Hannity falsely claimed Obama tax plan would raise taxes on "families of four that make $50,000 a year"
SUMMARY: On his radio program, Sean Hannity falsely claimed that Sen. Barack Obama's proposal "for rescinding the Bush tax cuts" would result in "families of four that make $50,000 a year ... paying another $2,000 in taxes a year." In fact, Obama has proposed cutting taxes for middle-class families and rolling back President Bush's tax cuts only on people who are making $250,000 a year or more.
On the July 9 broadcast of his radio program, Sean Hannity falsely claimed that Sen. Barack Obama's proposal "for rescinding the Bush tax cuts" would result in "families of four that make $50,000 a year ... paying another $2,000 in taxes a year." In fact, Obama has proposed rolling back President Bush's tax cuts only on "people who are making 250,000 dollars a year or more," and cutting taxes for families at the middle-class income level Hannity described.
Hannity asked a caller, who claimed to be an Obama supporter: "Do you support his [Obama's] economic plan of raising taxes?" When the caller stated that for "people like myself and in the middle class, our taxes won't be raised," Hannity responded: "[S]ir, for -- no, that's not factual, because the Bush tax cuts are going to expire, and when they expire, families of four that make $50,000 a year are going to be paying another $2,000 in taxes a year. So by letting those tax cuts expire, that's a tax increase by any definition." After the caller responded, "that's a misnomer. You're not representing his position properly," Hannity replied: "I'm not going to argue with you. It is a fact. He is for rescinding the Bush tax cuts and letting them expire." When the caller again tried to respond, Hannity abruptly ended the call.
However, as Media Matters for America has noted, an analysis of the candidates' tax plans by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center (TPC) found that "Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers" than Sen. John McCain. According to Obama's Tax Fairness Plan, he "will provide $80-85 billion in tax relief to America's workers, seniors, and homeowners." Obama's proposed tax cuts include "a new 'Making Work Pay' tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family," a "universal mortgage credit" which "will provide the average recipient with approximately $500 per year in tax savings," and the "eliminat[ion]" of "all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year."
According to the TPC analysis, under Obama's tax proposals, tax filers in the middle quintile -- those earning between $37,595-$66,354 annually -- would receive an average tax cut of $1,042 in 2009 and an average tax cut of $2,136 in 2012. TPC further noted that those figures represent "an average cut equal to 2.4 percent of income" in 2009 and "an average tax cut equal to 4.6 percent of income" in 2012. From the Tax Policy Center analysis:
From the July 9 edition of ABC Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show:
CALLER 2: I'm absolutely for cracking down on drug dealers, but I also don't think a lot of people understand what else he's going to do. He's going to raise your taxes across the board, he's going to raise taxes -- that's his economic plan, that's the only thing I have heard from Barack Obama -- economic plan. He's going to pull out of Iraq immediately or he's flip-flopped on that here this past week, but when it's starting to work. It's starting to be more stable in Iraq to the point where we can even sit down with the Iraqi government and look at a timetable to bring the troops back home and Iraq can take over their own support and have their own government and own democracy, which was the original goal.
I want to know what Barack Obama's going to do about Afghanistan. The Taliban is becoming more resurgent again, and what's he going to do about that? What's his plan for that? Is he going to pull out -- out of Afghanistan too? He has said "no," but we don't have a clear plan of, well -- how are you going to handle Iran -- "Well, I'm going to sit and talk to them." Talk to them about what? The fact that they want nuclear weapons? I mean, what is he going to talk to them about? What is he going to say to Iran to keep them from cutting off the gas line? What is he gonna do about gas prices right now? He's -- his plan, the only thing I can see is to, in the future, get off oil, get off oil well that's great but what are you going to do about right now? The gas is at four dollars, even higher than that --
HANNITY: You've raised a lot of good points here, Katie. Dallas, is there, is there anything that you could point to where he's going to lower gas prices? Do you support his economic plan of raising taxes?
