Think Obama's plan isn't socialism?

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/13/obama-plumber-plan-spread-wealth/comments/#AddComments

And in case anyone is afraid of the big bad Fox News, there's a video where you can see Obama speaking in his own words....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoqI5PSRcXM


Here's the quote:

Quote :

Obama made the remark, caught on camera, after fielding some tough questions from the plumber Sunday in Ohio, where the Democratic candidate canvassed neighborhoods and encouraged residents to vote early.

"Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" the plumber asked, complaining that he was being taxed "more and more for fulfilling the American dream."

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too," Obama responded. "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Wealth redistribution is a hallmark of socialism! Do I think all Dems are socialist? NO absolutely not. But this man is, and that is one particular hell that our country does NOT want to live through!

Do you realize that his plan where 95% of Americans get a tax break will actually mean checks sent to those who pay no taxes to begin with??? Here, you don't work, you don't pay taxes, but you're poor....here's some money!

It's not a TAX CUT it's Government Welfare.

Great freaking plan.

The word Socialist is the new red herring for those opposing Obama’s policies and who are desperate to find something John McCain can hang his hat on. “Terrorist”didn’t work nor “Muslim” or any of the more traditional and implied racially derogatory remarks thinly veiled in some criticisms of Barack Obama. It reminds me a bit of the Salem witch trials.

When the right-wing refers to Obama as a socialist or communist, this is a huge exaggeration of Obama's real beliefs, which involve increased government regulation of our troubled financial markets, increased taxes of the wealthiest Americans and guarantees of quality healthcare to all Americans. While these policies do involve more government involvement in economic activity than those favored by John McCain and President Bush, they do not meet the traditional understanding of socialism or communism because they do not involve state ownership of most means of production.

Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society.

There is a major difference between regulation (which Obama supports) and ownership (which Socialism demands). Even most Republicans now agree that regulation is necessary. Just look at the state of affairs with the economy right now.

Rather than “socialism” Obama advocates individual and not governmental rights. By raising the standard of living of the majority of the population, there is increased social mobility and the actual power of the workers and consumers is enhanced. He believes in regulating the market beyond that of the social conservatives’ position to address global poverty and inequality in an equitable way. This stabilizes our own economic conditions by providing a measure of economic stability to those who are extremely poor. He believes in restricting SOME economic rights to make a more fair playing field for the market for both small businesses and consumers. If you think the economic plans of Obama will run up deficits, you need only look to the record of the current conservative administration which has run up unprecedented deficits.

Obama is not a Socialist....or a communist....or a Muslim or a terrorist.

CinC answered the more basic questioning...but there was something that I heard a few days ago that has been resonating with me....on the problem with trickle down economics....

Lower and middle class people spend their money. They buy gas, and housing and food and clothes. Upper class people don't spend money, there is no way they can. If you are worth a billion dollars, a huge percentage of your money is on paper. The acquiring of wealth changes from becoming secure to being a game of rich guys to one up themselves.

To stimulate the economy, (and hopefully keep us out of a depression), people need to be buying things. Getting more money to lower and middle class people through tax cuts and initiatives stimulates the economy.

Quote :

Do you realize that his plan where 95% of Americans get a tax break will actually mean checks sent to those who pay no taxes to begin with???

Not sure on this one, Renee, tax breaks mean that your taxes are lower (although I would not object to free checks to people who don't make enough money to pay taxes.)

.....But if you talk about free money, the pittance that some person who doesn't make enough to pay taxes receives will not come close to the $700 billion just paid out to super wealthy financial institution.

The main difference between Bush's economic incentive last year (of sending checks out to everyone), is that while Obama is giving a tax break (as economic incentives) to those making under $250,000, slightly increasing taxes to the wealthy, and his program really makes a hit to the super wealthy. This way the little guy gets money and spends it, but we can still bankroll the moneys needed to reduce the national debt and pay for necessary programs and get the economy back on it's feet. The money to run this country has to come from somewhere, and giving massive tax breaks to the super wealthy wasn't cutting it.

There is some tenants of Socialism in what Obama is saying there. I think the problem is the vilification of the words Socialism and Communism. In theory they are quite interesting but when certain nations use them to control thier population they lose what was once an interesting and possible ideal.

There has to be a better way than spreading the wealth by taxing the rich to give to the poor. Instead there must be better ways that work within our capitalist society like stimulate the job market. Make the rich richer by government encouraging them to do MORE business that employs more people and donates to more causes, etc. They are the movers and shakers of the country. . . use them in the way they understand and allow them the riches they deserve for it instead of finding ways to drain thier wealth. Make colleges affordable with subsidies for the lower classes not loans so we produce more people willing to enter the job market at a level they can support themselves at. Find a way to drive down the cost of everyday goods - my suggestion is government stores with the basic needs of the people at no frills generic costs and free to people with certain types of cards. Toilet paper and light bulbs can certainly be provided for 10 cents somehow. People with means won't go there although they should be allowed. They will pay for the luxuries. Subsidize rents for people willing to work and make a hard days work worth something. As it is right now the homeless will always be homeless since they will never, ever be able to pull themselves out. That has to change and throwing money at them is not the answer. Why bother to work as a dishwasher if you cant even live in a shack for it. Take back the jobs from the illegal immigrants and let our people work them and actually be able to live on it.

