AP uncritically reported false McCain claim that under Obama's tax plan, "people who pay no taxes would receive a $500 tax credit"
SUMMARY: The AP reported that Sen. John McCain has said that Sen. Barack Obama "would hand out 'welfare' because even people who pay no taxes would receive a $500 tax credit" under Obama's tax plan. The AP did not note that Obama has proposed "a tax cut of $500 for workers or $1,000 for working couples" who pay payroll taxes, and that, in fact, all American workers are required to pay taxes on their wages for Social Security and Medicare.
In an October 23 Associated Press article, Jennifer Loven reported that Sen. John McCain has said that Sen. Barack Obama "would hand out 'welfare' because even people who pay no taxes would receive a $500 tax credit" under Obama's tax plan. In fact, Obama proposes "a tax cut of $500 for workers or $1,000 for working couples" who pay payroll taxes. As Media Matters for America has noted, in 2008, American workers who are not self-employed are required to pay 6.2 percent of all of their wages up to a cap of $102,000, and 1.45 percent of their wages for Medicare under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA). Those who are self-employed are required to pay 12.4 percent of their wages up to the cap for Social Security and 2.9 percent of their wages for Medicare.
Additionally, people in the United States are required to pay federal excise taxes. For instance, everyone who buys gasoline in the United States pays 18.4 cents per gallon of gasoline in federal excise taxes.
From the AP article:
With stock markets diving, unemployment rising and Indiana alone losing 4,500 jobs in September, Obama argued that the country cannot afford a President McCain who "thinks the economic policies of George W. Bush are just right for America."
"He made kind of a strange argument that the best way to stop companies from shipping jobs overseas is to give more tax cuts to companies that are shipping jobs overseas," Obama said of his opponent. "More tax cuts for job outsourcers. That's what Sen. McCain proposed as his answer to outsourcing."
Over recent days, McCain has kept up a drumbeat of criticisms of Obama's tax plans. He's said the Democrat would hand out "welfare" because even people who pay no taxes would receive a $500 tax credit. He also has said Obama's entire plan amounts to socialistic tax redistribution policies.
Though Obama has appeared to gain an edge in the race for the White House amid the economic turmoil, some polls show McCain could be gaining ground with his aggressive message.
Maybe a GOP apologist can explain to me why Obama's tax plan is "socialism", but McCain's plan to use tax money to bail out floundering homeowners is not?
Because John McCain is a straight shooter and a POW.
Damn those fat cats making 8 grand a year (or whatever the line is for fed. tax exemption), they're really living the sweet life.
I know it right? The republicans want to cry about these folks making 8k or less a year NOT paying any taxes. Seriously? It's not like these folks are living high off the hog or something like that. Probably what really is the case is that someone making that amount of money is probably in high school, or maybe college, and working a part time job. Even someone working full time for min wage is going to make WAY more than that in a year.
I loves good graphs!
I agree with this analysis by Joe Conanson(sp). http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20081022_mccains_socialist_delusion/
Joe's my hero. He said once that he had briefly been considered for Alan Colmes' job. I can see why they didn't choose him; he would have exposed Hanniturd for the blithering idiot that he truly is.
No kidding. Conason is great. I remember his appearing on Al Franken's radio program. Once Al invited the snaky libertarian dude from 20/20 at the same time that Conason was there. When John Stossel found out that Conason was on too, he protested, like it was a trap...you know, someone's here that knows my con game...no fair!
Stossel is just another loud mouthed republican who "claims" to be a libertarian, and yet, seems to side with the republicans every single time.
I wish another wrestler would slap him in the head again. He's the worst investigative reporter in the world.
I agree nerzog!!!
Socialism is taking from the rich to give to the poor...spreading the wealth around...that is not FAIR tax....that is socialism... if that were the only socialist lean, we might could find a way to spin it...but more government programs aimed at GIVING the people what they should earn for themselves is socialism...it breeds government dependence and thus it empowers the government to control the people...yes it has been going on for many many years but not it is reaching for a whole new level.
Here is the problem...we are being conditioned to not recognize socialism by calling it something other than...but take a look at this item from Communist USA website...in their OWN words...
by PWW/NM Editorial Board, 10/2 It was only yesterday that “free market” ideologues were dancing on Karl Marx’s grave with scornful shouts that “greed is good” and “TINA” — “there is no alternative” to capitalism. These fat men guffawed contemptuously at Marx’s warning that capitalism is built on wage exploitation, that workers never earn enough to buy back what they produce, creating “overproduction” and periodic crises — some deep and long — that can only be solved by socialism.
Go to the website and read more on what it looks like and sounds like and then go spend a little time listening to some of obama's speeches...you will catch the strong similarity...if you have your eyes open.
Interesting that Americans only start crying when there is a market downturn...the rest of the time they love the free market...
10/24/08
Dear Ms. Loven,
You report on John McCain’s claim that Obama is going to give $500 tax credits to those who pay no taxes. McCain calls this “welfare.”
As journalists, don’t you have to be more than stenographers for conservative misinformation? Don’t journalists have a responsibility to present the whole picture so readers can make an informed choice?