CALLER 1: Well that -- that --
HANNITY: Do you support his -- do you support his earlier position of a pull out of Iraq in 16 months? Do you support that?
CALLER 1: OK, well, first, that's actually not accurate --
HANNITY: What's not accurate?
CALLER 1: He's not going to raise taxes for everybody. Some people --
HANNITY: Well no, actually he is. He's raising --
CALLER 1: People like -- people like myself and in the middle class, our taxes won't be raised.
HANNITY: Sir --
CALLER 1: And that's factual.
HANNITY: -- sir, for -- no, that's not factual, because the Bush tax cuts are going to expire, and when they expire, families of four that make $50,000 a year are going to be paying another $2,000 in taxes a year. So by letting those tax cuts expire, that's a tax increase by any definition.
CALLER 1: That's -- that's -- that's a misnomer. You're not representing his position properly.
HANNITY: All right, listen, I can't -- I can't argue -- listen -
CALLER 1: He's going to raise taxes for the --
HANNITY: Dallas, I'm not going to argue with you. It is a fact. He is for rescinding the Bush tax cuts --
CALLER 1: That's not true. You're lying -- you're not being --
HANNITY: -- and letting them expire. All right, well, anyway, thanks for the call. Katie, thank you, appreciate it, appreciate you being with us, 800-941-SEAN is our toll-free telephone number.
In fact, Obama has proposed cutting taxes for middle-class families and rolling back President Bush's tax cuts only on people who are making $250,000 a year or more.
In all honesty, because I dont know the answer, I want to know what Obama's plan is for single individuals who make 50k/yr and are not home owners. What kind of tax break do they get? Or does the 20 something year old just out of college, paying off student loans, and trying to save to buy a home just not count when it comes to tax breaks?
MMFA linked to it, and quoted it.
Obama's proposed tax cuts include "a new 'Making Work Pay' tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family,"
If you want to pay less taxes, it is really very simple - just get married, buy a house and have many kids. It is the best way to save on taxes. I know it must be pretty hard for you only having to worry about yourself and all and paying all of those darn taxes.
See I can play that game too....
Is your game called "lying through your teeth?" Because that's the only "game" you're playing there.
Or just get married, have a bunch of kids, and live off everyone elses tax dollars. See I can play that game too....
Do us all a favor, Science/Columbus/Whoever-You-Are-Today - don't have any children. Ever. We don't need your ignorance spread to another generation.
Seannie is really going bonkers. I've listened to the last 30 minutes of his show this week and have found that he does not wish to debate/discuss anything not of his choosing. Whenever someone answers his off-topic questions, for example, he always asks what has Obama done. When someone throws something back at him, he wants another and another until the caller tries to get back on point. This is when Seannie gives a speech and dismissed the call. Real professional at work.
Today, Seannie referred to some Obama backers as kool-aid drinkers. A caller wanted to dispute this but Seannie said there are Hillary kool-aid drinkers, Clinton kool-aid drinkers,etc. When the caller asked if there were any McCain kool-aid drinkers, Seannie said NO!!!!! That is all one need to know about this Con kool-aid drinker.
Seaanie, I may start the "Stop the Idiot Seannie Express". Lookout, you may have to run to Rush to get help.
I'm on board, Prince. A good example of the Hannity tactic you mentioned above; when the subject of oil comes up, Sean asks the supposed Obama supporter for a specific way Obama is going to lower gas prices.
Naturally there's no answer.McCain can fool some of his party by telling them that drilling here will slash prices. It's not true, but he can get away with it. And Hannity's audience is fooled into thinking Obama is the one without an energy plan. I shouldn't really say his audience is fooled, I'm pretty sure Hannity's fooled too.
Naturally there's no answer.McCain can fool some of his party by telling them that drilling here will slash prices. It's not true, but he can get away with it.
In terms of oil prices, it is a correct correlation that increasing supply will lower prices. Oil is traded as a commodity and thus fueled by future speculations of supply. By initiating the will to drill everywhere in the US, it would be seen as as massive increase in supply down the road and lower the ratio of demand to supply. There are only two outcomes that would come out of it
1 - either the simple laws of supply and demand would come into effect and lower oil prices massively.
