Yes, we can.

[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.

[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.

[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.)

[Alex]

To fact check myself. Not everybody under $200,000 will get $500 or $1000 refundable credit. The proposal phases it out from $150,000 to $200,000 so some would get partials.

In reading to support myself I found this which explains the issue pretty well. I'm sure somebody will disagree but I generally find the fact checking at that site to be pretty non-partisan. If you want to find a list of statements where Obama really is wrong or distorting you'll find them listed there.


Leo, as to your last post. I am fine with that. Really I am. What gets under my skin (more than it should) is often that you simply post something that is a reiteration of what you've read at one of the prominent right-leaning blogs (not that you're the only one I frequently see things and say "ah, that must have just hit the front page at Drudge or Instapundit or MyDD or Daily Kos or something) and then rely on us to fact check you. Sometimes this only takes a few seconds and it is really annoying that you couldn't have just done that yourself.

It is much more interesting to debate fundamental philosophical decisions (is a $500 refundable payroll tax credit good policy) than issues of easily verifiable fact (what is the basis for Obama or McCain saying X).

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

A collection of cool Obama posters.

All I get is "Page Not Found".

[scaeagles]

No, not at all, JW. I don't know where you get that I defined it as "all tax cuts are a redistribution of wealth". I am for EVERYONE paying less taxes and having smaller government.

My definition of redistribution of wealth is taking money that is paid to the government in the form of federal income taxes by anyone and giving it to those who have paid no federal income taxes.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Alex

What gets under my skin (more than it should) is often that you simply post something that is a reiteration of what you've read at one of the prominent right-leaning blogs (not that you're the only one I frequently see things and say "ah, that must have just hit the front page at Drudge or Instapundit or MyDD or Daily Kos or something) and then rely on us to fact check you. Sometimes this only takes a few seconds and it is really annoying that you couldn't have just done that yourself.

I confess to that at times. However, I don't think that I did that in this case. What started all of this was my interpretation of what Obama said. I stand by my interpretation though I know you disagree.

You have, however, made me stop to think about a couple of things that have bothered me about Obama.

[Alex]

[In reply to scaegles reply to JWBear]

Like John McCain's $5000 health insurance tax credit (which everybody would get regardless of how much, including zero, they pay in income taxes)? Or his proposal (if I recall correctly) to double the EITC? That right there is about $10,000 per person (if they have 2 dependents) in wealth redistribution by McCain, which actually may be larger than that the proposed refundable tax credit increases by Obama.

If Obama's level of wealth redistribution was cause to throw you back at McCain, is McCain's cause to through you back to abstain?

[scaeagles]

This is indeed true. McCain is also proposing large redistribution of wealth tax credits.

DAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDA MNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMN ITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNIT DAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDA MNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMN ITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNIT DAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDA MNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!

Just when I find some form of righteous indignation it is made apparent that McCain is indeed proposing the same.

Now I'm back to only maybe voting for McCain.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Now I'm back to only maybe voting for McCain.

Yes Leo... I encourage you to take a stand and not vote! And while you're at it, convince all your friends not to vote for McCain either!