Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama will raise taxes by a trillion dollars

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
denem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-04-08 08:48 AM
Original message
Obama will raise taxes by a trillion dollars
Mark Penn is at it again

In the Democratic race, the Obama team - accused last week by the Clinton campaign of distributing a misleading mailer about Clinton's health care proposal - shot back at the New York senator's campaign, accosting the Clinton camp for a mailer sent to Massachusetts households that claims Obama would raise taxes by a trillion dollars.

That's nearly one-third of the size of the federal budget, and a charge that Representative William Delahunt of Massachusetts called "absurd."

My first reaction was, 'Someone's joking,' " Delahunt, who has endorsed Obama, said in a conference call with reporters. "It tells me that there is panic inside the Clinton campaign."

The trillion-dollar figure is based on Obama's proposal to lift the cap, though not entirely, on the amount of earnings subject to the Social Security tax. Currently, only earnings up to $97,500 a year are subject to the FICA tax, meaning people earning $30,000 a year pay a higher Social Security tax rate than people earning many millions of dollars a year.

But the Clinton campaign's mailer said Obama "wants to raise Social Security taxes by a trillion dollars." Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said outside analysts have backed up the trillion-dollar figure.

However, Obama's economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, said that number could only be true if the cap were lifted entirely and immediately on all wage-earners - something he said Obama does not support. "It isn't Senator Obama's policy, it isn't a trillion dollars, and it isn't on the middle class," Goolsbee said.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/04/obama_clinton_clash_over_social_security_healthcare_electability/

Many things may said in primaries. Hillary's ham fisted illustration of Health Care mandates as "going after peoples wages" is a gift to the Republicans that keeps on giving.

I am in favor of mandates, I prefer Hillary's economic polices, but this sound bite is nearly as good as Mondale's greatest hits. Republican: "I will blah blah blah, and unlike Clinton I WILL NOT BE GOING AFTER YOUR WAGES".


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
FormerDittoHead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-04-08 08:55 AM
Response to Original message
1. hey - maybe by lifting the cap they can lower the RATE? Anyone suggest THAT?
I mean, if you make $10,000 a year, you pay the same RATE as someone making $90,000 a year.

But if they lift the cap to say, $200,000 a year, BUT MADE THE CHANGE REVENUE NEUTRAL, then they could LOWER THE RATE.

Also, how about it applying to ALL income (or more sources of income) not just WAGES, but say, RENTAL income or SHORT TERM capital gains...

ANYONE SUGGESTING ANY OF *THAT*???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheCowsCameHome Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-04-08 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. That would make too much sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
denem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-04-08 09:13 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. It's a good idea.
AS in - unless you earn more than $250,000 you will pay less.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-04-08 09:18 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. The purpose of lifting the cap is to increase revenue.
We're trying to extend the life of social security here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
denem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-04-08 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. Of course but you can raise the cap - all the way
cut the rate, and still be miles ahead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FormerDittoHead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-04-08 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. You could do a little of both, eh? I still think it would be a good idea...
You could still raise the cap (or eliminate it, whatever) and raise revenue WHILE lowering the rate. Just don't lower the rate as much to be revenue neutral.

Even if you lowered the rate a LITTLE, making it revenue POSITIVE, it would benefit the lower classes exponentially more, as there is no "floor" on SS taxes...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aviation Pro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-04-08 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. How about making corporations pay an "outsource" tax?
Edited on Mon Feb-04-08 09:21 AM by Aviation Pro
When the ship out labor overseas. Make it something onerous like 400%. That'll get the attention of, apologies for this word, the cocksuckers in the board room.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FormerDittoHead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-04-08 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #5
10. That too. Although I'm thinking it would be a max-expense rate like meals...
I don't see having an "outsource tax" working as easily as just playing with the amounts that such expenses could be deducted...

For example, while traveling, meals are only 50% deductible. I'm thinking along those same ways - make outsourced "services" only 20% (10% whatever) deductible... So for every dollar you pay an overseas call center, you can only deduct 20 cents off of your income...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cpamomfromtexas Donating Member (453 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-04-08 09:22 AM
Response to Original message
6. Well Hells Bells- why not tax that given in lieu of salary (options)
when cashed out too?

The bigwigs will get around everything unless you treat them the same, folks! They'll just take theirs in options please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FormerDittoHead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-04-08 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. We've got some smart people here...
Exactly to the point about only WAGES being taxed by social security.

I agree that the scope of what's taxed should be broadened.

Currently, for example, people day trading making short term capital gains pay NOTHING into social security...

Their net income, the profits, THEIR salary, goes UNTOUCHED by social security...

We're all thinking along the same lines...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coexist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-04-08 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
9. hmmm.... that sould pay for 10 months in Iraq.
:hide:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 18th 2024, 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC