Scarborough falsely asserted that Obama "wants" "higher taxes"
SUMMARY: On Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough falsely asserted that Sen. Barack Obama "wants" "higher taxes." In fact, the Tax Policy Center concluded that, compared to Sen. John McCain, "Obama would give larger tax cuts to low- and moderate-income households and pay some of the cost by raising taxes on high-income taxpayers" -- those households earning more than $250,000 per year.
On the September 29 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough falsely asserted that Sen. Barack Obama "wants" "higher taxes." Scarborough stated: "Americans don't want higher taxes, they don't want more spending, they don't want the things Barack Obama wants." In fact, the Tax Policy Center concluded that, compared with Sen. John McCain, "Obama would give larger tax cuts to low- and moderate-income households and pay some of the cost by raising taxes on high-income taxpayers" -- those households earning more than $250,000 per year. Indeed, McCain's chief economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, has reportedly said it is inaccurate to say that "Barack Obama raises taxes."
As Media Matters for America has documented, Scarborough previously failed to challenge McCain campaign senior adviser Steve Schmidt's false claim that Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton were "talking about raising taxes across the board," and vouched for the effectiveness of a McCain ad accusing Obama and Clinton of planning to respond to economic troubles "by raising your taxes" without noting that that the ad's central claim is false.
From the September 29 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
SCARBOROUGH: And -- and, you know, as I was watching the debate -- and we talked about it the Saturday morning after the debate -- I thought that ideologically, for me personally, ideologically, John McCain made the most sense. He was talking about cutting spending, he was talking about cutting taxes, he was talking about less of a government, he was talking about making sure we didn't retreat out of Iraq after our troops were already there, but I could tell that night when it got to temperament that Barack Obama had a more reassuring temperament. And that is just as important for so many Americans as ideology, Pat.
PAT BUCHANAN (MSNBC political analyst): Well, I think so. I think, well, McCain was really -- when you talk about taxes and spending and earmarks, frankly, for a lot of people, their eyes glaze over. They don't know what you're talking about, earmarks, but he was playing to the Republican base. And Barack Obama in terms of his persona, I think, and his demeanor, and frankly, his graciousness -- John McCain is dead right -- I think that he comes over as a nicer guy, a more pleasant guy, a more attractive guy, and he had enough substance there that people said, "Look the guy knows his onions, he's not a wimp, he's a tough guy, he disagrees with so and so, but he's a tough guy."
SCARBOROUGH: And, you know, Mika, I think actually John McCain ideologically is -- I know he is -- a lot closer to where America is than Barack Obama. But this year it may not -- because let me tell you something, Americans -- I don't care what the talking heads said -- Americans don't want higher taxes, they don't want more spending, they don't want the things Barack Obama wants, but it comes down to temperament, and I think this year that may be the tipping point for Obama.
MIKA BRZEZINSKI (co-host): It's interesting to see the transitions that have taken place even through the primaries and talking about whether or not you know these candidates can connect with the voter -- the incredible success of Sarah Palin when she was first chosen because of her ability to connect with the voter -- but now we find ourself in tremendous crisis, and Obama, who you could argue fails to connect but is looking like, well, he may have the temperament, I don't care if I can have a beer with him or a shot of vodka with him.
SCARBOROUGH: But Mike Barnicle, he may have the temperament, but, my gosh, neither of these gentlemen know anything about complex financial concerns that we have right now. So, am I going to be reassured by somebody that decided that he was going to run for president after being in Senate for 100 days? No. I think that may be why a lot of Americans are going, "We don't know which way to go."
BRZEZINSKI: But look at the people who got us into this mess. They've been in Washington forever.
Obama says he will raise taxes on anyone making $250,000 or more. Clearly he WANTS higher taxes.
Also, the Tax Policy Center is a joke. It's a left-wing leaning enterprise
Obama says he will lower taxes on anyone making less than $250,000. Clearly he WANTS lower taxes.
Apparently you would quit going to a store that lowered prices on everything except for liquor, which they raised prices for, because the store "raised their prices".
Is this website partisan as well:
http://www.electiontaxes.com/
That analogy is no good. If I said that store "raised prices", I'm not wrong. You added "THEIR" in your assertion.
