tax credit against payroll taxes. So, even if that doesn't bump it up to 95% of all people, this is another way you get people who pay no federal income tax still getting a tax cut.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Alex

Finally, you have used this formulation several times "Obama says that 95% of people will receive a tax cut but 40% of people don't pay any income tax, how can that then be true." (That isn't a direct quote but I think it accurately reflects and I don't want to go look for the direct quote; I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong).

Two things. Obama almost always say "95% of working families" which is different from 95% of everybody and is essentially true (independent sources say 91-94%). However, I'm sure examples can be found of saying simply "95% of people" by Obama or campaign surrogates. When this is said, it is misleading.

You are accurate in your assessment of what I'm saying, but I don't follow your logic on this point. How is it true when he says "95% of working families" vs. "95% of all people"?

However, you do something rhetorically in your formulation of the question that is also misleading. You change the units of measure. From "taxes" to "income taxes." Income taxes do not include the entirety of a persons tax burden as you well know. Even people who end up paying no income taxes still (if they have any legitimate income at all) end up paying payroll taxes. And part of Obama's plan is a tax credit against payroll taxes. So, even if that doesn't bump it up to 95% of all people, this is another way you get people who pay no federal income tax still getting a tax cut.

What are payroll taxes for? The vast majority is for social security. I don't regard these in the same category because it is (theoretically) a retirement account to which one should be required to pay in if they are going to get something out.

[Gemini Cricket]

A collection of cool Obama posters.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

A collection of cool Obama posters.

All I get is "Page Not Found".

[Alex]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

You are accurate in your assessment of what I'm saying, but I don't follow your logic on this point. How is it true when he says "95% of working families" vs. "95% of all people"?

95% of working families is a subset of 95% of all people and that subset will receive almost all of the benefit. Therefore, the 80% that is true when done for "all people" is actually close to 95% when done for "working families." I'm not sure what you find confusing.

What are payroll taxes for? The vast majority is for social security. I don't regard these in the same category because it is (theoretically) a retirement account to which one should be required to pay in if they are going to get something out.

Fine and irrelevant. Regardless of what the money is used for, sure you agree it is a tax? And that reducing the amount a person pays on said tax a "tax cut"?

Again, you may have a philosophical disagreement on whether this particular tax cut is a good idea (though I didn't know Republicans ever had such philosophical disagreements, though maybe this would be an exception since it favors the working poor over the wealthy who earn more than the payroll tax caps) but you can't really argue it is a tax cut. And it is the central component of the truth in the statement that "95% of working families" -- as opposed to 95% of all people some portion of which do not pay any taxes of any type because they have no reported income -- will receive a tax credit. Every single tax filer earning less than $200,000 will get this $500 or $1000 proposed credit. That is 97% of all filers.



As you can see, we are again running into a wall where you are apparently not speaking the same English language I am. Apparently reducing taxes burdens is only a tax cut when Republicans do it and socialism when other people do it. And redistribution is only redistribution when the money transfer happens in cash.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I suppose it does depend on how one defines redistribution of wealth. I am not one who regards access federal services as redistribution. Driving on an interstate, for example, I suppose could be regarded as some sort of strange redistribution of wealth considering those who pay no taxes still drive on them, but services are not what I am referring to, nor do I believe it is what Obama was referring to.

I am talking about taxes paid from the upper income families and giving that money directly to lower income families in the form of a redefined tax cut. He refers to this as a tax cut, but it isn't a tax cut. They have paid no taxes.

By your definition, ALL tax cuts are a "redistribution of wealth". So I guess you're only for tax cuts when they favor the wealthy?

(Posted before I saw that there was a whole other page of back-and-forth between Alex and Leo.)

[scaeagles]

All I can say is you make some excellent points there.

I do regard social security as different because of the nature and purpose, but it is indeed a tax.

I suppose I need to research a bit more into his proposed tax brackets (I assume since the Bush tax cuts were largely lowering bracketed rates that the expiration of those will result in increased rates in those brackets) to see if the proposed credit offsets the increase in the rates (assuming there are).

One reason I post here is to learn from those with good knowledge. I am not against learning and having my opinions and facts challenged.....it's a lot more interesting that posting where everyone would agree with most of what I say.