Who misrepresented Obama's tax plan? Anyone? Anyone? Ben Stein
SUMMARY: On Fox & Friends, Ben Stein misrepresented Sen. Barack Obama's tax plan to raise the capital gains tax rate on the wealthiest earners, stating: "[P]eople that have incomes in the five digits ... that's crazy to increase their capital gains tax." In fact, Obama has said he would not raise the capital gains tax on individuals with income of less than $250,000.
During the June 11 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, conservative commentator and actor Ben Stein misrepresented Sen. Barack Obama's tax plan to raise the capital gains tax rate on the wealthiest earners. Stein stated, "I'm very worried about increasing the capital gains tax, unless you want to just increase it on people that are terribly wealthy," whom he defined as "people that have an income of $5 million a year or more." He added, "But people that have incomes in the hundreds and the low hundreds of thousands, people that have incomes in the five digits, that's way -- that's crazy to increase their capital gains tax." But Stein's suggestion that Obama plans to raise the capital gains rate on "people that have incomes in the five digits" is false. In fact, Obama has said he would not raise the capital gains tax on individuals with income of less than $250,000. In a June 9 interview with CNBC's John Harwood, Obama said, "[K]eep in mind on all of these proposals, what I have said is, let's make sure that we define the well-off so that we're not hitting the middle class. I generally define well-off as people who are making $250,000 a year or more, and that means, for example, if we raise the capital gains tax, I would exempt people who are essentially small investors, and really capture the -- those who have done very, very well over the last two decades."
Furthermore, Stein asserted that Obama's tax plan would put Americans' retirement plans at risk: "It means a huge amount in terms of retirement planning, because if you are retiring, you're going to depend a lot on capital gains from your investments to fund your retirement. If that's going to be taxed away, your retirement is in severe jeopardy." However, Stein's statement ignores the fact that distributions from 401(k) and IRA accounts are taxed as regular income, not as capital gains.
Later in the discussion, co-host Gretchen Carlson asserted, "[P]art of the Barack Obama plan, I think, is to increase the tax when you try to sell your home, as well, which could affect, well, everyone, but retirees as well."
In fact, Carlson's suggestion that everyone who sells a home would be affected by raising the capital gains tax is false. The law exempts profits from the sale of a primary residence up to $250,000 for single owners and $500,000 for married owners. Only home-sales profits exceeding those values would be affected by Obama's proposal.
From the June 11 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
STEVE DOOCY (co-host): Now, let me ask you about this. I saw on one of the debates Barack Obama was asked -- I think by Charlie Gibson at ABC: "What are you going to do about capital gains?" Right now it is at 15 percent --
STEIN: Right.
DOOCY: -- which is -- a lot of people say that's about where it should be. Now, he's suggesting he would jack it up to maybe 25 or 30 percent, perhaps doubling it.
STEIN: Yeah.
DOOCY: What does that mean to us?
STEIN: It means a huge amount in terms of retirement planning, because if you are retiring, you're going to depend a lot on capital gains from your investments to fund your retirement.
DOOCY: Mm-hmm.
STEIN: If that's going to be taxed away, your retirement is in severe jeopardy. So I'm very worried about increasing the capital gains tax, unless you want to just increase it on people that are terribly wealthy. I have no problem with increasing the tax on people who have an income of $5 million a year or more.
DOOCY: Neither do we.
STEIN: Like you two, I would say that would be your --
CARLSON: Yeah, right.
STEIN: I'm guessing that's your income. But people who have incomes in the hundreds and the low hundreds of thousands, people that have incomes in the five digits, that's way -- that's crazy to increase their capital gains tax. People are in a retirement crisis.
DOOCY: Yeah.
STEIN: A major retirement crisis. We have something like 30 million baby boomers who have no preparation for retirement at all. We've got to get them investing. We can't tax away their gains, otherwise it's just going to be a catastrophe. I could see the retirement crisis being the biggest crisis in this country since the Great Depression.
DOOCY: Oh, man.
CARLSON: Really? Well, and also part of the Barack Obama plan, I think, is to increase the tax when you try to sell your home, as well --
STEIN: Yes.
CARLSON: -- which could affect, well, everyone, but retirees as well.
STEIN: It's going to affect everybody. I don't think he's thought this through. I think he's a good man, but he hasn't thought this through. And I think he's getting advice from people who are more interested in envy and in soaking the rich than in helping the middle class.
From the June 10 edition of CNBC's Your Money, Your Vote:
OBAMA: So the general principle of raising taxes on higher-income Americans like myself, and providing relief to those who haven't benefited as much from this new global economy, I think, is a sound one. And keep in mind on all of these proposals, what I have said is, let's make sure that we define the well-off so that we're not hitting the middle class. I generally define well-off as people who are making $250,000 a year or more, and that means, for example, if we raise the capital gains tax, I would exempt people who are essentially small investors, and really capture the -- those who have done very, very well over the last two decades.
Bueller? Bueller?
All you need to know about Ben Stein in two simple words.
You've probably heard him selling the ID movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed".
I've heard he's on the short list for this year's Nobel Prize for his work refuting Darwinism. But word is he's going down. The odds makers in Vegas have their money on Bill O'Reilly for his work in ending racial strife in the US.
- WORRIERKING / Thursday June 12, 2008 6:46:10 PM EDT
Yeah, a big part of his thesis is that Darwin (and scientists generically speaking) are disproportionately responsible for the Holocaust.
I've heard he's on the short list for this year's Nobel Prize for his work refuting Darwinism.
Is Mark Rotten Levin submitting bogus Nobel Prize nominations again? Like he did last year with Jeff Christie?
I'd like to nominate Levin for a frontal lobotomy - then he'd only have to worry about which side of his mouth he's gonna drool out of each day......
No need for a lobotomy... he'll end up having a stroke on the air.
He was really losing it last night... just going absolutely nuts over the Supreme Court decision. I thought 'Yep, he's almost there! Just a couple more decisions like that and BAM!'
They know their days are numbered. When Obama takes the oath they will all collectively self-destruct.
Or these three:
Richard Nixon speechwriter
He also said that people making $250,000 are not rich in cities like NYC or LA, but they are even there. The cost of living is undeniably higher there, but they'd still be rich.
Stein tried to say that he's all for really soaking people who are really rich in his estimation. He suggested $5 million I believe, and Paul Krugman patiently explained several times that we cannot raise enough extra revenue simply soaking those people, and that we need to raise the taxes on those who can best afford it, and that would include people who make over $250,000 a year.
Sue,
When will you and your liberal icons, like nutty Paul Krugman, realize that we don't base tax policy on how much people need. Rich people have enough money so they won't miss higher taxes, it's not only idiotic policy but incredibly naive.
Sue,
When will you and your liberal icons, like nutty Paul Krugman, realize that we don't base tax policy on how much people need. Rich people have enough money so they won't miss higher taxes, it's not only idiotic policy but incredibly naive.
When will nuts like you realize that I'm not Sue?
We have to raise taxes sometime. Either it's on our shoulders to pay our way, or it will be an even greater burden on our children's shoulders years from now. In any event, taxes have to be assessed, and it has been the policy of the USA, and will continue to be the policy of the USA, that we tax the most to the people who can afford it the most.
Because we know that some people live paycheck to paycheck, most states don't tax food products. Because we know that lower income people barely get by, we tax them at a lower rate, and sometimes even give them tax rebates. Because we know that people with disposable income spend that income, when it came time to hand out stimulus checks, people making over $100,000 or so didn't get those checks. Those people were already spending. The US Govt wanted to get those people with lower incomes spending because we knew they need all their regular incomes just to survive.
If we have to raise taxes, the fairest thing to do is to tax those who have the most the greatest percentages of their incomes. If everyone had enough plus some extra, then we could tax everyone equally. That's not reality, and likely never will be, so we will always tax those who can afford it better a larger share.
Rich people, making in the upper hundred thousands or above, do have plenty of money and although they undeniably might miss the extra taxes, they'll still have plenty and it's fairer to soak them then it is to hit everyone. That's Christianity in a nutshell. That's community. That's communion. Tommy's philosophy is to each according to the size of his wallet, to themselves according to their own desires, not just their needs.
And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45) ... Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. (Acts 4:34-35)I predict that the benefits of investing in green energy, education and mass transit will more than offset the conservative scare tactics of, aaaaaaghghhgghhh higher taxes.
Why didn't you ask how the government will insure that you'll never get sick? It's because you already know the answer, don't you?
Now, how is the Government going to insure that I never lose my job?---OTG
Insure is a strong word, but one thing the government can do is ease up on the reckless deficit spending of the spendthrift Republicans to help prevent a calamity in the economy---resulting in the loss of potentially many millions of jobs.
I was actually thinking of unemployment insurance when OTG was taking the time to post his disingenuous question. But regulation works too.
Still, that doesn't explain your disingenuous question about how the government will insure that you never lose your job. Face it you being a jerk for jerk's sake. It's cool, I ain't mad about it. Just be honest.
"I will predict that should your prediction come true that most Ameericans will be alright with that when they don't have to worry about getting sick or losing their job." Your words from above.
If I misinterpreted what you said vs what you meant in using the word "insure", then I apologize. I interpreted your words to mean we would have health insurance and a guaranteed job.
Surely, you must understand that all this fixed economy, socialist stuff that the hardline righties toss out there is deflection, distraction. So when you talk about guaranteed jobs you gotta realize it rings of that lazy minded, avoidance of economic discussion known as the socialist accusation.
Please forgive my vehemence. In my mind I equated health insurance and unemployment insurance, if that wasn't clear, it was probably my fault in this case.
Saying “outside of the war” is like asking Mrs. Lincoln how she enjoyed the show outside of her husband’s assassination.
But to answer your question, I’d slash military spending generally---close bases all over the world where we are playing policeman for countries doing a lot better than us financially right now in order to be able to beat our chests that “we’re number one” and provide a lot of profits and graft to the ghoulish military industrial complex.
Why would it be foolish to cut the military budget?
I'm guessing you're in favor of slashing domestic spending. If so, could you explain why it is not foolish to do so?
So Oscar thinks it's much more important to prop up the military spending so they can work for the citizens of other nations and cut domestic funding that helps AMERICAN citizens? Got it.
But wait! Propping up that military spending so that our forces stay in Eye-rack ALSO helps out all those contractors over there whose companies and their CEOs stay filthy rich too! So THOSE are the AMERICAN citizens that are supposed to be helped by all that military spending. Not even the troops themselves can gain access to all that wealth, considering that they are paid diddly squat and the facilities, such as Walter Reed, that are waiting for them when they return are in deplorable conditions.
So much for supporting the troops, huh?
Greetings from Torrey Pines....wish you where here.
I have no doubt that a BO administration will raise taxes, but nobody seems to care that his plans are to raise the marginal tax rate to anywhere from 50 to 62 percent. That's completely outrageous.
Uh, Dave, let's stick to what Obama has actually SAID instead of your ill-informed 'opinion'...
Here is an except of an interview Obama had on CNBC this past March:
"BARTIROMO: So what about the top marginal rate for ordinary income? Who ought to pay more and who should pay less?
Sen. OBAMA: Well, you know, what I've said is that we should go back to probably a top marginal rate of 39 percent what it was before the Bush tax cuts. So I would roll back those Bush tax cuts, I would not increase taxes for middle class Americans and in fact I want to provide a tax cut for people who are making $75,000 a year or less. For those folks, I want an offset on the payroll tax that would be worth as much as $1,000 for a family. Senior citizens who are bringing in less than $50,000 a year in income, I don't want them to have to pay income tax on their Social Security. And as part of my overall approach to housing, I actually want to provide an additional 10 percent mortgage deduction, a credit, mortgage interest credit, for those who currently don't itemize. Because if you live in a house that's pretty expensive, like I do, and I itemize, I get a pretty big break from Uncle Sam. If you own a $100,000 house and you're making 65, $75,000 a year, you're not getting that same deduction. I think that they deserve a break as well. That will actually help relieve some of the pressure on homeowners."
Show me where you see 50% to 62% in that piece.
It doesn't matter who it was for his point to be valid.
The Republican President in office in the early 1980's listened to the bi-partisan Greenspan SS Commission and signed into law the taxation of some Social Security benefits to those making significant incomes while collecting those benefits. That money collected helped reduce the anticipated shortfall in benefits for future retirees.
To conservatives like Stein, when higher taxes force you to sell your never-used spare yacht, that's exactly as tragic as not being able to feed your children.
Gotta love Ben Stein and Voodoo Economics. With McCain we would get Satan economics.
In 1930, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, in an effort to alleviate the effects of the… Anyone? Anyone?… the Great Depression, passed the… Anyone? Anyone? The tariff bill? The Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act? Which, anyone? Raised or lowered?… raised tariffs, in an effort to collect more revenue for the federal government. Did it work? Anyone? Anyone know the effects? It did not work, and the United States sank deeper into the Great Depression. Today we have a similar debate over this. Anyone know what this is? Class? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone seen this before? The Laffer Curve. Anyone know what this says? It says that at this point on the revenue curve, you will get exactly the same amount of revenue as at this point. This is very controversial. Does anyone know what Vice President Bush called this in 1980? Anyone? Something-d-o-o economics. “Voodoo” economics.
The highly respected Tax Policy Center's understanding of each candidates tax proposals as taken from their websites and public statements:
http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/election_issues_matrix.cfmActually on this show he said that he was fine with people making in the range of $5 million a year getting soaked.
So, incredibly rich beyond any value you add to the economy? Okay.
Well off enough ($250,000 or more) that you could share your bounty with others? Nope.
So when the republican work this issue it's so no where with the voters because it doesn't affect them.
Y ahora, en Inglés......
Sorry, no results were found.