Rox: The exact site you cited to start this thread has already debunked this thoroughly. You really do just see what you want to see. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/more_tax_deceptions.html
Dear backslapper,...Where O where did I say anything about $32,000 in taxable income...? The resolution Obama voted for would not have increased taxes on any single taxpayer making less than $41,500 per year in total income, or any couple making less than $83,000...
It doesn't matter, because these figures are incorrect as well. You are free to make whatever decision you would like about the candidates. It would help if it was on accurate info though.
Yes it is for the backslappers...I can't believe they are arguing the fact Obama voted for the 2009 tax increase to be instituted on couples making a modest $83,000... Please go look it up and spell it out to them in backslapper language...
Rox I think you are confusing a March 2008 non binding budget resolution to his actual current tax proposal. Per your link it looks like a slight increase for family income greater then $170K
Please FB, talk some sense to the backslapper club...Please for the love of decency, and the climate crisis...Please explain to them that Obama voted for the 2009 tax increase plan to be instituted on couples making a modest $83,000 Please....
But as those of you who have filled out a 1040 know, that's not actually how income taxes work. We don't pay taxes on our total earnings; we pay them based on our "taxable income." The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center's Eric Toder told FactCheck.org that "people with taxable income of $32,000 would have a total income greater than that." In 2008, anyone filing taxes with single status would be entitled to a standard deduction of $5,450, as well as a personal exemption of $3,500. So to have a taxable income high enough to reach the 25 percent bracket, an individual would need to earn at least $41,500 in total income, while a married couple would need a combined income of at least $83,000.
I knew they were coming, but I really didn't expect to see so many McCain supporter meltdowns this early in the campaign. But to be fair to the other McCain supporters, ROXRAN does this about every 3-6 months.
Rox.... the paragraph following the one you quoted So I think 170K is your cut off if $486 potential additional tax affects your vote.
It wasn't a legislative bill on taxes that he voted on, but a non-binding resolution that didn't count. Obama has a tax plan and in that plan none of this non-sense is there. In fact, it would give people a $500 rebate for that income group. You're citing something that isn't even a bill. It's just a lie.
“Official records document, Barack Obama has a history of raising taxes – even on middle class Americans making just $42,000 a year.” But that's false. No taxes were increased, and the vote that the McCain campaign refers to could not by itself have resulted in any increase on anybody.
The problem I see is why vote for a non-binding resolution which would hurt a lot of middle-income single and married person (through increased taxation) ...and then stating...Hey I got my own plan... That is my point about weak decision making...For the purpsoe of cementing his message on where he clearly stands, why vote for the resolution?...What was the purpose?.... In this thread, we already disclosed his lies about taking money from oil companies (that was false)...We also examined that he has voted for a tax resolution which increases taxes for couples earning as little as $83,000...Nevermind...Hold on a sec...Yes he came up with his own tax plan, but given that this plan is in front of him seeking office,...I have a hard time pondering his true intentions...
Because the resolution isn't about taxes, it's about spending and revenue targets. It's like saying someone shouldn't vote on setting a household budget target because it means they support cutting a kids allowance even if that isn't the goal of setting the budget goal in the first place
ROXRAN: It's been pointed out to you in various ways that Obama does not intend to raise taxes on the group you keep mentioning and that, instead, he promises to cut them. But since you're so obsessed with this one vote on a non-binding budget resolution, since you're so obsessed with the past instead of the future... That resolution, the one you keep citing, didn't quite call for a tax increase. Instead it called for letting the Bush tax cuts expire at the time that they were originally intended to expire. It didn't call for them to expire early; it called for them to expire on time. In other words, it simply said they shouldn't be extended. This is neither here nor there, since under Obama's tax plan that group will get a $500 tax cut, but since you are so invested in the past... The very cuts that were to expire under the scenario described in the non-binding vote NEVER WOULD HAVE EXISTED IF MCCAIN HAD HIS WAY. McCain was against the Bush tax cut before he was for it. So, in the past, they have both opposed the Bush tax cuts. Let's look to the future. Under Obama's plan, the group you keep mentioning gets $500 in cuts. Under McCain's they get $0.
O look at the cute backslapper...Aint he so cute...Playing in his own lies... The fact is a vote for a non-binding resolution is still a vote...and such a vote would affect couples earning a modest combined $83,000 negatively... Who is to say Obama doesn't consider the collective idelogy of everyone else who voted in this manner to proceed on... You know how Obama changed his tune to FISA...