2 - opec will see this as a hit to them, and thus drain down the supply on their end purposely to keep prices propped up. However, doing that will only net them less money, which they would not do.
If anything, if we really did produce oil on a massive scale everywhere (gulf, coast, anwr, dakotas, montana, oil shale), the OPEC countries would go into large scale fear. Its no secret that the US has more proven total oil reserves, that are able to be taken using todays technology, than the entire middle east combined.
If anything, it has nothing to do with how much reserves we have, because its proven to be at over 100+ years, just using today's technology. Everything surrounding it has to do with political & environmental concerns, not economical or scientific.
I call shens on that. Not even counting the gulf, coasts, anwr, or current production....just shale
Estimates of the oil resource in place within the Green River Formation range from 1.2 to 1.8 trillion barrels. Not all resources in place are recoverable; however, even a moderate estimate of 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil from oil shale in the Green River Formation is three times greater than the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia.
http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/oilshale/index.cfm
Here's some info on your precious oil shale. It's a loser and will never be a viable source of oil.
http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/07/09/oil-shale-potatoes/Its monumentally dirty to dig it out, process it, and dispose of the waste. But, more importantly, it's a really poor source of energy. It takes an obscene amount of water to process shale, on the magnitude of 200 million gallons per day if we were at full scale production. It would also produce over a billion tons of waste product and millions of tons of greenhouse gasses.
As the article states, there is more caloric energy in an equal sized bowl of oatmeal than there is in oil shale, or if you prefer, oil shale has the energy density of a baked potato.
On top of all that, the local citizens of the Mountain West states are done with the federal government giving away land to polluters and destroying our natural resources. There has already been successful local resistance to opening up more wildlands for conventional oil drilling. Oil shale would never fly, especially because it is a pathetically stupid and impractical idea.
Good job ignoring 99.999% of the argument. The big point is that oil shale is a poor source of energy and is monumentally impractical to process. The topper is the massive environmental damage that is caused by its extraction and processing.
It's sad that you come here posting the same debunked talking points time after time on this issue, the SS issue, taxation, global warming, etc. You are proven wrong every day and just continue to post the same talking points the next time. Why do you refuse to educate yourself on the issues you obviously care so much about? I can't understand why you would willfully wallow in ignorance when repeatedly presented with indisputable evidence to destroy your arguments. Seriously, why do you do it? What is the point to believe in these things that just simply aren't true? Is it because of some psychological issue where you are incapable of admitting a mistake or even just absorbing information and applying to future situations?
"The topper is the massive environmental damage that is caused by its extraction and processing."--jawill
I think that is the crux of it. Apparently science101 has no consideration for massive environmental damage. The Earth is here for him to ravage and consume. Screw the next generation and everyone else. Science101 needs oil, damnit!
Apparently science101 has no consideration for massive environmental damage.
It's hard to demonstrate consideration for something when the person can't even demonstrate knowledge of it.
"Science101" has to be a liberal masquerading as a wingnut. Because if he isn't, he's one of the dumbest, least competent posters ever. Even the "Columbus1492" character he had to abandon due to superabundant stupidity wasn't as cluless as the current character.
"By initiating the will to drill everywhere in the US, it would be seen as as massive increase in supply down the road"--science101
First of all, what is the basis for your claim it will be "massive"? What figures are you using?
There is no shortage of oil production. You realize if you can manage to create a "massive" surplus, OPEC will just cut back production putting us right back in the same place we are in.
Secondly, you still haven't answered my questions from yesterday.
Thirdly, world's oil supply obviously has less to do with the price of oil right now than speculation does. The speculation does not seem as driven by potential supply as it is by the idea of an international conflict's likelihood in the Middle East in the near future. You are focusing on the wrong side of the equation.
