BitaTruble
Posts: 9779
Joined: 1/12/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Moloch
Why is it that people want to take other peoples money instead of earning money?
Obama proposes a tax cut for working people making less than $200,000 which means they're getting their own money back. That tax cut is across the board for everyone. The first $200,000 that anyone makes is going to benefit. Even the super rich will get a tax cut for every tax bracket up to the $200,000 mark. He proposes an increase on the top two tiers which means more $ will come out of the pocket for any excess of wealth over $250,000. Which, is pretty much the same thing that McCain's package is going to do except that extra money is going to come out of a different pocket.
McCain's package is proposing lower taxes on everyone (giving them back their own money .. same as Obama) and an increase in the dependent tax credit from $3500 to $7000 per dependent. That effectively reduces taxes on what people with dependents have already paid. I don't have dependents to take advantage of that tax credit, so how is that not taking $ from me and giving it to people that have dependents? Where's the difference? They are going to be paying less tax at my expense because the offset has to come from somewhere. The tier isn't going up, but it is, effectively, the same thing.
For the Joe the Plumber types out there, this is what that means. First Obama.
If you make $10,000 you'll pay 10%
If you make $30,000 you'll pay 10% on the first $10,000 then 15% on the next next 20,000.
That's it. That's the plan. That's always been the plan and that's exactly the way we do things right now. Each tax bracket increases only for those who reach that tax bracket. The fact that the top two tiers are going up is moot. It does not change the structure. If that's socialism, (which, by definition it most certainly is NOT) then it's always been socialism.
Now McCain.
Hollyweird Henry has 6 dependents, an income of $500,000 and pays $50,000 in taxes. He is going to get a tax break of $35,000 dollars so will only pay $15,000. He just cost all the tax payers $35,000 because he didn't pay his fair share of income.
Sally Secretary has 6 dependents, an income of $25,000 and pays $5,000 in taxes. She doesn't get to take advantage of a $35,000 tax credit but she will get to offset the $5,000 in taxes. She just cost all the tax payers $5,000 because she didn't pay her fair share of income.
Now take me. I make $500,000 a year (same as Henry) and pay taxes of $50,000 but have no dependents. Henry and I make the exact same thing but I'm paying $50,000 and he's paying $15,000. I was responsible and didn't have a gaggle full of dependents, so I'm being punished for it.
Now, I just lost my job so had to get a new job.
I make $25,000 a year and still have no dependents. I'm paying $5,000 in taxes - same as Sally, but I don't get any offset. I'm still being punished.
What's the difference?
Obama and McCain are both taking from one segment of the population and another segment of the population is going to benefit. They are both redistribution of wealth (something we've been doing ever since we have had different tax tiers) and, by definition, neither one of those is socialism.
_____________________________
"Oh, so it's just like Rock, paper, scissors." He laughed. "You are the wisest woman I know."
|
RE: Wealthy? Hide Your Ass(ets) - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread