Obama, Edwards Craft Tax Hike Plan to Destroy Wealth and Savings

Do you know what the difference between a Republican and a liberal is? Liberals don't want anyone to have wealth (see tax plans below). Republicans want everybody to have wealth. Want to see dramatic cuts to your 401k? Want to see your stock portfolio lose tremendous value? These are the sure results of the socialist, insane tax proposals being put forth by the extreme liberal sect of the Democratic party. As we are all aware, over half of households in the US participate in the stock market. Obama wants to slam half of America with higher taxes. Dramatically higher taxes. Take it from someone who understands finance, investing, and the markets -- Obama's plan is economic and financial suicide. He has merged class warfare with fiscal policy. He has attempted to be the person who tells you how much money is 'your fair share'. What happened to the profit incentive? What happened to rewarding success? Don't let this dangerous idealogue tell you that this plan won't cripple the stock market. Because it will.

www.wsj.com
Democrats Outline Tax Approach
Relief for Middle Earners Would Be
Offset by Increases for Wealthy
By DEBORAH SOLOMON and SARAH LUECK
September 19, 2007; Page A6

Eager to avoid being branded old-style tax-and-spend liberals, the Democratic presidential candidates are starting to roll out detailed proposals to cut taxes for millions of Americans.

But unlike the across-the-board cuts being floated in the Republican field, these are aimed only at lower- and middle-income households, often crafted narrowly as credits for specific expenses, like purchasing health insurance or buying a home.

And, in a Democratic White House, any such tax cuts would be offset by big tax increases on upper-income families, investors and corporations, according to the emerging plans.

"For decades, we've seen a successful strategy to ride antitax sentiment in this country toward tax cuts that favor wealth, not work," Illinois Sen. Barack Obama said as he unveiled his own "middle-class tax relief plan" yesterday. "We shouldn't be distorting our tax code to benefit a few powerful special interests -- we should be insisting that everyone pays their fair share, and when I'm president, they will."

Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards unveiled his tax-cut plan in July. Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton has talked in general terms similar to Mr. Obama in discussing changes she'd make to the tax code, although she hasn't yet released a full tax plan.

While their prescriptions vary in detail and scope, the top three contenders are all looking to use the tax code to correct what they say are imbalances that exacerbate income disparities. Their efforts are aimed at wooing voters who are increasingly concerned about their economic security and worried about not being able to afford health care, gas and retirement.

"People feel like they're one loss of health insurance or job loss away from serious problems and the proposals are clearly playing to that," said William Gale, a Democratic tax specialist at the Brookings Institution.

But the plans are drawing criticism from some who say the candidates are pandering to voters by advocating policies that waste tax dollars instead of using the money to confront serious fiscal problems, such as shoring up Social Security and Medicare, which are forecast to run out of money once baby boomers retire.

"I have no problem with them trying to undo all or most of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy even if it's only for a couple of years, but there are so many huge fiscal problems that we should be very careful about proposing new trivial programs when there's so many real big programs we need to do something about," said Bill McIntyre, director of Citizens for Tax Justice, a left-leaning Washington think tank.

Conservatives are attacking Democrats for using targeted tax cuts to mask what they say are really big tax increases. While Democrats are united in saying they'd let at least some of President Bush's tax cuts expire as currently scheduled, in 2010, Republican White House hopefuls are calling for an extension of the cuts as a starting point. Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, has given the most detailed Republican tax plan so far. He proposes to eliminate taxes on dividends, capital gains and other investment income for families that make under $200,000 a year -- for an estimated net reduction of $32 billion per year.

Mr. Obama, unveiling his tax plan yesterday, said his cut would equal $80 billion to $85 billion per year and would continue the trend, intensified over the past two decades -- of removing millions more Americans from the income-tax rolls.

He said he would eliminate income taxes for seven million senior citizens earning less than $50,000 per year. Another 10 million workers would no longer have to pay income taxes because of a new $1,000-per-family tax credit, which would offset the payroll tax on the first $8,100 of earnings. The tax credit would eliminate income taxes for those individuals whose income tax bill is smaller than the size of the credit and would also provide a tax break to another 140 million Americans, according to the Obama campaign. The credit would phase out for workers making somewhere between $150,000 to $200,000 per year.

Mr. Obama also proposed changing the tax code to make the mortgage-interest deduction apply more broadly by turning it into a credit and allowing taxpayers to benefit even if they don't itemize.

The changes will be financed in part by raising the tax rate on capital gains and dividend income to as much as 28%, a level last seen in 1997. That is a higher amount than the campaign had endorsed. Earlier this year, the Obama campaign said it would raise those rates to 20%.

Earlier this year, Mr. Edwards said he, too, would raise the capital-gains tax rate to 28% from 15% and boost income taxes on those making more than $200,000 to finance tax cuts and other benefits for middle- and lower-income families.

The underlying message of the Democratic candidates' plans -- that wealthier people should pay higher taxes and lower- and middle-income people should pay less -- echoes the theme many Democrats in Congress have adopted.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D., N.Y.) is working on a tax bill that would reduce taxes for about 90 million people, by eliminating the individual alternative-minimum tax, expanding the earned-income and child-tax credits and increasing the standard deduction. Such changes would result in a revenue loss of about $900 billion over 10 years, which Mr. Rangel said he would offset in accordance with budget rules, possibly by raising rates for upper-income tax payers, closing corporate "loopholes" and raising the taxes paid by the managers of private-equity, hedge and venture-capital funds.

A large tax package is unlikely to become law this year, as Democrats on Capitol Hill have found little common ground with the Bush administration. Still, the House Democrats' effort could lay down markers for a longer-term debate about overhauling and simplifying the tax code that would be resolved when a new president takes office.

 

The_Conquistador would be hit with tax increases across the board, as would millions of other Americans. Some Americans would have their huge tax increases offset with small deductions...and of course Obama will claim that their taxes have been cut. Do not be naive enough to accept that answer from him.

 

The Republicans have a tax plan of across-the-board tax reductions. That means they want everyone to have greater wealth. I can't believe I have to explain that. The Republicans want to give everyone the opportunity for freedom from excessive taxation, freedom from oppressive regulation, freedom from government intervention. The liberals want to control your purse strings and take away from you after you have succeeded in life and obtained more than their estimate of your 'fair share'. It's scary actually. They do this, well, because once people do generate wealth, they leave the Democratic party.

 

This is typical unsubstantiated, defeatist, liberal economic claptrap.

How does an economic policy that lowers taxes across the board not benefit everyone? Explain that please. The Bush Administration's track record on fiscal policy and economic policy is damm impressive. To have an economy as strong as this despite inheriting a turd from the previous Administration, despite 9-11, despite the War on Terror, despite corporate fraud and bankruptcies early on, is nothing short of amazing. His policies have worked, whether the defeatist liberals will admit it or not.

 

Are you aware that tax receipts increased as a result of the marginal tax rate cuts that were implemented? Yeah, that kinda destroys your entire argument.

 

Answer to Question 1 http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/09/news/deficit.php

On Tuesday, White House officials are expected to announce that tax receipts will be about $250 billion above the level last year and that the deficit will be about $100 billion less than what they projected six months ago.

The rising tide in tax payments has been building for months, but the increased scale is surprising even seasoned budget analysts and making it easier for both the administration and Congress to finesse the big run-up in spending over the past year.

Tax revenues are climbing twice as fast as the administration predicted in February, so fast that the budget deficit could actually decline this year. The main reason is a surge in corporate tax receipts, which have nearly tripled since 2003, as well as what appears to be a big rise in individual taxes on stock market profits and executive bonuses.

On Friday, the Congressional Budget Office reported that corporate tax receipts for the nine months through June hit $250 billion - nearly 26 percent higher than a year earlier - and that overall revenue was $206 billion higher than at this point in 2005.

Answer to Question 2
Because you haven't taken personal responsibility for your own finances and are unable to stay on top of things. The rest of us got ours.