Interesting Fact from Obama's Speech.

[2centsworth]

Obama mentioned that he will cut taxes for 95% of the population. From what he said, I take it his reasoning was that the top 5% of tax payers aren't paying their fair share. Please answer two questions for me.

1. How do you cut income taxes for 95% of the population when 50% of the population pays virtually ZERO?

2. the top 5% of tax payers pay 60%. What's the right level and why?


http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

[Mr. Peabody]

Obama mentioned that he will cut taxes for 95% of the population. From what he said, I take it his reasoning was that the top 5% of tax payers aren't paying their fair share. Please answer two questions for me.

1. How do you cut income taxes for 95% of the population when 50% of the population pays virtually ZERO?

2. the top 5% of tax payers pay 60%. What's the right level and why?


http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6


http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103967

[Wild Cobra]

Maybe he plans to make the economy so bad that 95% of the people lose their jobs so they don't pay social security?

[2centsworth]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103967

so you have no answer, get it.

[Mr. Peabody]

so you have no answer, get it.

I don't know right now. I'm still laughing my ass off over McCain's selection for VP.:lmao

[2centsworth]

I don't know right now. I'm still laughing my ass off over McCain's selection for VP.:lmao

that's what I thought.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Obama hasn't provided any facts so far, you really didn't think he'd start now, did you?


fify.

[Mr. Peabody]

I guess putting the words "Obama" and "tax" into Google was too difficult.

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Factsheet_Tax_Plan_FINAL.pdf

[Wild Cobra]

I guess putting the words "Obama" and "tax" into Google was too difficult.

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Factsheet_Tax_Plan_FINAL.pdf

Interesting. He wants to reduce revenues to less than 18.2% of GDP. He wants to increase social spending. Which is he lying about?

[Mr. Peabody]

Interesting. He wants to reduce revenues to less than 18.2% of GDP. He wants to increase social spending. Which is he lying about?

I would think that winding down a trillion dollar war might free up some money.

The Obama plan pays for these tax cuts by cutting spending overall. Obama’s spending cuts include responsibly ending the war in Iraq, limiting payments to highincome farmers, cutting subsidies for private plans in Medicare, reforming student loans, cutting earmarks to at least the level they were in 1994, ending no-bid contracting, and phasing out unnecessary and duplicative programs.

[2centsworth]

I guess putting the words "Obama" and "tax" into Google was too difficult.

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Factsheet_Tax_Plan_FINAL.pdf

is there an echo in here? first point of that plan was to cut taxes for 95% of people. Again how do you cut taxes for 95% when 50% pay zero?

second point he made was to provide generous cuts to another segment who again don't pay taxes. How do you cut zero?

[2centsworth]

I would think that winding down a trillion dollar war might free up some money.

won't even make a dent in welfare.

[Wild Cobra]

is there an echo in here? first point of that plan was to cut taxes for 95% of people. Again how do you cut taxes for 95% when 50% pay zero?
Libtards just don't understand real logic like that.

Want to upset a conservative, tell him a lie.

Want to upset a liberal, tell him the truth!


second point he made was to provide generous cuts to another segment who again don't pay taxes. How do you cut zero?
What they don't say is that they increase "Earned Income Credit" and give more child credits too. There's even a $4,000 college credit.

More redistribution of wealth!

[ChumpDumper]

Define "virtually zero."

[Mr. Body]

Libtards just don't understand real logic like that.


Sarah Palin has a child with Downs Syndrome. I doubt she'd be pleased you calling people retards.

[Anti.Hero]

Top 10% already pay for 80%.


That's bullshit. They should be paying 150%.



Let's grow America. Yes We Can.

[Anti.Hero]

Define "virtually zero."

Bottom 50% could quit paying any income tax and no one would notice.



But let's keep catering to them to strengthen America.

[Spurminator]

He said 95% of working families. And pardon my confusion but where in your link does it show that 50% of the population pays zero taxes?

[Spurminator]

Bottom 50% could quit paying any income tax and no one would notice.


I bet they would notice.

[Bartleby]

won't even make a dent in social security and medicare & medicaid.

FIFY

[Anti.Hero]

I bet they would notice.

F'realz. New big screen TV.



It's interesting though. 80% is a high number. How high does it have to get before they say fuck it, start hiding their money, and just retire. Let someone else foot the bill.

