Ignoring Obama's proposed tax cuts and McCain's Social Security remarks, Rove claimed McCain "opposes tax increases and Obama favors them"
SUMMARY: In a Wall Street Journal column, Karl Rove claimed that "[Sen. John McCain] opposes tax increases and [Sen. Barack] Obama favors them." In fact, Obama has proposed cutting taxes for low- and middle-income families, and McCain's own chief economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, has reportedly said that it is inaccurate to say that "Barack Obama raises taxes." Moreover, McCain himself recently suggested he would be open to raising Social Security payroll taxes.
In an August 7 Wall Street Journal column, Fox News contributor Karl Rove claimed that "[Sen. John McCain] opposes tax increases and [Sen. Barack] Obama favors them." In fact, Obama has proposed cutting taxes for low- and middle-income families, and McCain's own chief economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, has reportedly said that it is inaccurate to say that "Barack Obama raises taxes." Moreover, contrary to Rove's assertion that McCain "opposes tax increases," McCain recently suggested he would be open to raising Social Security payroll taxes, drawing a stern rebuke from many conservatives, including the Wall Street Journal editorial board.
According to Obama's "Tax Fairness Plan," "Barack Obama's plan 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." In a July 28 Time article, reporter Michael Scherer wrote: "You already know the old argument: Republicans cut taxes, Democrats raise them. Except it's not true, at least not in the way that it seems. But don't take my word for it. Here is Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain's chief economic policy adviser. 'I used to say that Barack Obama raises taxes and John McCain cuts them, and I was convinced,' he told me in a phone interview this week. 'I stand corrected [about Obama's plans].' [brackets in original] " Scherer further reported that when taking into account Obama's proposal to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and the "whole range of tax cuts, for poor seniors, working people, homeowners and parents, as well as for health-care expenses and even renewable energy" that Obama has also proposed, "[t]he net effect, according to experts in both campaigns and independent analysts, would be a reduction in government revenue over 10 years. In other words, a tax cut."
During the July 27 edition of ABC's This Week, after host George Stephanopoulos asked if "payroll taxes are on the table," McCain responded: "There is nothing that's off the table. I have my positions, and I'll articulate them. But nothing's off the table." McCain had previously pledged there would be "no new taxes" in a McCain administration. In a July 30 editorial about McCain's remarks on This Week, headlined "McCain's Tax Blunder," the Wall Street Journal asserted that McCain "tried to give up the tax issue," and further wrote: "Meeting with us last December, before the primaries, [McCain] declared that 'I will not agree to any tax increase,' repeating the phrase for emphasis. He did not say any tax increase with the exception of Social Security." Additionally, the Associated Press reported in a July 28 article that McCain's comments about Social Security "drew a strong response Monday from the Club for Growth, a Washington anti-tax group," which stated in a letter to McCain that his remarks were "shocking because you have been adamant in your opposition to raising taxes under any circumstances."
From Rove's August 7 Wall Street Journal column:
In the coming weeks, he needs to lay out a bold domestic reform program. He gave a taste on energy, but with a few missteps. He should appear in front of manufacturing plants where jobs depend on affordable energy, small businesses affected by fuel prices, and farms hurt by skyrocketing fertilizer costs -- and not in front of oil rigs. He needs to describe the consequences of specific domestic policy decisions. He must explain how his proposals on energy, health care, jobs and education will make a difference for ordinary families.
Mr. McCain also needs to elevate his arguments. It's not only that he opposes tax increases and Mr. Obama favors them. Mr. McCain must also make the principled case that there should be a limit to what government can take from its citizens. This argument will appeal to a large majority of voters. The top income tax rate is 35% and, according to the Tax Foundation, 89% of Americans believe that government should take no more than 30% from anyone's paycheck.
According to Obama's "Tax Fairness Plan,"
I can think of a fair tax system that's more fair than that.
And it's aptly named too!
Anyone notice how often DaWuss makes the first post, and that first post has nothing to do with the topic being covered (Boortz FairTax has nothing to do with fact that the MSM didn't cover an issue accurately)?
He's trying to distract us from the topic.
Uneeded, as we distract ourselves just fine without his help.
For myself, he makes a pleasant change from going round and round with some of our other posters. As long as one noted hot topic isn't brought up. And I think you know which topic that is.
I appreciate your feelings on that topic and towards DW. If he continues towards footinmouthitis I think it will be clear to many of us. The rest will be unconcerned or hopeless anyway.