You wouldn't be technically "wrong" with or without the "their" (I'm not sure what you think the distinction is), the point is, you'd be stupid to stop going to the store because they raised prices on only liquor. Unless, of course, liquor makes up a very substantial part of your grocery budget, which I don't find entirely unbelievable.
Brabantio just added the "stop going to the store" part. I think the difference between McCain and Obama on taxes is a legitimate one between conservatives and progressives, so I'm not out here to say one is better than the other, I'm just saying the claim that Obama will raise taxes is not false and that Brabantio added to the situation with his analogy.
I think if Joe said "Barack Obama wants to raise 'our" taxes" to the camera, that would be more misleading because then the number of taxpayers who will see an increase comes into question, sort of like Brabantio's "their" prices addition.
By that logic, Obama could advocate raising taxes for Donald Trump and Warren Buffett - alone - and it would be fair to say Obama wants to raise taxes.
I don't know if Trump and Buffett combined pay a larger piece than the entire rest of the taxpaying citizenry, but assuming they did, I don't think it would necessarily be "fair", but it wouldn't be "false."
Well, if it's not fair, then it's misleading. That would be misinformation. To say that there's some technical aspect that's true while the message is false is to defend intellectual dishonesty.
I don't know if Trump and Buffett combined pay a larger piece than the entire rest of the taxpaying citizenry
Buffett is on record saying he pays a lower percentage in taxes than his secretary does, and he doesn't think it's fair for her.
Probably a good example where Obama's "close the loopholes" policy is the right one. I think we were talking about Buffett's and Trump's business assets as well.
I'm just saying the claim that Obama will raise taxes is not false
No. But saying "Obama will raise taxes" without noting that it will only affect the richest Americans AND that he will actually lower taxes on middle/working/lower class Americans is an error of omission and therefore false.
Actually, my favorite strategy when confronted by some poor, misled bastard who claims that "Obama wants to raise taxes" is to immediately ask "on who?" Such a simple question forces the person to either make the mental connection between what they just said and Obama's actual tax plan OR to actually go back and look it up.
If it's the former, the argument usually doesn't last much longer because once they actually think about it, they realize that everything they think they know about Obama is wrong. If it's the latter the person usually comes to me later and sheepishly admits their error and we proceed to have a very frank and pleasant conversation about media narratives.
PS: I should point out that only the ones with a shred of intellectual honesty will actually go and look up Obama's tax plan to get the answer to my question. The others will just insist on repeating the BS they heard from Fox or Limbaugh.
Reading is fundamental, people.
That's your complaint? It's still nonsensical to quit going to a store because they "raised prices" when it doesn't affect 98% of what's sold there. The implication is generalized. They're raising their prices just like Obama wants to raise Americans' taxes.
Who said anything about quitting the store? Joe? Me?
And, per your analogy we CAN'T stop going to the store!
You're stretching the analogy.
And, per your analogy we CAN'T stop going to the store!
'Choosing a store" would equate to "choosing a candidate" in the analogy.
Once again, you righties post absudities.
$250,000 in income represents just 2% of US Housholds. (That's from the US Census data, my friend.) How can something that's FALSE 98% of the time be considered TRUE?
Only in your twisted minds I guess. It's no wonder you keep falling for their failed policies and practices.
Because 2% of the time its true. And you're the one spinning, because that 2% of households contributes a higher % of income taxes than the 98% of the other households.
See my post below on this point. Scarborough is not making the claim you are. If he were, he woujld not be incorrect.
That may be true but when the right wing says Obama wants to "raise taxes" it is asserting that taxes will go up for the majority of Americans. However, what is true is he wants to LOWER taxes for the vast majority of Americans.
that 2% of households contributes a higher % of income taxes than the 98% of the other households
Now who's spinning? What is the relevance of that?
The unspun truth is that Obama will REDUCE taxes for the vast majority of taxpayers. Period.
Therefore, the statement "Obama wants to raise taxes" is a spun falsehood.
Only a republican can look at something that's WRONG 98% of the time, correct 2% of the time, and say IT'S TRUE. You can't get around that. If you LIE 98% of the time, then you are not only a LIAR, but a rather pahological and egregious one!
noleftturns is a joke: it's a right-wing leaning poster.