Lastly, in 2006, George W. Bush declared "we are addicted to oil" or something to that effect. Your solution is to try to increase the oil supply. Do you really think that is the best way to fight an addiction?
The term of "addiction" is off the wall rhetoric. If were addicting to anything, its cheap energy. Just so happens that oil itself is the cheapest and most efficient per $ form of energy we currently have, its what builds wealth, and by judgement of our GDP, it shows.
The only solution to fighting this "addiction" that you speak of, is to cut back our economy, standard of living, and wealth in order to not consume resources that are aplenty and readily available...which is utterly silly.
The difference in the scenario you speak of regarding opec lowering supply, if we mass produced, would be a pure benefit for the US, seeing as how all those dollars would go to the US GDP, and greatly increasing the value of the old greenback.
lastly, i dont know what question you're referring to from yesterday.
"Just so happens that oil itself is the cheapest and most efficient per $ form of energy we currently have, its what builds wealth, and by judgement of our GDP, it shows."--Science101
Well right now, I would not say oil is building wealth. It may be more accurate to say it is re-distributing it.
"The only solution to fighting this "addiction" that you speak of, is to cut back our economy, standard of living, and wealth in order to not consume resources that are aplenty and readily available...which is utterly silly."--science101
No. There are ways to conserve energy and become more efficient that do not do any of those things. Just ask an engineer. Making things more efficient is our obsession and our job.
"The difference in the scenario you speak of regarding opec lowering supply, if we mass produced, would be a pure benefit for the US, seeing as how all those dollars would go to the US GDP, and greatly increasing the value of the old greenback."
Not necessarily. It is a kind of shell game. When we purchase oil from foreign markets with dollars, those dollars come back into our economy through the purchase of our own exports of goods and services - helping the comparative value of the dollar. Cutting out foreign dollars will demonstratably hurt our export market. Fewer dollars in the international economy also can have negative effects such as pushing OPEC to trade in Euros - further degrading the relevance and value of the dollar. The good news is you will make some people in the US and Europe who are awfully rich already - even richer...which is what I suspect all of this hubbub on the right is really all about.
"lastly, i dont know what question you're referring to from yesterday."--science101
Refer to this thread where I have several questions:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200807100009?f=h_latest
If Obama keeps improving in the battleground state polls, look for blatant lies like this from RNC flacks like Hannity to grow increasingly desperate.
However, the biggest irony about Hannity this year is by bringing out issues like Wright, "bittergate," etc., early in the electoral year and getting them out of the way, he truly did the Obama campaign a favor.
Had these same incidents occurred this fall, it might have crippled Obama on Election Day.
Thanks, Sean. I appreciate it.
Same old Hannity BS. Want let you get a word in edgewise. I caught part of his talk show on 7/10/08 when he had Dick Morris on. Dick was talking about China drilling off the coast of the US now. Sean was eating this up but the truth is that China is not drilling off the coast and never will be. So more just pure BS. Then Dick said that the Dems where preventing any drilling in the US at all. Another lye. The fact is that drilling is going on in the US and on the increase. There is a shortage of rigs and drilling equipment right now but look out over the next couple of years because drilling is going to boom. So if you hear Sean and Dick talk about the Dems holding up drilling you can call them lyers because they have no idea what their talking about. Also look for the next fuel for our autos to be natural gas. There is plenty of it in the US.
Im all for new technologies and expanding infrastructure. But what people need to realize is that it took over 35 years just to build the highway infrastructure that we have now. It would take at least that long to revamp it into something totally new - like cars running on natural gas - becuase not only do you have to build again, but you have to tear down and dispose of the waste - yet another environmental concern that even the environmentalists havent figure out yet.
As said, Im all for it in time as we go, but to put our current standards of living on hold to wait for all this to happen is not smart, no matter which way you slice it.
Regardless, most experts recommend eliminating natural gas from the grid entirely due to efficiency problems. If we can do that, we will be doing okay.
As for infrastructure, I think you are over-thinking it. The buses in Atlanta where I live, already run on natural gas. Maybe getting cars to run on natural gas is unrealistic in the short/long run, but if we focus on one sector of transportation and make the switch - it could be much more feasible.