In Las Vegas ( a few years ago its changed now even there ) a casino dishwasher was a union job that paid $10 an hour with full medical and dental benefits as well as a retirement fund. Average low income rent was possible at $500 a month for a 2 bedroom apt. Do the math there - that person could actually live and have a family. With two similar non-skilled incomes they could comfortably afford a car and maybe start saving for a house that would have cost them about $100,000 and could be done. A fair return for a hard days work.

Thats the true challenge of this country I believe. Show me where this will start to happen again and there is no need to speak of illegal aliens - they'll go home or assimilate. There is no need to speak of welfare for other than the disabled. There is no need to speak of taxing the rich to pay for the poor. . . employ them instead. There are millions of dishwasher, gardener, hotel maid, caregiver, etc positions that require no schooling. Let's take those jobs back and make them liveable. Let's encourage those people to then educate themselves and move upward. How ? By allowing the rich to get richer and pay thier employees well and by somehow getting a handle on the price of goods, services, rent and medical costs.

The guy that has that vision would get my vote.

Oh piffle...this guy said it better....

Quote :

Every couple of years, when big investors suffer losses, Congress and their partisan economists launch into a heated debate over how to stimulate the flagging economy. This is mostly a rehash of the "trickle down" versus "bottom up" debate that dates back to the Reagan years.

Conservatives argue that the answer to the recession is to cut taxes and interest rates targeted at their über-wealthy and global corporate patrons. This is their program for any season, rain or shine, so it is immediately suspect.

Progressives argue, correctly, that we should target tax breaks and rebates to low- and middle-income people; their consumer spending will keep the economy chugging. Give a tax break to big corporations and the rich, and it will go anywhere on the planet in search of maximum returns. Give a tax rebate to a lower-income person or a small business and it is spent in the local economy, thus stimulating bottom up demand.

Give a tax break to big corporations and the rich, and it will go anywhere on the planet in search of maximum returns. Give a tax rebate to a lower-income person or a small business and it is spent in the local economy, thus stimulating bottom up demand.

But what should I care where the uber rich spends his money as long as he's paying his employees and he's investing in his company to further his wealth. As he spends more money in his company, more people on the lower end are making money to spend. As he pays his employees better to stay competitive more people move up the chain and spend thier money locally. As he buys goods from the little guy down the street who can actually now compete against a foreign market that guy is spending his money. . . . etc. Make that happen is what I'm looking for.

It's simply two differing approaches to the economy.

Bottom line: Obama is no more a socialist than McCain is a benevolent despot.

Morgan Rowan wrote:

There is some tenants of Socialism in what Obama is saying there. I think the problem is the vilification of the words Socialism and Communism. In theory they are quite interesting but when certain nations use them to control thier population they lose what was once an interesting and possible ideal.

There has to be a better way than spreading the wealth by taxing the rich to give to the poor. Instead there must be better ways that work within our capitalist society like stimulate the job market. Make the rich richer by government encouraging them to do MORE business that employs more people and donates to more causes, etc. They are the movers and shakers of the country. . . use them in the way they understand and allow them the riches they deserve for it instead of finding ways to drain thier wealth. Make colleges affordable with subsidies for the lower classes not loans so we produce more people willing to enter the job market at a level they can support themselves at. Find a way to drive down the cost of everyday goods - my suggestion is government stores with the basic needs of the people at no frills generic costs and free to people with certain types of cards. Toilet paper and light bulbs can certainly be provided for 10 cents somehow. People with means won't go there although they should be allowed. They will pay for the luxuries. Subsidize rents for people willing to work and make a hard days work worth something. As it is right now the homeless will always be homeless since they will never, ever be able to pull themselves out. That has to change and throwing money at them is not the answer. Why bother to work as a dishwasher if you cant even live in a shack for it. Take back the jobs from the illegal immigrants and let our people work them and actually be able to live on it.

In Las Vegas ( a few years ago its changed now even there ) a casino dishwasher was a union job that paid $10 an hour with full medical and dental benefits as well as a retirement fund. Average low income rent was possible at $500 a month for a 2 bedroom apt. Do the math there - that person could actually live and have a family. With two similar non-skilled incomes they could comfortably afford a car and maybe start saving for a house that would have cost them about $100,000 and could be done. A fair return for a hard days work.

