Obama’s tax plan
By Randy Koutnik, P.O. Box 236, Clancy - 10/22/08
Current rating: 4 with 32 ratings.
Click here to register
Reader Comments:
capital_city wrote on Nov 3, 2008 10:24 AM:
1) Fact: Just today, at his rally, Obama announced he is going back to the 1990's tax plan for anyone making over $125k, which means taxes will go up for those people. In the next sentence he said no one under $250k will see a tax increase. How does that work?
2) Fact: 40% of people do not pay income taxes. How do you cut income taxes for a group who does not pay income taxes?
3) Fact: 40% of workers do not pay income taxes. How do you give 95% of workers a tax cut, when only 60% of workers pay income taxes? "
gun961960 wrote on Oct 23, 2008 9:55 AM:
Cut taxes for 95 percent of workers and their families with a tax cut of $500 for workers or $1,000 for working couples.
Provide generous tax cuts for low- and middle-income seniors, homeowners, the uninsured, and families sending a child to college or looking to save and accumulate wealth.
Eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses, cut corporate taxes for firms that invest and create jobs in the United States, and provide tax credits to reduce the cost of healthcare and to reward investments in innovation.
Dramatically simplify taxes by consolidating existing tax credits, eliminating the need for millions of senior citizens to file tax forms, and enabling as many as 40 million middle-class Americans to do their own taxes in less than five minutes without an accountant.
Under the Obama Plan:
Middle class families will see their taxes cut and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase. The typical middle class family will receive well over $1,000 in tax relief under the Obama plan, and will pay tax rates that are 20% lower than they faced under President Reagan. According to the Tax Policy Center, the Obama plan provides three times as much tax relief for middle class families as the McCain plan.
Families making more than $250,000 will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990s. Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility. But no family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s. In fact, dividend rates would be 39 percent lower than what President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut.
Obamas plan will cut taxes overall, reducing revenues to below the levels that prevailed under Ronald Reagan (less than 18.2 percent of GDP). The Obama tax plan is a net tax cut his tax relief for middle class families is larger than the revenue raised by his tax changes for families over $250,000. Coupled with his commitment to cut unnecessary spending, Obama will pay for this tax relief while bringing down the budget deficit.
Please notice in the first SENTENCE it states fairly clearly that he plans to give a tax cut to 95% of WORKERS!! DING...there it is!! "
MTRICH wrote on Oct 22, 2008 10:14 PM:
you really should look into what bushs tax breaks did for you. I know...you have bought into the BS that the Rich got a bigger tax break than those poorer. Sorry but they still pay more taxes than you do by far, both by percentage and really more by actual dollars paid. If I give a tax break of 1% to two people and one makes 100,000 per year and on makes 50,0000 per year. Did the richer one get a bigger tax break? The way the Repubs see it--1% is 1% so they got the SAME tax break. Democrat mathematical theory says I gave a BIGGER TAX BREAK TO THE RICH. They would (and do) say that the richer one got twice the tax break. Of course that does not even take into account that we are subtracting that 1% from the 35% tax rate (in my little story) for the rich and from the 16% or so you most likely pay. So, do we call paying 34% tax a big break in a SPECIAL kind of math known a Democrat Math??? I often complain that peoples sense of right and wrong requires a political party affiliation but now I find that math has a political party too. "
Ding wrote on Oct 22, 2008 9:41 PM:
Socialism was already tried and it failed - now Obama wants to resurrect it from its grave. While the socialist countries of Europe are reducing taxes, Obama wants to buck the trend. Go figure. "
peacockridge wrote on Oct 22, 2008 5:37 PM:
1.Taxes are figured on net, not gross income.
2.We currently have a regressive tax structure in this country. The wealthy pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes. The working class pays a higher percentage of their income in taxes. Obama's plan would address this, but I doubt if it would reverse it.
3.Trickle down econimics has, for 30 years, not worked. The average wage of the working class over that period has gone down (adjusted for infalation) and the average income of the wealthy has gone through the roof. Every time productivity goes up the CEO's get their raise (and then some) and then give the workers a virtual pay cut. Then they go to the Republicans in Congress to get a tax cut.
4.If Joe the Plumber wants to pay a smaller percentage of his income in taxes then grow grow grow. Become a millionaire or multi millionaire.
5.Most of the Federal Budget goes to pay for the military and for retirees in Social Securtiy and Medicare. "
Adam Laceky wrote on Oct 22, 2008 11:32 AM:
http://www.barackobama.com/taxes/ "
daemon wrote on Oct 22, 2008 11:22 AM:
gln wrote on Oct 22, 2008 11:21 AM:
http://www.theliberaloc.com/2008/08/27/obama-tax-plan-vs-mccains-tax-plan-which-one-is-better-for-you/
http://obama.3cdn.net/b7be3b7cd08e587dca_v852mv8ja.pdf
but giving the >~$500k big breaks has not worked, but for the past YEARS!, getting maybe a 4% raise (if lucky) has been the norm so, really it hasn't worked. about time to get the money working in another direction- I'm for change. "
ccsaintdawg wrote on Oct 22, 2008 10:18 AM:
Well, since 1913 the U.S. has had a "progressive" tax, i.e., the top 5% of the wealthy pay more tax. This isn't anything new.
Read and know your history before making comments bashing Obama's tax plan. "
ematt wrote on Oct 22, 2008 8:46 AM:
Not sure if you are going to find much sympathy because of the "devastation" that you would have to pay an extra 3% on your earnings over 250K... "
saber69 wrote on Oct 22, 2008 8:34 AM:
skooter wrote on Oct 22, 2008 8:33 AM:
Unfortunately, 8 years of Bush mismanagement has left us with unbalanced budgets, astronomically more debt & a 10 BILLION A MONTH WAR for 5 yrs. Someone has got to pay to knock that debt down. So its either more taxes on the middle class or more on the class that can at least afford to pay a little more.
I read today that for each MILLION a tax filer claims, they will pay 45K. That's a decent amount don't get me wrong - about the cost of a new BMW. But when you have a Million in income that's probably a fairly small percentage. And, if you are making that much, during the past 8 years you had a pretty sweet run and probably made a lot of money while the rest of us were probably less fortunate. "
capital_city wrote on Oct 22, 2008 8:09 AM:
This tax plan should cover the new welfare plan being proposed and stimulate the 40% of workers who do not pay income taxes. "
gun961960 wrote on Oct 22, 2008 7:46 AM:
BigP wrote on Oct 22, 2008 7:43 AM:
patriot wrote on Oct 22, 2008 6:03 AM:
Your point is well stated and one of reason for those who have worked hard to realize the American dream. Why should citizens who are successful carry the burden and pay nearly 40% of their income for redistribution to those who are not paying their share. Bring on the "fair tax" plan or "flat tax". "





purple wrote on Nov 3, 2008 6:42 PM:
Anyone catch how obama plans to bankrupt those entities which want to build coal-fired energy plants. Does that not constitute a threat to Montana's economic future? If coal-fired plants are forced to pay higher fees [fines, etc.] for emmissions, then the production of coal will decline.
Remember Montana's "rainy day" fund? The state has hundreds of millions invested in a COAL TRUST FUND. How much will that trust fund be worth if coal goes the way of the dinosaur? Pennies on the dollar perhaps? "