But I must agree in a semantic sense. Obama wants higher taxes. In the same way that McCain wants more American soldiers to die in Iraq. In the same way that McCain wants to damage the environment. In the same way that McCain wants to balloon the deficit. Nobody "wants" these things, but they would choose them over other alternatives (getting out of Iraq, not drilling for new oil, raising taxes). The thing that Joe Scarborough could do for the American public would be to clarify the whole situation: "Obama wants higher taxes for people making $250K or more, and lower taxes for middle-class Americans. McCain wants not to raise taxes for anyone, and to offer some tax credits and incentives for middle-class Americans." If he had said that, his viewers would have a better grasp of reality, right. Is the right wing afraid of reality?
Yes.
Well hell, NLT, he's also the antichrist! You nailed it!
South Carolina mayor ‘just curious’ if Obama is the antichrist.
Fort Hill, SC Mayor Danny Funderburk said he forwarded a chain email suggesting Barack Obama is the antichrist because he was “just curious” if it was true:
The e-mail, which has circulated in the last six months, claims the biblical book of Revelation says the antichrist will be in his 40s and of Muslim ancestry. The Charlotte Observer reports, “There is no such scripture. And Obama is not a Muslim. But that hasn’t stopped the e-mail.” In March, CNN’s Glenn Beck wondered aloud “Is Obama the antichrist?“
Snoop, do the Obamas have their horns locked up in that photo?
Its obviously a terrorist head bump.
Don't you recognize the "terrorist head butt" when you see it? :-D
No, no,no... they're OBVIOUSLY doing the Luciferian pyschic mind meld that will turn everyone within 50 feet into the legion of doom.
Really? They'll all become pro wrestlers?
Well Col., the devil's in the details!
OT, and for everyone here, I found this nifty tool on C&L, you can check your voter registration status. I believe you can also register with it.
http://www.voteforchange.com/
He will raise taxes people making more than $250,000 a year. 4 out of 5 people will have their taxes cut. Clearly he WANTS lower taxes.
Once again, you're lying.
When will these Republicans stop with the cry for more tax cuts and blaming the Democrats for tax increases?
Every time federal taxes are cut, state and local taxes are increased. Fees for state and local services are increased.
There is never a savings for the tax payers. The different governments just reshuffle the deck and the total Americans pay is always more.
You want to live in a free society, you want to be protected by the police and fire department, you want the security of hiding behind the military, you want your children to get an education? You want your garbage hauled away, then pay your damed taxes and STFU?
THANK YOU! My God, If people understood this, the 'Pub's would lose half thier talking points!
Worrier, those are fine examples of useful purposes for taxation. Let's just pare it down to those uses and I'll vote for you any day of the election year.
So what shouldn't we be paying taxes for? Conservatives always say taxes should be lower. However they can never point to programs that make up a significant amount of spending. Even the the earmarks that McCain rails about only constitute $18B in a budget that is nearly $3T so where can we cut all this spending?
I can guarantee you that quite a few GOP members would be happy to point out programs that, by cutting them together, would make up a significant amount of spending. $18b is a lot of money regardless of how much there is overall.
Granted, if you disagree with the Iraq conflict and/or the war on terror, you'd be happy to cut the money being spent on that too, and I couldn't argue with you as I think that's discretionary depending on your support for the actions we're taking.
Where is all this "CUT SPENDING" grabage coming from? What do they mean "AMERICAN'S DON'T WNAT MORE SPENDING"? Who doesn't? What the hell?! Next to raising taxes, the next worst thing you can do in bad economic times is CUTTING SPENDING! Cutting spending WILL HURT THE ECONOMY!!! And hurt it EVRRY BIT AS MUCH AS RAISING TAXES! It's just easier to sell, becuase most people don't understand this. (They sure understand LOWER TAXES though!) 'Pub's use this talking point often enough, even thought they didn't show one iota of fiscal restraint when THEY were writing the checks. It's absurd. SPENDING HELPS. McCain will kill us with his, his VP's, and his constituiants' collective ignorance.