The fair tax, like half the republican platform, collapses under the weight of that theorem.
Off Topic
AA, I now know why you've started to parrot Republican talking points almost word for word, you want to win a prize.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/06/AR2008080603589.html
More chillingly, dissidents alleged earlier this year that the Chinese government has paid Chinese citizens token sums for each favorable comment about government policies they post in chat rooms and on blogs.
First we torture like the Chinese, now we have a candidate that pushes the propoganda like the Chinese.
I guess this is the century of China.
Yes, Karl. Lets talk about jobs that rely on affordable energy. Let's talk about financial investments and incentives so all households and companies have real energy choices.
Let's talk about Dell's flourishing returns on green investment for their energy. Let's let the Wall Street Journal talk about Dell.
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/08/06/dells-green-payday-going-carbon-neutral-helps-bottom-line/
"Dell’s reliance on greater energy efficiency and renewable energy is now saving the company $3 million a year. Okay, a drop in the bucket. But more importantly for other companies of all sizes, Dell executives say the internal returns on the efficiency drive are stellar: Most of the new projects pay for themselves in less than two years, and almost all the projects pay back in less than three."
Saving money by going green is disagreeable?
Green sources cost more per KW and produce less energy than coal and nuclear. Sorry for you, but I dont see too many people agreeing to triple their energy costs for the sake of a "green" sticker.
63% say expanded drilling is more likely to enrich oil companies, than lower gas prices for American comsumers.
Its not selling science. Though if you repeat it a couple more times maybe it will.
since 75% of people disagree with him.
That poll is based on the LIE that drilling now will reduce prices in the near future. Gramps saw that polling and assumed a position counter to Obama because he's DESPERATE and will turn to a LIE to try to save his campaign.
But the FairTax Will Lower Prices
Proponents of the FairTax point out that prices on consumer goods contain what are called “hidden taxes.” Under current law, corporations have to pay taxes on their earnings. Moreover, businesses have to pay social security taxes for each employee. The money to pay these taxes has to come from somewhere, and FairTax supporters argue that the cost is passed on to the consumer. In fact, the best-known proponent of the FairTax, talk-show host Neal Boortz, argues that 22 percent of the price of a consumer good is really a “hidden tax.” Get rid of corporate and social security taxes, Boortz argues, and consumer good prices would drop by 22 percent. Even with the 23 percent FairTax, prices stay the same, and with the elimination of income taxes, paychecks will get bigger. Everyone gets a raise and the federal government still gets its revenue. About 10 percent of the e-mail messages we received from FairTax proponents trumpeted this kind of magic act. It is easy to understand the confusion on the issue, as Boortz himself made similar assertions in the hardcover edition of his book. (He later issued a corrected version in paperback.)
A bit of critical analysis shows that this cannot be right. The FairTax is revenue-neutral. That means that for every tax dollar collected under the current system, the FairTax has to collect a dollar. If the FairTax exactly equaled embedded taxes, then it could not possibly be revenue-neutral, since embedded taxes do not take into account personal income or estate taxes. The FairTax rate would have to be high enough to replace embedded taxes plus income and estate taxes.
Source: Factcheck.org - Unspinning the FairTax
That argument also relies on some very simplistic and basic misunderstandings on how companies price their goods and services. A large bulk of consumer goods are optional purchases. That means that the consumer can choose whether or not they need to make a particular purchase and will use price as a factor in making that choice. Producers try to find price points that will maximize sales and cover costs, if costs go up they can't always adjust prices up by the same amount and may actually have to adjust their profit margins down instead because the consumer won't pay a higher price. Only products with the slimmest of margins will automatically increase in price with cost increases. Further, reduction of cost is not always reflected in a price drop. Only when increased sales volume will be produced by lowering prices that is greater than the profit that would be achieved at the same volume with a higher profit margin will prices be lowered.
This complex relation of costs, pricing and profit margins gets even harder to predict with goods and services that are considered essential. Supply and demand is the most basic of economics theories, not the ultimate law of them.
But really, you sound like Obama. Asking people to take sensible, small conservation measures that accumulate over time, like properly inflating your tires and keeping your automobile well tuned.
Oil is not the solution. Oil is the problem.
If prices are driven by speculation, the price should drop sooner than expected.
... or am I still under the effects of Rush Limbaugh's Kool-Aid?