I understand getting the poor to hate the rich. That's a good political strategy. What happens when the dude making 70k+ starts to really hate the poor? :bking

[Spurminator]

If you want to reduce it to classist snobbery I'm sure we can find some items the top tax bracket can do without, but that's not really what it's all about, is it?

[Anti.Hero]

If you want to reduce it to classist snobbery I'm sure we can find some items the top tax bracket can do without, but that's not really what it's all about, is it?

Someone feeling entitled to someone else's money is pretty snobbish.

[2centsworth]

He said 95% of working families. And pardon my confusion but where in your link does it show that 50% of the population pays zero taxes?

read the chart, and we're talking about income taxes.

[Spurminator]

I did read the chart. It says the bottom 50% pay 3% of all federal income tax. So what am I missing?

[DarkReign]

read the chart, and we're talking about income taxes.

What does that chart define "income" as? Does it include capital gains? So on and so forth....

[2centsworth]

I did read the chart. It says the bottom 50% pay 3% of all federal income tax. So what am I missing?

virtually 0%. So are you saying whiping out that 3% is all they are entitled to?

[2centsworth]

What does that chart define "income" as? Does it include capital gains? So on and so forth....

definition of income is income. definition of capital gains is capital gains.

[ChumpDumper]

Ah, 3 = 0.

The new math.

Is this a school voucher argument now?

[2centsworth]

Ah, 3 = 0.

The new math.

Is this a school voucher argument now?

one shot with you. Is 3% all they are entitled to? Also, how about those who pay zero?

[Spurminator]

I did read the chart. It says the bottom 50% pay 3% of all federal income tax. So what am I missing?


virtually 0%.


Virtually zero is not zero. You can't cut zero. You can cut 3. And we haven't even discussed the actual percent of personal income these people pay in federal income tax.

So your question ("How do you cut income taxes for 95% of the population when 50% of the population pays virtually ZERO?") sort of answers itself, doesn't it?

[ChumpDumper]

If they actually pay zero, then they will not receive a cut.

I like your attempts at saying 3 = 0 though.

Now you can say John McCain is virtually homeless.

[2centsworth]

Virtually zero is not zero. You can't cut zero. You can cut 3.

stay with me, is cutting to zero the goal? If yes, I'm cool with it, but are they entitled to more?



So your question ("How do you cut income taxes for 95% of the population when 50% of the population pays virtually ZERO?") sort of answers itself, doesn't it?

in what language? how do you cut zero? They reason I ask this is because Obama's tax cuts are not that at all. They are more like welfare checks which is OK, but I have trouble with him trying to hide them as tax cuts when people are receiving more than they put in.

the debate shouldn't be on tax policy, but should be on entitlements. A true leader would take that subject head on.

[ChumpDumper]

stay with me, is cutting to zero the goal? If yes, I'm cool with it, but are they entitled to more?More what? Are you saying people all people who don't pay income tax will be receiving new direct payments from the federal government?

You'll need to provide a link to that, because I think you just made it up.

[2centsworth]

If they actually pay zero, then they will not receive a cut.

then how do those who do not recieve a cut still receive money? Obama is still calling that a tax cut, but we know what it really is.



I like your attempts at saying 3 = 0 though. It's virtually zero comparatively speaking.


Now you can say John McCain is virtually homeless. comparatively speaking you're wrong.

[Spurminator]

stay with me, is cutting to zero the goal? If yes, I'm cool with it, but are they entitled to more?

I'm not aware of the goal being zero. Technically, if the bottom 50% pays 2% of the total federal income tax collected as a result of Obama's plan, that constitutes a cut. But this is a confusing way to position the case because a tax cut has more to do with what people pay as a percentage of their salary, not as a percentage of total taxes collected.


in what language? how do you cut zero?

You can't, that's my point.


They reason I ask this is because Obama's tax cuts are not that at all. They are more like welfare checks which is OK, but I have trouble with him trying to hide them as tax cuts when people are receiving more than they put in.

It depends on what the taxes pay for. That's the real question. What will the new tax plan fund? Is every dollar of the tax increase on the top 5% going into the pockets of the bottom 95%?

[2centsworth]

More what? Are you saying people all people who don't pay income tax will be receiving new direct payments from the federal government?

You'll need to provide a link to that, because I think you just made it up.