Whatever, Joe, you idiot. You wouldn't have the first inkling of how Americans think about taxes. You're just afraid you're going to have to pay more in taxes to bailout these same Wall St. punks you championed and enabled with your talk of no taxes and no regulation.
You cons are so stupid.
I mean really. How out to lunch is McCain? And how stupid does he think we are? We tax payers are giving these Wall St. derelicts nearly a trillion of our dollars, with damn little return for our investment, to cover their malfeasant asses. And along comes John McCain talking about lowering taxes on the same jerks who are bending us over the table. Where is the money going to come from John? China? Santa Claus?
No the truth is the next president will have to raise taxes. The question is who's gonna get hit? McCain is going to take it out of our hide and he's going to take it out of employer based health plans.
Obama is going to go after those who have benefited most from the Republican economy and those who most deserve to pay for this disaster.
Well said. Esp the health care plan tax increase! This represents the largest tax increrase on the middle class in American history. And you don't here a peep about it from the MSM. It's ridiculous.
Forget taxes. Obama wants a BETTER STANDARD OF LIVING for ALL AMERICANS. McCain wants rich people to have MORE MONEY.
And that's all you need to know.
That's"Tellin' it like it tis!"
Roundhouse
Well said, outstanding comments!!!!!!!!!!
You're right on the money, RH!
Excellent post.
Crazy idea, but just bear with me...What if we ::gasp:: CUT spending? I bet that might work too!!!
Cut spending on what?
(This should be priceless...)
BECAUSE CUTTING SPENDING WILL HURT THE ECONOMY! EVERY BIT AS MUCH AS RASING TAXES WILL!!! Why don't you try taking an economics course before you put your ignorance of the topin on public disply?!
...and we're going to have to pay it off someday...--Tman
We're paying it off through a devaluing dollar.
Look who just got new talking points hot off the limpballs express?
Hey snoopy, refute what I wrote instead of saying "talking points". The vast majority of your posts are "gotcha" talking points.
I did refer to what you wrote, and correctly identified it as a talking point. Of course my posts would be "gotcha's", because they are true. Now run along and read this link about tax cut myths and realities so you can better understand why your obsession with lower taxes is just that - an obsession.
You did refer, but since I asked you to refute, you did not =-)
It's too easy.
Like easy said, way too easy. Show me where there's an overall increase in Obama's plan...
Obama and McCain Tax Proposals
According to a new analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain are both proposing tax plans that would result in cuts for most American families. Obama's plan gives the biggest cuts to those who make the least, while McCain would give the largest cuts to the very wealthy. For the approximately 147,000 families that make up the top 0.1 percent of the income scale, the difference between the two plans is stark. While McCain offers a $269,364 tax cut, Obama would raise their taxes, on average, by $701,885 - a difference of nearly $1 million.
A picture is worth a thousand words.
You will not see a whole lot of posters arguing with it. They will post all over the place but to this, parsing words, repeating talking points, blaming Obama/Democrats etc.
What I do not understand is, why? Why do they have to run away from facts and argue against self created strawmen? Do they not realize it hurts them more to repeat the falsehoods than to accept the facts?
Or in this picture's case, argue for or against it, at least?
If something is FALSE 98% of the time, then you're out WAAAY on a limb to say it's TRUE. What does the total dollar amount matter? That a tax REVENUE increase. EVERYONE wants that! Christ, that's what republican's claim (baselssly) will happen when they propose cutting taxes! Does that mean THEY want to increase taxes too?
Your point's absurd! If 98% of the country will pay less in taxes overall, then how can you say he's raising taxes? You're wring 90% of the time! In school you get an "F" if you're wrong 40% of the time! You only get 2 points more than someone who didn't even show up for the test! How can you people be so think skulled about this?!
What's more, consider that McCain is going to tax employer related health care, HE'S the one who's going to raise taxes accross the board! And his $5000 credit won't even cover HALF the cost of individual premiums if your employer decides to cut off that benefit. (And many would be likely too, if it were taxed!)
If you people couldn't lie, we never hear anything from you!