By Larry Elders:
Whatever happened to Warren Buffett, the world's third-richest man? Guilt, a feeling of being blessed by luck, forgotten lessons -- who knows? In any case, Buffett now believes that government should redistribute the wealth earned by others to those who did not earn it.
"Buffett Blasts System That Lets Him Pay Less Tax Than Secretary" blared a recent headline. Huh?
At a Hillary Rodham Clinton fundraiser speech before 400 movers and shakers, Buffett denounced our tax system. According to Buffett, he pays taxes at a lower tax rate than does his $60,000-a-year secretary, 17.7 percent and 30 percent, respectively. But Buffett has long been sympathetic toward big government. Buffett joined the informal "advisory board" of then California gubernatorial candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger, who became governor because his predecessor tripled the car tax. Incredibly, Buffett promptly urged an increase in California property taxes. Buffett also opposes repeal of the estate tax, considering it unfair for generation after generation to retain wealth, presumably preventing those in the lower classes (where he came from) from rising up.
But let's examine the assertion that Buffett pays a higher tax rate than does his secretary.
Buffett says he earned $46 million in 2006, with a tax rate of 17.7 percent -- all, says Buffet, without attempting to avoid paying higher taxes. But his income clearly places him in the highest federal income tax bracket -- 35 percent -- but the same "non-avoidance" tax rules allow ample deductions and credits. Surely a man like Buffet can claim buckets-full, to say nothing of possible business losses and capital gains inherent in his line of work. So he probably reached the 17.7 percent rate without any monkey business. Fair enough. Whip out your calculator. First, Buffett, on his $46 million a year, paid -- at his 17.7 percent rate -- over $8 million in taxes.
Now let's deal with his secretary, whom he claims pays his or her taxes at a 30 percent rate. Buffett, in his speech, provided no details about the secretary. But even with minimal deductions, the highest possible federal tax bracket for a single person earning $60,000 a year is 25 percent. We don't know whether Buffett's secretary is married, a homeowner or renter, or has children.
Let's suppose Buffett's secretary is a single person, a renter, no kids, and makes no IRA contribution (or any other gross income adjustments) and claims the standard deductions. This scenario places the secretary in the highest possible income tax bracket. But after the standard deduction ($5,150) and one personal exemption ($3,300), the secretary's taxable income becomes $51,550 -- the 25 percent tax bracket. This means the secretary pays $9,439 in taxes -- or 15.7 percent of the $60,000 annual income. Assuming the secretary lives in Nebraska (where Buffett is headquartered), with its highest income tax bracket at 6.84 percent, the secretary pays $2,663 to the state, or another 4.4 percent of the $60,000. Altogether, this gives the secretary a total tax rate of 20.1 percent.
Throw in one kid under 17 years of age, and a $4,000 contribution to an IRA, and this single parent secretary -- still renting and claiming the standard deduction -- now has a taxable income of $41,850. With one child tax credit, secretary pays $4,814 in federal income taxes, just 8 percent of the $60,000-per-year income. Single-parent secretary also pays $2,076 in income taxes to Nebraska, for a total of 11.5 percent of the $60,000 per year annual income.
Now suppose we're talking about a married secretary, with a stay-at-home spouse. They file jointly, pay a home mortgage and have two kids under the age of 17. They place $4,000 in an IRA and itemize $15,000 in deductions. Here the tax picture changes dramatically. Taxable income drops to $27,800 -- the 15 percent tax bracket. With child tax credits, secretary now pays $1,419 in federal taxes, or 2.4 percent of $60,000. Add in another 2 percent for $1,218 in state taxes, and secretary pays a grand total, state and federal, of 4.4 percent on the $60,000-a-year salary.
An online search of Buffett's comments found not a single news story (as opposed to an editorial) questioning his assertion that he pays a higher tax rate than does his secretary.
During his speech, Buffett also explained why he became a Democrat. Republicans, he says, think, "I'm making $80 million a year. God must have intended me to have a lower tax rate." Interesting. Does Buffett know that Republicans donate more money to charity than do Democrats? In his book "Who Really Cares," author Arthur Brooks explains why. Republicans believe in limited government, and therefore feel the responsibility to help the needy falls on their shoulders. Additionally, the Republican Party contains more religious people than the Democratic Party, and the religious give more than their non-religious counterparts.
Maybe God wants lower income tax brackets in order to provide more disposable income. That way people can -- as Buffett does -- give more to the needy.
Well, thanks Manbear- now I know what Larry Elder thinks of Warren Buffett.
You know you can just post a link, right?
es un chinga puerco! ;)
And why would Buffet give much his fortune away while he is still alive rather than waiting for his estate to give 50% to the Federal Government (and probably a good portion to the State of Nebraska also)? Darned selfish of him, I would say.
The estate tax affects an infinitessimally small part of the public. Hardly anyone has an estate worth more than $2 million.
