Should I have not assumed he knew you have to pay taxes in the first place to get a tax cut?Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Printable View
Should I have not assumed he knew you have to pay taxes in the first place to get a tax cut?Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Actually, I got it all along. I was making a point. Omaba actually want to give 95% of the people money back. The term "Tax Break" is wrong. He want to increase "Tax Credits" which are already giving people credit for paying taxes that didn't, then they get some of yours and my money. Redistribution of wealth! This goes beyond Earned Income Credit, which I think is also wrong. Obama want to increase these "Tax Credits" giving non tax payers even more money from the coffers.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
HE'S TRYING TO BUY YOUR VOTE PEOPLE. Are you going to prostitute yourselves?
That's why the democrats are against the Bush Tax cut. It only benifits tax payers. Tax credits benifit those who dodn't pay taxes too!Quote:
Originally Posted by Shastafarian
Please post your evidence that people who currently don't pay taxes will receive a check for thge balance of the tax credit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
If he's trying to buy votes, his campaign hasn't made this point clear at all. In fact, I would go so far to say they have never once mentioned it.
By this statement, I assume you never filled out your own tax returns. Tax credits are added to paid taxes, then you get back anything over what the tax table says your liability is.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Look at your 2007 1040a or 1040.
I pay taxes and I can't vote. Can I keep the money?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Again, if this is indeed the case, the Obama campaign hasn't advertised this nearly as much as you think. I'd like to see those quotes from the Obama campaign explaining that to the people you claim don't pay taxes and therefore likely do not use 1040a or 1040 forms.
Sure he hasn't advertised the details, but if you do a little research, you'll find that's exactly what he wants. It's the only way he can give money to more people, in effect, to buy their vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
I think the people who get money from credits know it, and those who actually pay taxes only see it as a tax break, because that is all it does for them. I think if he talked much about it, and the middle class realized people who didn't pay taxes are getting other tax payers money, they would be rather boisterous about it. Right now, we only have education and child credits that most people can use. He also wants to include credits that automatically give single people a credit. I don't recall the number for sure, I think it was $600 for an individual and $1200 for a family, or Head of household.
Did you look over you 2007 tax return yet?
Find the section and math that includes the credits we now have?
So he's not really trying to buy any votes then.Quote:
Sure he hasn't advertised the details
Thanks.
I thought McCain wants to give tax credits too? He certainly mentioned that in the Debates. Is he trying to buy votes too?
You miss my point. It's understood that under Obama, poor people will get money from the govornment that they won't get under McCain. That is, in effect, buying votes, using our money.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
But rich people will get money from McCain that they won't get under Obama. Is that buying votes too?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
You can't sell your vote if you don't know anything is being offered for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Yes and no. I'm not sure but I think he used the wrong term. He want to increase the exemption for children, I think he said by $3500. The 2007 number for exemptions is $3400, I think $3500 is the 2008 number. You effectively then get two exemptions per child. This is taken off your adjusted gross income, then what you own in taxes is calculated. This method does not give money to people who don't pay taxes. It just reduces taxes on those who pay it. If you pay the 28% marginal rate, you save $980 per child in taxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
I could be wrong, and if he really meant "Tax Credit" then he can go fuck himself.
I guess it's all perspective. It's one thing to reduce taxes, redistribution of wealth is another.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
McCain health plan includes $2,500 tax creditQuote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
LINK
So when the money goes to the poor people, it's redistribution of wealth. But when the money goes to the rich people, is a fair tax reduction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I know you're better than that. I also know you don't like Obama or his policies. But you can't say McCain is not doing basically the same thing.
So if one is buying votes, the other one is just as guilty.
^^It was the rich peoples money in the first place.
It was the poor's people money in the first place too. What Obama is offering is no different than McCain.Quote:
Originally Posted by KenMcCoy
I am simply against redistribution of wealth. People shouldn't get paid from the government coffers just because they don't make as much as someone else. In reality, I think the tax rates are good where they are. I think McCain trying to have his own 'tax reduction theme' is wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
I see it a distinct difference between reducing effective tax rates, and giving money to non tax payers.
Am I wrong there?
I use the term buy because people get money they didn't pay.
Consider this difference:
If you go to a store, and take something without paying for it, that's stealing.
If you go to a store, and pay less for it because it's on sale, did you take from someone else?
People who get back more on their return than they pay in are taking from all of us!
But people need to pay taxes to begin with in order to get tax money returned to them. So, your 'stealing' example doesn't hold water.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
The correct analogy here would be this:
- If you go to a store, and pay less for it because it's on sale, did you take from someone else?
- If you go to a store, and pay full price but you get a rebate on the mail that returns a portion of what you paid, did you take from someone else?
I fail to see what's different here, other than somebody held some of your money temporarily until you got it back.
If file single and you make less than $8,000 a year and claim your personal exemption your tax liability is $0.00.
If you file married and make less than 17,000 a year and claim yourself and your spouses exemption your tax liability is $0.00.
Adjusted gross income (AGI)$17,000
deduction$10,900Deduction to use$10,900
Deduction for exemptions$7,000
Taxable income$0
Tax*$0
http://www.dinkytown.net/java/Tax1040.html
So yes, there are people that pay no income taxes.
I'm sorry, you are wrong here. All you need to do is file a return. If under the 2007 return, you make $24,300 adjusted gross income, deduct $10,700 as a couple, then $3400 per exemption for a family of four, your taxable income comes in at $0.00. Any tax credits are now money that you get from the government coffers, taken from people who do pay taxes. Any increase to the exemption does not give you more money because your taxable income cannot be less than $0. However, any increases in tax credits give people who pay no taxes, more of the tax payers money. If the current amount is $1,000 per child, this family gets a check for $2,000 without paying anything in. Then they also get Earned Income Credit. Add Obama's $1,200 for $3,200 and Earned income Credit. Therefore, a family of four making any amount less than $$24,300 gets money back by just filing a return, even though they have no tax liability.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Consider $40,000 minus $10,700 = 29,300. Now subtract $3,400 x 4, taxable is now $15,700. You pay $1,876 for that amount under the 2007 tax table. Now I don't file with child credits, I forget. Is it now $1,000 each? If so, $1876 - $2,000 = a tax return of $124 more than what was taken from your paycheck in federal taxes. Under McCai'ns increasing the exemptions for children, the taxable income would reduce to $8,900 (I used $3,400 rather than $3,500 for 2007) for a tax liability of $948. Retaining the current child credit would mean this family gets $1052 more back than what was taken from wage whitholding. Obama's change for $40,000 family of four would still show the liability at $1876, but $2,000 plus the additional $1200 is $1876 - $3,200 or $1,324 return over what was paid in.
I'm not in favor of either plan myself, but I am dead set against tax credits. I think they should be removed from the system. Both parties play to the entitlement mentality of the tax payer, and that is dangerous for democracy.
Okay, I was wrong about the special case where people make too little.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
But again, I'm not wrong at all about both guys doing the same thing. I do know you don't agree with tax credits. But they're both doing it, and so if you're going to wave the flag of 'buying votes', you can't hold it against just one candidate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Yet, his intentions are to let the Bush tax cuts expire ... which would make the taxes of 100% of the people that actually pay taxes go up. So he wouldn't be lying, it's not going to be HIM raising taxes because those weren't his in the first place. Pretty sneaky, huh? I believe that particular catch-phrase is "No NEW taxes!!" :spin