Yes it is false. Any statement is false that misleads. Most people listening to Scarborough would conclude that Obama wants to raise taxes on everyone, and that their own taxes would not increase. If Scarborough had stated the tax increase in your way, it would be true. If he had said "Obama wants to raise taxes overall, but give tax cuts to the low and moderate income earning famiies, while raising them on households which make over 250,000," then he would have uttered a true statement.
By the way, is it ture that Obama does want to increase the amount of taxes the government collects, or is he just redistrubting how much each bracket pays?
I disagree with your assertion about misleads = false, because society doesn't really hold anyone to that standard, especially politicians (for instance, obama keeps talking about McCain's tax breaks to the oil companies, but he's really just singling out oil companies from the greater group of businesses that McCain wants to cut taxes for).
Funny, I don't know the exact numbers on the amount, but I would wager that if Obama is letting the Bush tax cuts expire and adds any other increase, it will be an increase in amount. That's not a good measuring stick anyway because if they economy grew and rates stayed the same, the amount would increase anyway.
>>I disagree with your assertion about misleads = false, because society doesn't really hold anyone to that standard,
That's a dishonest answer on your part. First, though I don't know any study to back up this asserion, I doubt that *society* doesn't hold people to a stronger standard than you do. In fact, it is exactly this type of parsing that makes people hate politicans. As far as determining whether a statement is true, we don't have to guess what society believes or does not believe. We need not play anthropologist. We simply can look at a statment. A statment that deliberately misleads is a linguitic lie (according to linguistics). This statement may not have been deliberate, but it is none-the less misleading, and false.
Your second point doesn't seem to prove your case either. If you don't even know if Obama's plan will bring in more taxes overall, how can you possibly claim he is raising taxes? He is redistributing how taxes are paid. That is not a tax increase.
I disagree with your assertion about misleads = false
OK, misleads=LIE, how's that stand up?
That's better.
Funny, I don't know the exact numbers on the amount, but I would wager that if Obama is letting the Bush tax cuts expire and adds any other increase, it will be an increase in amount.
You get an "F". You fail. Obama is NOT going to let the tax cuts expire for anyone making under $250,000 (as a household) per year. His tax cuts to the middle class come ON TOP of that. (As does his increase for the 2%ers.)
Dexter, if Joe doesn't explain Obama's tax plan in full, especially where only those with more than $250,000 will have their taxes raised, it can be very misleading and make one think Obama plans to raise taxes on ALL classes, especially the middle class.
(I already posted this earlier but it was meant to be a reply and when i logged in I thought it was going to automatically make it a reply)
That sort of depends on the distribution of wealth, don't you think? If you had people who had trillions of dollars and %99.9 of the population made less than 6 figure incomes, obviously increasing taxes on trillionaires would easily outweigh tax cuts for everyone else. Only a handful of people would consider it an "increase".
Yes, it's extreme, but the principle stands.
If Obama's proposed tax increase outweighs his proposed cuts, it is a tax increase.
If Obama's proposed tax cut affects more people than his proposed increase, it's a cut.
Fixed that for ya'.
You forget, this is not about dollars; it's about people. You know..."people"? Taxpayers? Human beings?
Kinda shows where the wingnuts' priorities are, doesn't it?
Almost everything you've said is a lie. First of all, he is NOT going to let the cuts expire for anyone (household) making $250,000 or less. He's then going to offer a BIGGER tax cut than McCain to the majority of the people in that group. So the bottom bracket does not "go up."
As for the top bracket? If you make more than $250,000? Boo-frickin-hoo. I work too hard for MY money to feel the least bit sorry for you, and to want to bankroll your extravagence any longer.
Just because you make less than 250K doesn't mean you work harder. Why should someone who makes more have to give a larger percentage of their money to the government to support the lazy? Why can't everyone pay a flat percentage rate? And BTW, Obama IS going to let the tax cuts expire in 2010 and then submit his own.
Are you implying, you worthless sack of crap, that because I don't make $250,000/year that I'm lazy? Seriously? Here's an example: I work in a law firm. I'm not an attorney. I make right around the 100K mark. I'm not hurting, but I'm definitely not wealthy, as I live in SF, CA - and life is quite expensive here. A tax cut for me would be wonderful.
Then we have attorneys here who make up and above 500K/year, but pay less in taxes than I do.
HOW THE HELL IS THAT FAIR?