I mean, if the market were truly free, wouldn't it be in the best interest of at least one of these oil men to lower prices in an effort to corner the market?
And you may be under spell of Limbaugh still.
Roundhouse, isn't that funny. When the subject is government, conservative only solution is "cut back, reduce, be reasonable".( all good suggestions in my book)
But when the suggestion is made that this same accountability on their (the individual's) part could do some good, the reflex is "Nanny State !", "Roll back my lifestyle ?" ( An El Rushbo fave), "I'm am American and can drive whatever I want!".
They're a lot better at demanding responsibility from others than actually practicing it.
But really, you sound like Obama...
I was responding to that.
Same with values, they use responsibility as nothing more than a bludgeon to shut own discussions of the common good.
To be fair to FairTax proponents (heh), factcheck.org acknowledged their may be some benefits to implementing the tax policy:
Why Be Progressive?
It is easy to look at charts like the one above [I didn't include them] and dismiss the FairTax as simply another way to help the rich get richer. But there is an economic argument for a less progressive tax system, though that argument is extremely technical. Kotlikoff has asserted that the FairTax will lower the marginal tax rate for all earners. (The marginal rate is the tax rate paid on the last dollar earned.) Because marginal rates are lower, each extra dollar of income will result in greater purchasing power. The decrease in marginal rates is progressive – that is, marginal rate reductions are greater for the working- and middle-classes than for the wealthy.
Moreover, even FairTax critics like Gale agree that consumption taxes increase the size of the economy. Many studies show that long-term incomes would rise under a consumption-based tax system. Optimistic accounts show a 10 percent rise in income over time, but even the more cautious studies show gains of 5 percent to 7 percent. Because the FairTax will grow the economy, workers will eventually see increases in their income. FairTax proponents claim that the growing economy, coupled with the reduction in marginal tax rates, will offset the increased tax burden. Burton argues that "the FairTax is a positive-sum game," one in which purchasing power will grow faster than the tax burden. The size of any such gains is disputed, however; Americans for Fair Taxation consistently chooses from among the most optimistic growth projections.
Upon Further Review
We stand behind our earlier analysis of the FairTax. The proposal to which Gov. Huckabee referred is not a 23 percent tax, but rather a 30 percent tax. And it is revenue-neutral only through an accounting trick. It will collect more money from those earning between $15,000 and $200,000 per year and less from those earning more than $200,000 per year. It is possible that the FairTax would make most people better off, but much of that gain would be a direct result of making the tax code less fair.
"It will collect more money from those earning between $15,000 and $200,000 per year and less from those earning more than $200,000 per year."
Under the FairTax, the more you spend the more you're taxed. So how would the bubble be defined at people earning $200,000? People who earn more than $200,000 can spend more than people making less than $200,000, allowing the >$200,000 people to be taxed more than the <$200,000 people.
with exemptions for basic needs and housing.
People don't pay income tax on housing, because they already get raped from property taxes.
Sciencey said-
People don't pay income tax on housing, because they already get raped from property taxes.
I own a home now, I pay about $1500 a year in property taxes. I also deduct about $12,000 a year in interest payments, which saves me more than $3,000 in total income taxes.
So... I save at least $1500 a year in taxes by owning my home. If that's getting 'raped', then lube me up!!!
People who earn more than $200,000 can spend more than people making less than $200,000, allowing the >$200,000 people to be taxed more than the <$200,000 people.
Except those that earn more than $200,000 usually receive comps, which results in them spending less, thereby paying less taxes.
Dawuss,
it's exactly as Moonbat says (and factcheck.org): the "middle" will feel most of the tax burden because their the group that spends most of their income on consumer goods. The FairTax provides prebates to the poor, and since the rich need no assitance, everyone else is left on their own. The article I linked would have explained that, so don't just look at what I copy and pasted.
It is always the middle, to paraphrase KB, that gets "lubed" up. The FairTax proposition is designed to dismantle the remaining middle class since the GOP's present policies are only being so successful. But give the GOP another chance and they'll get it right.
No one likes raising taxes but given the destruction the Bush administration has unleashed on the country -- it will have to happen unless we cut all government programs that do not support the "war on terrah" and draft everyone into an 18th Switz-like mercenary army that we hire out to the Chinese to keep down disedents.
To make that work Oscar your earnings may have to be frozen.
Can't have an OSCAR TAX RATE without a known and stable figure to base it on.
:)