I see. So Democrats have only raised taxes on people making 2.9 million and up after saying they were going to raise taxes for 'the rich'?
That's the Obama tax plan: bigger tax cuts for the low and middle class than McCain and allowing the tax cuts for those making more than $2.9 million a year to expire.
And you believe him. Hmmmm. Ryan, have you ever considered investing in real estate? I've got some in Florida up for sale.
I find this amusing, because it's a form of satire much like internet trolling, only done on the floor of the House of Representatives. Yet I also find it tragic, for the same reason.
I think the question is, do you believe the tax plan he is proposing before he is elected will be the same plan he will implement after he is elected? If you do, then you're pretty damned gullible.
That depends on how the congressional elections shake out and how much Republicans are willing to do to stop it.
The really amazing thing about that clip is how this basically sound satirical strategy -- first used, I believe, by Voltaire -- fails to produce even one truly funny line in the hands of an utterly incompetent comedian.
Nah. Jokes are funnier when they're true. And don't get me started on the misuse of "tragic"... (Weren't you supposed to be a literary type?)
Yes, it's always the Republicans who are evil. Go back to your little ideological cocoon there in Lincoln.
If I want to spend an evening watching an entertaining farce, I'll go to a Voltaire play. If I want political or economic advice, I won't be going to an 18th century French playwright for it.
The punchline was pretty good. The presentation needs some work and the lead-up to the punch was a bit monotonous.
I couldn't make it to the punch line. It probably wouldn't be a good idea for him to quit his day job.
Okay, I dug up the numbers from the report. Everyone earning less than $227,000 a year will see a tax return. Those earning between $227,000 and $603,000 will have their taxes go up around $12 (twelve dollars). I was wrong earlier though. The tax increases really kick in at $603,000 with the significant increase going to those making over $2.9 million a year. So pulling the data from CNN on the tax plan and Wikipedia on household income: 84% of American households will receive a larger rebate from Obama's plan than McCain's The next 13% receive a rebate from Obama's plan but it's less than McCain's The last 3% will see a tax increase under Obama's plan and a return under McCain's So to qualify as "rich" you have to make over $603,000 a year, something 98.5% of American households don't do.
I guess he forgot about when Slick got into office and found out that he couldn't actually give those tax cuts because the deficit was worse than he thought.
If you think that any of the people running for president are going to keep their word on anything they say after they get elected, you're pretty gullible yourself. The thing I don't get is that people freak out about these statements like "100 years in Iraq" (yes, I do know the context) and "universal healthcare," but they don't realize that some things just aren't going to happen because of the way the legislature works. So in the end it's all just idealistic talking points that have no bearing on reality, either for or against your favorite candidate. It boggles me sometimes how I shift back and forth from idealism to realism between threads
You haven't paid attention to Obama's various and numerous claims. I've heard him claim those making as low as a couple of hundred thousand per year. Let's take it a step further, who exactly create the businesses in this country that provide jobs to people? Why do you support biting that hands that feed people so to speak?
Yeah, I broke down the claims in the thread here. And as I already stated, I didn't get the info from the Obama camp. It was carried by the media. People feed themselves Kirk. We don't earn paychecks because of corporate benevolence. It's a two way street: companies need employees to get work done and stay in business and their employees need money to put food in their stomach and a roof over their head. But most importantly of all, if people aren't earning money they aren't spending money.
We earn corporate welfare when corporations feel they have the profit margain to justify hiring additional people. The whole stick it to the evil rich crap completely ignores who is creating the jobs. Not to mention all taxes placed on corporations and businesses are passed onto the consumers who purchase whatever goods and services they provide. But, companies hire less people when their tax liability negatively impacts their bottom lines. That is in fact part of the reason why tax law shows favoritism to corporations and business owners.
An interesting analysis. I'm just going to play Devil's Advocate and try to kick some holes in it. We'll take your numbers at face value. We'll even assume that, if elected, Obama actually delivers on his plan. Finally, we'll assume that the numbers actually work with the sort of budget Obama would be talking about. All pretty big assumptions, but what the Hell, we'll use 'em. That said, your numbers are missing something: People that make over $603,000 a year almost certainly hire someone to do their taxes. A really, really good accountant--maybe even a tax lawyer. So I wouldn't count on that tax revenue to make my budget work. Furthermore, the ways these people will have to protect their income, I suspect, will take that money out of the economy, where it creates jobs and builds wealth, and tie it up somewhere instead. Your bottom 84%--me and probably you--we're the ones who just fire up TaxAct or some other software to do our taxes--or have H&R Block do them. So we make out OK. We get a nice fat refund without any real effort (unless of course our Dad or our Aunt died. Or we sell our house. Then we get whacked for a big fat check). Maybe you see the money from the middle 13%. $12 probably isn't enough to get more creative with your deductions and investments, or to hire a more expensive accountant. But I don't see that middle 13%'s pizza money or trip to the Saturday matinée; their new DVD from Wal*Mart really having much impact on the budget. Symbolically, though, it is a nice case of the middle getting squeezed by the party that is allegedly the friend of the middle class. I'd say Obama's numbers break down in the end. Even if he's crunched them and made them work, human nature and intangibles queer the math. The Rich are able to hide their money, making the cuts for the poor a drain on tax revenue. They also slow the economy. And any refunds to the bottom end really don't do anything to stimulate the economy. At best maybe they go into mitigating the housing meltdown and credit crunch a bit. Maybe they just go into the gas tank, since the Dems refuse to take any efforts to reduce gas prices. But that money sure doesn't go towards developing energy alternatives--any money that would've went to that is now tied up because of the tax increases on the high end.
Just to briefly riff on what Kirk is saying: Entrepreneurship is about risk. I know this because I'm considering a business venture that could pay off modestly. But odds are it would just make a huge dent in my retirement savings. If I go for it and it succeeds, I make myself a lot of money, provide a valuable good to my customers, and create jobs in manufacturing, advertising, distribution, and sales. So if you penalize me for being successful, where's my incentive to start a business? If the choice is maybe wiping out all my savings and being broke at 40 or getting rich, there's an incentive to make the gamble. If the choice is being broke at 40 or...making slightly more than I would if I just took a job working for someone else--well, there's really not a lot of incentive there for me to risk everything. So a huge opportunity is lost and a potential to do a lot of good. Yeah, I'm exaggerating a bit to make my point, but the example is valid. Venture and growth take risk. If you reduce the reward for the risk, you reduce the incentive to take it. Reduce the incentive too much and you destroy growth. And that is not a good thing for the American economy.
Corporations don't hire people just because they have additional money. That would eat up their profits. They hire people because they have additional need. Demand creates jobs. No demand, no job. In my experience prices are largely dictated by two things: competition and margin. The price will be what the market (and all the complexities) can bear.