Go F yourself. You just referred to the majority of Americans, and (and I'll venture to guess) most of the posters here. If you have such an aversion to taxes, buy a f**king island and move there. You obviously don't need the services taxes provide to the people on whose backs you've made your disgustingly high profits.
You are a dumb mother f--ker if you thought I was implying you're lazy. If you would/could read I was saying why should I have to pay more of a percentage just because I make more. I too work hard for my money and don't believe that people who are too lazy to get off their asses and get a job should be receiving my hard earned income. I said everyone should pay the same percentage whether you make 10,000 or 10 million. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 18%. Someone making 10K would pay 1800 dollars while someone making 10 million would pay 1.8 million. Sound fair enough to you? So next read the post before making an arse of yourself.
The touble with you, is you think that it's equal for someone making $10,000 dollars to pay @the same rate as someone making $10 milion????? Your a fool.
Someone making 10K needs every penny of that to survive, while someone else can live on a hell of a lot less than 8.2 million. It's only fair if you don't think about how it affects actual people.
Ok, so lets give everybody a generous standard deduction, say $18,000 per adult and $8,000 for minor (agewise) dependents and then tax the balance at a flat rate, so a married couple with 2 children making $50,000/year would deduct $44,000 and pay a flat rate 18-20% on the $6000 (an effective rate around 2%) while the same couple making $250,000 would pay on $198,000 (an effective rate around 16%). Is that progressive enough? If not, add another rate for AGI above $250,000 of say 10% (on top of the base). Is that progressive enough?
The basic concept is certainly more reasonable, yes, although I'm not strong on economics. My point was basically that life doesn't work on a sliding scale. You don't get bread for a nickel if you're poor and for five bucks if you're rich, so taking money away from poor people is exponentially more significant in nature.
Incidentally, what happened to the second child in your first example? Two adults and two children would add up to $52,000 (as reflected in your second example), which would result in no taxes at all. Again, I'm not good with economics so maybe I'm missing a principle you applied there.
The basic concept is certainly more reasonable, yes, although I'm not strong on economics. My point was basically that life doesn't work on a sliding scale. You don't get bread for a nickel if you're poor and for five bucks if you're rich, so taking money away from poor people is exponentially more significant in nature. - Brabantio
EXACTLY, BRABANTIO. I wish the a$$crack right-wingers would see the logic there...
Well, if what you say is true about the attorneyis above $500K paying less in taxes, I would say the tax code, and not necessarily the rates, need to be changed. If the rates are changed and the code isn't, wouldn't the possibility still arise that they would pay less in taxes than you?
>>However, the bottom margins will be higher than they are today and the top margins will be higher than they are today.
I don't think so. According to the link MMFA provides, the bottom margin will pay less.
Heaven,
Can you provide some actual numbers to back up your claim or are you just making it up?
I think he's just pulling those numbers out of his pearly gates.
However, the bottom margins will be higher than they are today (somethingaboutreptiles)
Do you have a source for that?
Damn, I should refresh that page when I get distracted by work.
Perhaps I'm a little simplistic in my thinking (I'd prefer to call it "common sense"), but I fail to see why Democrats don't counter the "tax and spend" mantra with a "borrow and spend" charge. The Republicans, in their orgy of "outsourcing", which is really selling the country off to the people who've already bought them, have mortgaged the G-D USA to the People's Republic of China. The national security implications are huge. Remember, Osama's main target was our economy. Somewhere, I think he's laughing at us.
Well said. Great post.
Good post.
DING DING!
We have a winner.
The borrow and spend mantra is what got one of the nation's most revered law firms into trouble (Heller Ehrman, anyone?).
The Republicans, in their orgy of "outsourcing", which is really selling the country off to the people who've already bought them, have mortgaged the G-D USA to the People's Republic of China. - Conchobhar
IMHO, that makes Republicans traitors. Somehow I doubt the Founding Fathers would have put profit before country...
Excellent post.
Don't forget MEDIA=LIBERAL. Every time a 'Con tells me that (happened again last friday!) I ask them, "If that's true, then why are you AGAINST the reinstatment of the fairness doctrine, while the LIBERALS support it?"