Are you saying the bottom 20% of tax payers pay more than 0%? Obama still wants to give them $500 and $1000. Are you saying cutting the bottom 50% to zero will pay for Obama's direct payments of $500 per individual and $1000 per family in that group?

He's calling them tax cuts to deceive.

[2centsworth]

I'm not aware of the goal being zero. Technically, if the bottom 50% pays 2% of the total federal income tax collected as a result of Obama's plan, that constitutes a cut. But this is a confusing way to position the case because a tax cut has more to do with what people pay as a percentage of their salary, not as a percentage of total taxes collected.

lets whipe out that 2%, will that fund Obama's plan of $500 per individual and $1000 per family within that group?

[ChumpDumper]

Are you saying the bottom 20% of tax payers pay more than 0%?Is that virtually 0% or 0%? Once you start cheating on your definitions, you can't have a meaningful discussion about numbers.

[2centsworth]

Is that virtually 0% or 0%? Once you start cheating on your definitions, you can't have a meaningful discussion about numbers.

the question is are people entitled to more than they pay? IF so, why is the excess being called a tax cut? If you can't answer that then I'm done with you.

[ChumpDumper]

the question is are people entitled to more than they pay? IF so, why is the excess being called a tax cut? If you can't answer that then I'm done with you.So you are just making shit up.

I understand and I'm done with you.

[ChumpDumper]

the question is are people entitled to more than they pay?Yes.

Sincerely,

The people of the great state of Alaska.

[2centsworth]

So you are just making shit up.

I understand and I'm done with you.

bye bye.

[2centsworth]

Yes.

Sincerely,

The people of the great state of Alaska.

if we call it tax cuts would it make you feel better.

[ChumpDumper]

if we call it tax cuts would it make you feel better.Hey, if you say they are paying virtually zero, then these payments are virtually zero as well.

They cancel each other out.

virtually zero = virtually zero

See how easy that is?

[Spurminator]

the question is are people entitled to more than they pay? IF so, why is the excess being called a tax cut?

If I understand fed income tax rates correctly, a single person making $0-$7,825 is taxed 10% of their income. So the only individuals who would receive an energy rebate check higher than the income taxes they paid are those who make less than $5,000 per year. Right?

[2centsworth]

Hey, if you say they are paying virtually zero, then these payments are virtually zero as well.

They cancel each other out.

virtually zero = virtually zero

See how easy that is?

Exactly, welfare is a great thing. That's why you're voting Obama I'm sure.

[ChumpDumper]

Exactly, welfare is a great thing. That's why you're voting Obama I'm sure.Hey, you're the one who is making shit up. Don't get mad because you got exposed doing so.

[Spurminator]

Also, from everything I've read those checks you're talking about are being called tax rebates, not cuts. When Obama said he'd cut taxes for 95% of working families, were those checks a part of it?

I guess I'm still confused about the point you're trying to make.

[ChumpDumper]

Also, from everything I've read those checks you're talking about are being called tax rebates, not cuts. When Obama said he'd cut taxes for 95% of working families, were those checks a part of it?

I guess I'm still confused about the point you're trying to make.I know. He's really all over the map saying the people who make virtually nothing are paying virtually nothing in taxes and will receive virtually nothing in a tax rebate.

I applaud your attempt to get specific here.

[2centsworth]

Also, from everything I've read those checks you're talking about are being called tax rebates, not cuts. When Obama said he'd cut taxes for 95% of working families, were those checks a part of it?

I guess I'm still confused about the point you're trying to make.

he's calling them tax cuts per his tax plan that Peabody provided earlier, but I'm not sure if calling them a rebate makes much difference.

[clambake]

why not call them virtual tax rebate horizons.

[ChumpDumper]

If I understand fed income tax rates correctly, a single person making $0-$7,825 is taxed 10% of their income. So the only individuals who would receive an energy rebate check higher than the income taxes they paid are those who make less than $5,000 per year. Right?This is the post that should be built upon.

We need to define just how many people we are talking about here. How many individuals pay less than $500 per year in income tax and how many families pay less than $1000 per year? Then we can start hating them as a class for what they might receive in a proposed tax scheme.

[Mr. Peabody]

Also, from everything I've read those checks you're talking about are being called tax rebates, not cuts. When Obama said he'd cut taxes for 95% of working families, were those checks a part of it?

I guess I'm still confused about the point you're trying to make.