"As said, Im all for it in time as we go, but to put our current standards of living on hold to wait for all this to happen is not smart, no matter which way you slice it."--science101
What do you mean? What standards of living do you think we have to put on hold? You realize that even if we lifted all sanctions on drilling today, it would not make a bit of difference (assuming it will at all) in supply for at least a couple of years if not more.
The fact is that drilling is going on in the US and on the increase. There is a shortage of rigs and drilling equipment right now but look out over the next couple of years because drilling is going to boom.
That is correct, domestic drilling production is on the rise - 66% since the year 2000. However, what most people need to realize on both parties is that of the 68M acres of leased land, none of it was explored for proven researves when the leases were bought. And that 4/5 wells that have been drilled have come up immediately dry, or dried up shortly there after. Thats one reason that oil companies are not spending the money to drill in that land - the chances of coming up with a good size field is so small but you still spend on that money on wasted drilling exploration.
Im all for taking back the unused leased land, and lease out land that actually has PROVEN reserves on it, and are easily accessible using today's technology.
What benefit is it for the oil companies to drill anywhere? There profits are astronomical so by increasing flow, their profits may drop. BONG.!!!!
These robber barons are in it for the money and power. They could've started drill 25 years ago..why didn't they? And forget the tree-huggers nonsense. Why didn't this president and his Republan controlled house and senate do something? BONG!!!
BONG!!!!
Yes, please lay off the bong water prince.
What benefit is it for the oil companies to drill anywhere? There profits are astronomical so by increasing flow, their profits may drop.
False, how many times do you have to be told that the oil companies do not set prices on oil, only gasoline. They have an 8% profit margin, regardless of what the price per barrel is.
These robber barons are in it for the money and power.
Hell McFly - this is capitalism. If there was no money in it, there would be no corporation in this sector.
They could've started drill 25 years ago..why didn't they?
If you really need to ask that question, then conversation is as good as done. There was no reason to drill in the last 25 years, because there has been no shortage of oil supply. Oil itself was already at $20/barrel, and no more supply was even needed by any means.
And forget the tree-huggers nonsense. Why didn't this president and his Republan controlled house and senate do something?
There have been several bills up for vote to allow drilling in ANWR and on the coasts. All were voted against by democrats, including john mccain. The situation only goes to prove how wrong they have been for 25 years now...and now you're advocating that we keep doing the same exact policy. What sense does that make?
Why didn't the Repubs pass drilling legislation when they had control? Just a question. How many Repubs voted against it? How about drilling off the coast of Florida? Didn't Gov. Bush get his bro to forget about it?
You should try the bong water. You may see the light. But tell me, what is the ultimate goal of capitalism? Could money, which may get you power, be involved?
Blow the 8% out your arse. Oil companies do create by-products from oil. What is that figure?
Also cars that run on nat. gas do not put out as much polution.
Only if you're referring to carbon dioxide as a pollutant, which scientifically speaking, its not. There is no scientific proof that carbon dioxide is proof of man made global warming, which is exactly why there is such debate. As of now, its only a theoretical belief, but no scientific facts to support the claim.
"There is no scientific proof that carbon dioxide is proof of man made global warming, which is exactly why there is such debate. As of now, its only a theoretical belief, but no scientific facts to support the claim."--science101
Well your claim: "There is no scientific proof that carbon dioxide is proof of man made global warming" is non-sensical. But I think I see what you are trying to get at. The claim that "...no scientific facts to support the claim" doesn't make any sense either as it refers to non-sense. Nonetheless, I think you are actually trying to challenge the scientific basis of AGW. Here are the basic facts. As you see they are based on provable and repeatable scientific facts derived from experiments and just plain straight-forward reasoning.