I guess nobody "wants" higher taxes...
The fact that seems missing is that Obama wants to also raise the taxes on dividends, which will effect all individuals.
It is unfair to call the McCain plan as taking “less” taxes from the wealthy. He is not proposing new tax breaks to the wealthy, just continuing with our current structure in which the top bracket is 35% and in which the top 10% of income earners pay 2/3 of the taxes.
When looking at all of this, it is very important to consider the effect on the economy of the Obama proposed tax increases, including the often ignored uncapping of the 12.5% social security tax that will have to be paid half by employees and half by employers (100% by self employed people). The proposed increase in the capital gains rate will not increase revenue and will definitely hurt the economy and the stock market. The other proposed increases of income taxes will undoubtedly hurt the economy and cause many jobs (of people earning less than $200,000) to be lost. The question that should be asked is do people earning $50,000 want their income taxes to go down by $1,000 only to find that their jobs are in jeopardy or that they will get no raise next year because their employer is now burdened with more taxes?
Obama and McCain plans are just proposals that may or may not get through Congress. They don't take into account wars, whether the president will sign an expensive social program into law, or the world economy.
Blah...Blah...blah....blah!!!
The proposed increase in the capital gains rate will not increase revenue and will definitely hurt the economy and the stock market.
Wrong.
McCain also repeats the mantra that cutting the capital gains tax rate will increase government receipts. In fact, rate cuts produce a spike in revenue, but it's only temporary. McCain also falsely claims that higher capital gains tax rates will affect 401(k) plans.
Source: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_budget_according_to_mccain_part_ii.html
Cutting capital gains rates reduces revenues over the long run. That’s the conclusion of the federal government’s official revenue-estimating agencies, as well as outside experts and the Bush Administration’s own Treasury Department.
Source: http://www.cbpp.org/policy-points4-18-08.htm
Proponents of the tax cuts might argue that the stronger revenue growth in 2005 represents the beginning of a trend and that the tax cuts will pay for themselves over time. This claim is contradicted by the historical record, as well as by the Administration’s own projections.
Source: http://www.cbpp.org/3-8-06tax.htm
We found that a slew of government economists – from the Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation and the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers – all disagreed with that theory, saying that tax cuts may spur economic growth but they lead to revenues that are lower than they would have been if the cuts hadn’t been enacted.
Source: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/have_tax_cuts_always_resulted_in_higher.html
Carn posted:
Cutting capital gains rates reduces revenues over the long run. That’s the conclusion of the federal government’s official revenue-estimating agencies, as well as outside experts and the Bush Administration’s own Treasury Department.
Not true. Cutting captial gains spurs realization. Increasing CGT will have investors holding onto gains to avoid higher taxes. Just look at the Tax Reform ACt of 1986. Investors had three months before the rate went from 20% to 28%. Investores rushed to cash in before the three month deadline. The CGT realizations remained in a funk for nearly a decade afterwards.
Strategas Research did a review over the past five decades on rates of return for CGT and concludes that higher cap gains would ultimately be a loser for the country.
What will happpen though is that money will be looked at as a net gain to be used for more spending. Taxes will have to be raised in other areas to pay for spending.
Dexter, if Joe doesn't explain Obama's tax plan in full, especially where only those with more than $250,000 will have their taxes raised, it can be very misleading and make one think Obama plans to raise taxes on ALL classes, especially the middle class.
Now I know who is writing McCain's ads: Joe Scarborough. Joe could have been in the SNL spoof of McCain in the studio making the lying commercials attacking Sen. Obama. Sarcasm expert: "Barack Obama wants to cut taxes for pedophiles." McCain: "I don't think that true, do you?" Producer: "Well, if he cuts taxes for anyone making less than $250.000 a year, wouldn't that MIGHT include some people who are pedophiles?" "I'm John McCaine and I approve this message."
Overall taxes would go up if you increase taxes on everyone making more than $250,000 and decrease taxes for everyone below $250,000. So I guess Joe is right!
"Reality, what a concept."
R Williams
The above post was intended for the poster who thinks that heaving is for republicans only.
If heaven is for republicans only, PLEASE, OH G-D, PLEASE, SEND ME TO HELL!