His plan calls it a "refundable tax cut." I don't think that's the same thing as a rebate.


http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Factsheet_Tax_Plan_FINAL.pdf

A $1,000 “Making Work Pay” Tax Credit. For 95 percent of workers and their families—150 million workers overall—the “Making Work Pay” credit will provide a refundable tax cut of $500 for workers or $1,000 for working couples. This credit will benefit over 15 million self employed workers and for 10 million low-income Americans, will completely eliminate their federal income taxes.

[2centsworth]

If I understand fed income tax rates correctly, a single person making $0-$7,825 is taxed 10% of their income. So the only individuals who would receive an energy rebate check higher than the income taxes they paid are those who make less than $5,000 per year. Right?

the first $8500 is tax-free. The next $7825 is subject to 10%. This is for a single individual. Double those amounts for marrieds. A family of 4 would have to earn over $36,000 before they paid income taxes.

If we want to give welfare, I say we slam those payments into social security.

[Mr. Peabody]

This is the post that should be built upon.

We need to define just how many people we are talking about here. How many individuals pay less than $500 per year in income tax and how many families pay less than $1000 per year? Then we can start hating them as a class for what they might receive in a proposed tax scheme.

According to Obama's fact sheet, his plan will eliminate income taxes for 10 million low-income Americans.

[Spurminator]

His plan calls it a "refundable tax cut." I don't think that's the same thing as a rebate.

I was thinking of the Energy Rebate which is $500 for individuals and $1000 for families. But I guess essentially it's the same thing.

[Mr. Peabody]

I was thinking of the Energy Rebate which is $500 for individuals and $1000 for families.

Yeah, I thought it was the same thing as well when I first heard it in the speech.

[ChumpDumper]

According to Obama's fact sheet, his plan will eliminate income taxes for 10 million low-income Americans.The way it is worded, it's unclear whether the recipients would receive anything over what they would pay in taxes in the first place.

If it's the same thing as the energy rebate, then I suppose it would.

[2centsworth]

According to Obama's fact sheet, his plan will eliminate income taxes for 10 million low-income Americans.

Lets ignore the election for just a second. When taking in to account the Earned Income Credit, from my estimation a married couple with two kids needs to earn over $36,000 to begin paying. The additional $1000 would shoot that number up to $46,000. I'm not a CPA, so my numbers are probably off slightly, but I'm sure I'm close.

Take the $1000 payment and call it what it is, an entitlement check. Then lets take that check and invest it in social security.

[Spurminator]

the first $8500 is tax-free. The next $7825 is subject to 10%. This is for a single individual. Double those amounts for marrieds. A family of 4 would have to earn over $36,000 before they paid income taxes.

Is that true? If so, Wikipedia needs to be updated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States

[101A]

Here's a tax calculator (http://www.dinkytown.net/java/Tax1040.html)

Family of 4 making 50K pays about $960 in income taxes.

[2centsworth]

Is that true? If so, Wikipedia needs to be updated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States

sort of. You have to take into account Standard/Itemized deductions, personal exemptions, and the earned income credit. All of those items are subtracted from income before the tables are ever applied.

[Wild Cobra]

Sarah Palin has a child with Downs Syndrome. I doubt she'd be pleased you calling people retards.
I'm only refering to liberals that way.

Really, I've meet people with downs syndrome that have more intelligence and compassion than many of you libtards.

[101A]

BTW:

The cost to to run the Federal Budget is 2.7 Trillion.

There are 301 Million citizens of these here United States:

The family of 4's share: $35,948.

[Wild Cobra]

He said 95% of working families. And pardon my confusion but where in your link does it show that 50% of the population pays zero taxes?
The link in the first posting has the following:
http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/2006federaltaxcatagory.jpg

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/2006federaltaxcatagory2.jpg

Notice, of all the filers for 2005 that 32.6% of the filers do not pay taxes. Most of them in fact get money back that they didn't pay because of both Earned income Cedit and the various tax credits.

I may be wrong about nearly 50% not paying taxes. I saw the IRS data before to support this, but it may have been calculated differently rather than these AGI calculations.

The point is, you cannot give 95% of the tax filers a tax break when only 67.4% pay taxes.

[boo_radley]

won't even make a dent in welfare.Welfare does not cost the US a trillion dollars

[2centsworth]

Welfare does not cost the US a trillion dollars

I should have said entitlements. thanks for the correction.