1. Carbon Dioxide is a gas that can be experimentally proven to measurably absorb more infra-red heat in the atmosphere than other non-greenhouse gases:
"Tyndall set out to find whether there was in fact any gas that could trap heat rays. In 1859, his careful laboratory work identified several gases that did just that. The most important was simple water vapor (H2O). Also effective was carbon dioxide (CO2), although in the atmosphere the gas is only a few parts in ten thousand. Just as a sheet of paper will block more light than an entire pool of clear water, so the trace of CO2 altered the balance of heat radiation through the entire atmosphere. --source
2. There is more Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere as a result of human activity than there would likely be without human activity.
3. The Earth absorbs more heat as a result of the additional Carbon Dioxide than it would without human activity.
Number 3 could better be stated:
3. The Earth absorbs more heat as a result of that additional Carbon Dioxide than it would without the additional Carbon Dioxide, which is directly attributed to human activity.
Didn't you read Glenn Beck's book? Global Warming is made up! First the newspapers, not scientists, said it was cooling, now it's warming? What next? Drowning polar bears? More severe droughts and more forest fires? More flooding? All of it made up so college professors can rake in the fat cash flowing in from the Global Warming industry. You know, the few start up companies with no real resources which stand to make money from carbon credits, someday, which is evil, but intentionally bottlenecking the production of gasoline, limiting the number of refineries and gaming the oil futures market to artificially jack up the price of gas to $4.50 a gallon is capitalism at its finest.
Randy
China is not drilling off the coast and never will be
You are correct in stating that China is not currently drilling off the US coast, or Cuban coast. However, negotiations between China and Cuba have already been resolved, and they expect drilling ships and rigs to be placed into the region once China can get them readily accessible.
This was also done in good faith by China, as they could horizontal drill even further out in international waters, and not have Cubans agreement on it. But the costs of horizontal drilling are already high, and the futher you go from reserves, the price increases exponentially.
How bout an appliance that you hook up to your home electrical systems that would produce hydrogen at an equivelent cost of gasoline last year.
Its in the works. If sucessful the uptake of H2 powered vehicles would be amazing. Add geothermal prime movers to the electrical grid and you've got the base of a sustainable energy core.
Or we can continue to consider hydrocarbon drilling/burning something we must accomodate now and forever. To find like our dollar, forever has been devalued and reduced in size.
Standard of living and total economic wealth is fueled by cheap energy.
Up until the past year, oil has always been the cheapest and most abundant form of energy we have. Currently, the value of oil does not represent actual economics, but speculation based up on political games with taxation, tariffs, wars, region stability, and terrorism to the oil production facilities.
Oil still is the cheapest and most easily accessible form of energy, and could be for over the next 100 years if politics didnt come into play.
You are improving your argument. Nice job. You have come a long way in a relatively short time. I can see you are evolving. I respect that so I will start treating you with some more respect.
However, I am not so optimistic about the hundred years. Maybe if we do not consume so much oil due to technological advances in alternative energy and conservation/efficiency advances, it could possibly last that long.
Empires which fail to recognize and react to a shift in which energy souce is not only cheapest but the most technologically advanced all fail.
The Dutch Empire of wind, wood and water failed when coal came into vogue. The British Empire's failure to see a shift toward oil was their downfall. The USA's inability to see renewable sources are the future of energy will be its downfall.
Either be on the cutting edge or be at its mercy is history's immutable lesson.
Randy
You've been reading and are now regurgitating the oil companie's sctick. Did you read that it is no longer the cheapest nor the most easily acessible above?
.....Infrastructure? If your producing it at home, infrastructure needs are pretty minimal.
Ahh, but seeing as how places like California cannot even use their AC in the summer due to blackouts, how do you propose we use electricity to create hydrogen in every household. Seems like you'd have to add massive amount of nuclear plants &/or coal burning power plants.
Uh oh...
Right now it takes a lot of conventional energy to create hydrogen, but help is on the way. Recent discoveries involving hydrogen producing microbes in the ocean is making breakthroughs every day.
Here is an old article that discusses just a very small piece of the puzzle:
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2003/05/58750
Google hydrogen microbes if you want more info.