And good old Warren will probably have his estate near that $2 Million mark and the government won't get anything. And yet he cries about not being taxed enough. I'm not debating the fairness or not of the Estate Tax, Most of us know that it affects only that small portion, with enough assets, that were unwilling or unable to do proper estate planning and pass the wealth along untaxed. The estate tax isn't for the benefit of the government, but rather accountants, lawyers and financial planners.
How can you even determine with any semblance of accuracy that Republicans donate more to charity than Democrats?
And the fact that food pantries, Midway houses, and homeless shelters never have near enough resources to meet the demand for their services shows that the private charity approach to social services DOES NOT WORK!
So I should not contribute to charity, give the 20% +/- in taxes to the government and save the rest for myself? Sounds like it would be better for me to give $1000 (or so) to charity instead of $200+/- (make that $400 +/- under a D administration/congress) to the government and hope they do what I feel I personally should do. If people like Biden (and probably BlueBlood) would contribute in the amount that a lot of people that I know do, private charity approach WOULD MOST DEFINITELY WORK.
Fore every dollar, charities can often contribute less than a penny to the actual works they perform. More of that private sector efficiency, eh Oscar? Couple that with the fact that they are not required to distribute help equally, to say non-believers, and you have yourself a damned inefficient, but personally mollifying, way to feel superior to your liberal counterparts who believe in, and practice through responsible government, equality and accountability.
If you are foolish enough to give to a charity that spends more in fund raising than they expend in actual charitable funds, that's your problem, not mine. When I take a collection of food to the local food bank, I'm pretty sure it is going where is it supposed to. When I donate time and materials at the local shelter to provide and prepare meals, I see the results. I do research on where my donations go and I feel they are at least as efficient as a government bureaucracy and I'm giving the full 100% of my donation to that cause, rather than the 20-25% I would be giving if I didn't donate and paid taxes on those dollars. Now, do I stick a check in every envelope that various charities send out in their appeals? No, because many of them, as you noted, spend more in fund raising than in helping those that need it. The Colonel is correct below in saying there is probably some overreporting in some estimates, but I do what I can, willingly, and I'm nowhere near rich either. BTW, your comment on responsible government, equality and accountability was good for a laugh this morning (Think FEMA for example)
FEMA was a well run agency under the Clinton administration.
Just an example, Mary. And FEMA did a pretty good job this hurricane season with the help of ourside organizations, I realize an agency can be well run at times. But they can get sooo large at times that they become inefficient. Business can be the same way and some charitable organizations also. But to out and out say that government is the best way to get things done without exception makes little sense. Think of the relief organizations that have come forward in times of emergency (hurricanes, earthquakes) and weigh their results with the government results. Some of those are secular organizations (Red Cross, etc) and others religious (Catholic Charities, Salvation Army, etc), but they all provide a needed component of our response in times of need.
***STRAW MAN ALERT***
"But to out and out say that government is the best way to get things done without exception makes little sense."
This is the creation of your own fevered imagination. Nobody here has said any such thing. This is why I find you to be such a repugnant phony, Mr. Nice Guy Moderate.
Good on you for your good works, but not all givers do their research. I'm glad you mentioned FEMA. It's a perfect example of how conservatism utterly destroys any vestiges of good government through mismanagement and starvation. And I'll take your omission of charitable discrimination as a concession to the fact that it exists.
And you've got it backwards, Just look at medicare versus private insurance. Medicare accomplishes superior services for about 7% overhead while the best insurance plan can only do it with about a 15% overhead. Gotta pay those million dollar salaries and golden parachutes, doncha know?
And yet there is waste and fraud in Medicare. I'm not going to defend large executive salaries and such. I find a lot of them outrageous as well, in private industry as well as quasi-government agencies such as Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae. And yet, at the same time, there are some in those positions that do a lot of good with their $$$. If all of us did our due diligence with our charitable giving and had that internal compass that said we need to contribute, $ &/or time, to meaningful charitable giving, this would be a much better country/world.
Despite all of you bluster, you still seem to be OK with the unequal distribution of charitable resources. Good for you. Tell me again why you don't support Sarah Palin?
How can you even determine with any semblance of accuracy that Republicans donate more to charity than Democrats?(Blueblood)
BB, it's based on reported charity. I think Republicans are more likely to bean count their donations, and overestimate in surveys. After all, I know a lot of them who are pretty sure they pay 99% of their income in taxes, I'm sure a lot of them think they give another 80% to charity.
I only claim a couple hundred in donations a year, I just have better things to do than worry about receipts and write-offs ( and I'm nowhere near rich)
Not to mention Arthur C. Brooks' premise is flawed. He compares the giving of religious conservatives to secular liberals. Why not compare secular conservatives to secular liberals or vice versa? Because the results wouldn't jibe with his bs agenda.
nice of media matters to fog the issue by using a statement out of context and then twisting the subject. The ap was guilty of sloppy writing by not specifiying INCOME taxes. That is by giving a credit to those who pay no income taxes the proposal is wishing to engage in income redistribution
rrastro the only fog I see here is your dumb post.
Well he does seem to be infavor of continuing the current programs supporting wealth concentration. I guess its done good things for him.