Ahh, but seeing as how places like California cannot even use their AC in the summer due to blackouts
You mean the phony blackouts ginned up by Enron to get rid of the governor? and up their profits? Since their tactics worked, but more so since their executives are now enjoying the A/C in their jail cells, the phony blackout tactic hasn't been used in a few years. There were no natural blackouts in California.
I would be embarrassed to make 50K and claim to be a dependent.
I wouldn't. In fact, you could be considered "smart". You know - living at home and saving enough money for a large down payment on a house the responsible way so that everyone doesn't have to bail you out.
You know - living at home and saving enough money for a large down payment on a house the responsible way so that everyone doesn't have to bail you out.
Or, in your case, sponging off your mom and living in her basement while posting inanities on a web site you claim to dislike so much you can't stay away from it.
It just occurred to me.
If he's making $50,000 a year and still would be claimed as a dependent, living in his family's home, he'd have to try to justify to the IRS that his living expenses were over $100,000 a year, and that his family was providing more than 50% of his support.
Why oh why do you right wingers keep lying. Obama wants to raise taxes on people making more than 250k a year.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/would_obama_tax_my_profits_if_i.html
That includes capital gains. People with this level of income will continue to make investments in the markets just like they always have.
A. There is no reason why someone should not pay the same rate on their investment income as I do on my earned income. And don't give me the "it hurts investment" line, because they have to invest it somehow, unless they would rather bury it in their backyard than pay a few more percentage points in taxes.
B. Your argument is disingenuous in the extreme. The poor and largely the middle class do not have any investment income to be taxed. You do realize that retirement accounts are not taxed as they are earning money.
Rino Hunter,
There are different ways to invest in the stock market. I imagine one of the most popular ways is through a 401k program. The problem with using examples including a large amount of people investing in a 401k program (as I suspect would be a large contingent of your example) is that money will be taxed much higher - as income when it is withdrawn - it isn't taxed as a capital gain.
46% of the people who invest in the stock market make less than $50,000 per year.
Rino, isn't that 46% investing 401k money and do they have a choice?
Obama's policy of not extending them will cause capital gains and dividend tax rates to go up for the poor and middle class as well
LOL
Rino, it may come a surprise to you but most poor folks don't have "capital gain/dividend" issues to confront. They have food on the table amid the soring cost of food, gas to drive to work and kids to school amid soring gas prices, keeping a job amid jobs layoffs and hold on to their homes amid adjustable mortgages issues to confront. Capital gain/dividend issues rates 100 on the list of 99 issues to confront.
Of course Media Matters left out the fact that Obama wants to raise taxes on capital gains and dividends, which will hurt the middle class and the economy as a whole. Close to 70% of the American people have money in the stock market, and increasing the tax rate on capital gains and dividends will hurt the vast majority of the American people. It will also cause people to invest less money in the stock market, which may make our current plunging market completely crash.
If Sean Hannity had made the false claim you just did, they would have covered it. Since he didn't make that false claim this time, they didn't cover it. That was simple, but for simpletons you have to make it simple.
It's a lie to say that Obama wants to raise the taxes that middle income families pay on capital gains.
There's also no evidence whatsoever that it hurts the economy to have higher capital gains taxes on people making over $250,000. That claim continually gets brought up here, but there's never a shred of evidence connected to that claim. People need to pay taxes according to their ability to pay them and still have a good quality of life.
It's a lie to say that Obama wants to raise the taxes that middle income families pay on capital gains.
Since the GOP is doing their damnedest to eliminate the middle class, there may not be many left soon.
But, how many middle class families have capital gains as a significant part of their yearly income, to the point that any increase at all would affect their lives in any meaningful way? Charlie Gibson tried to make this a major point of a candidates' debate, but that's because millionaire windbags like Gibson have a lot of income from capital gains. Not so much Joe Average Taxpayer.
Only the fat cats who don't work for wages and live entirely off the sweat of others have enough capital gains to make a difference, and they are taxed at a lower rate than the secretaries and other staff who work for them. See "Buffett, Warren."
I've only seen you post a few times, but your arguments have never carried any weight.
This one doesn't either. Republicans have tried, and in many cases succeeded, to get the voters to think that their middle class life is being threatened. Take the death tax. There aren't any middle class Americans, or a single family farm, that's threatened by that tax, but they've sure riled up their base over it, and that base helps the rich get richer.
There's every reason to believe that Obama will exempt lower income people from any additional taxes and in fact will lower the taxes that they pay.
There's no evidence, none whatsoever, that the stock market will suffer if richer people are forced to pay more in taxes.
"It's simply common sense that the stock market will go down if people have to pay higher taxes on the capital gains that they make."--rino hunter
There is no solid long term historical data I have seen to suggest that is true. The capital gains rate has been very low during the last 7.5 years, but the Dow has only risen about 600 net points during that time. Conversely, you can find time periods where the capital gains rates were much higher, yet the Dow doubled in size in the same time period.
I will take imperical data over that good ole conservative "common sense" any day.
No one thinks they don't have much common sense. Those that don't usually have to be told by others that they don't. You don't.
There's no evidence, none whatsoever, that the stock market will suffer if richer people are forced to pay more in taxes.
You saying that your common sense tells you otherwise only speaks to your lack of common sense. Common sense tells me, on the other hand, to look at the empirical evidence before I write. The fact that you didn't have the common sense to look for some evidence to refute what I said and expected us to take your word for it is further evidence of your inability to make a persuasive argument.
It occurs to me that a MAJOR factor here might be what RINO and the GOP consider 'middle class'. Usually it is based on income and, I have seen it defined as applying to families with incomes starting as low as $35k and sometimes extending up well past $200k.
So, RINO, what definition of 'middle class' (in dollars) are you using?
In the last 7.5 years thr Dow Jones has returned a whopping 4.8%, thats .65% annual gain. It was at 10,587 when shrub was sworn in, it may go down below that before he leaves.
$10,000 invested when shrub swore to shred the constitution is, with inflation, worth $8,568 today. It'd only be worth $8,175 if you'd put it in a mattress.
The economic miracle of the last 7.5 years has benifited maybe 2% of the population. Maybe less after our financial markets finish melting down. S'ok the important people benifitted.
So the proper thing to do is to maintain and increase confidence in the system?
I think rational financial regulations with teeth and federal oversite, also with teeth is a good path. If some corporatist can no longer make an large pile on money with the mearest twitch of a pen, I'm ok with that. Chances are that pile of money will do my country no observable good in his hands.
You know, no matter how many times you correct someone with factual evidence, they'll still stick by their lame talking points. There's a word for that...
More than 80 percent of all capital gains income went to those making more than $200,000 a year in 2006. Very few making under $50,000 would be affected by any increase in the top capital gains rate...
The fact is that Obama's proposal exempts all making under $250,000 a year from paying any increase in the capital gains rate, according to campaign economic adviser Austan Goolsbee. And even if it didn't, the suggestion that it would be a "substantial" hit on those making under $50,000 a year is false. Wallace's figure for those who have capital gains and make less than $50,000 a year was way off the mark, for one thing. And besides, very few of them pay the top capital gains rate that Obama proposes to increase for the over-$250,000 set.
Source: fackcheck.org
Most middle-income Americans own much or all of their stock through 401(k)s, IRAs, or other tax-preferred saving accounts. They do not pay taxes when their stocks within those accounts go up, so a change in the tax rate doesn’t affect them.
Even among the minority of middle-class Americans who do benefit from the capital gains and dividend tax cuts, the benefits are very small. This is because capital gains and dividend income is highly concentrated at the very top of the income scale. The Tax Policy Center estimates that the highest-income 5 percent of U.S. households receive 83 percent of total capital gains income
Source: Center on Budget and Policy Prorities
Those are two reliable sources that debunk the myth that raising the capital gains tax will hurt average Americans.