Thats the true challenge of this country I believe. Show me where this will start to happen again and there is no need to speak of illegal aliens - they'll go home or assimilate. There is no need to speak of welfare for other than the disabled. There is no need to speak of taxing the rich to pay for the poor. . . employ them instead. There are millions of dishwasher, gardener, hotel maid, caregiver, etc positions that require no schooling. Let's take those jobs back and make them liveable. Let's encourage those people to then educate themselves and move upward. How ? By allowing the rich to get richer and pay thier employees well and by somehow getting a handle on the price of goods, services, rent and medical costs.

The guy that has that vision would get my vote.

Morgan, I vote for you!

The danger in wealth redistribution is that the you're drying up the source! Make it harder on business, they cut back, which means cutting back on jobs or benefits. Make it even harder on business they close their doors or outsource. We have to support businesses, because businesses support the people.

I will say, though, that socialism and communism are still dirty words in my book!

I never said that Obama was a terrorist or a Muslim or a communist. And in your own words, Cincy...

Quote :

Rather than “socialism” Obama advocates individual and not governmental rights. By raising the standard of living of the majority of the population, there is increased social mobility and the actual power of the workers and consumers is enhanced. He believes in regulating the market beyond that of the social conservatives’ position to address global poverty and inequality in an equitable way. This stabilizes our own economic conditions by providing a measure of economic stability to those who are extremely poor. He believes in restricting SOME economic rights to make a more fair playing field for the market for both small businesses and consumers. If you think the economic plans of Obama will run up deficits, you need only look to the record of the current conservative administration which has run up unprecedented deficits.

If this is truly his belief, then he is more naive than I thought. He's not raising the stand of living; he's putting a bandaid on a broken arm. You can't punish business and help the people. Business is what supports people!

He wants to address global poverty and inequality in an equitable way. And then a 1000 butterflies will float down and brush us with fairy dust! No president has ever done more to combat global poverty than President Bush, and he did it without fanfare or self-grandization.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/30/AR2006123000941.html

Again, not something we see often in this Bush-hating media vacuum.

No, Cincy, Obama's plan is not the way to go. His plan will hurt the people who do the most to help our society. I keep hearing that some don't mind giving a little to help those who have the least. I would rather help them by giving them JOBS, not eliminating the very source of those jobs. I want to help them, too, but I want the help to be long term, not a bandaid.

I will state, though, that there are definitely areas where I think the government should offer support: EDUCATION and HEALTHCARE. Governor Schwarzenegger, although a big disappointment to me in many areas, did one thing amazingly well. He's shored up our State University system, improving the college grounds themselves, student housing AND tuition support. When it comes to Healthcare, I'll be the first to admit I don't have the answers; there are people far more learned on this topic than I. I don't want government health care, but I do believe we need to do something so that no child goes without healthcare, and those goes for ANY child in our borders, here legally or not. That may go directly against my conservative beliefs, but a child is a child. There's a much bigger issue here.

CinC wrote:

It's simply two differing approaches to the economy.

Bottom line: Obama is no more a socialist than McCain is a benevolent despot.

Really Cincy? Really?

The problem, Morgan, is that has not been happening for so long, it's hard for me to remember....

It goes back to the "greed is good" thinking of the 80's. No longer did you have the "good guy" business owner who took care of his employees....who paid a fair wage, where you worked your job for forty years and retired with a gold watch and a pension.....

Now you were fired after 39 years and your job was given to some new guy who got half the pay. Your pension was stolen.

This happended so many times here in my own small community....

A big company sees a thriving healthy business, buys it up, fires most of the employees, gives golden parachutes to the top guys and absorbs them into the mega business, and after raping the thriving healthy business, leaves a empty husk and a ****load of the newly unemployed on the towns economy.

This happened to three businesses on a town that only had five major businesses in the economy! It had a tremendous impact on our towns economy.

You can't give money (in tax breaks) and assume that the super rich will be fair with "spreading the wealth". The fact is that they will do what they already do. They will maximize the profits by paying as little as they can to their employees, cutting the quality as much they can get away with, and take their profits and look for the best return on their money, even if it takes their money out of the US as they in foreign markets and offshore investing.

spongie wrote:

The problem, Morgan, is that has not been happening for so long, it's hard for me to remember....

It goes back to the "greed is good" thinking of the 80's. No longer did you have the "good guy" business owner who took care of his employees....who paid a fair wage, where you worked your job for forty years and retired with a gold watch and a pension.....

Now you were fired after 39 years and your job was given to some new guy who got half the pay. Your pension was stolen.

This happended so many times here in my own small community....

A big company sees a thriving healthy business, buys it up, fires most of the employees, gives golden parachutes to the top guys and absorbs them into the mega business, and after raping the thriving healthy business, leaves a empty husk and a ****load of the newly unemployed on the towns economy.

This happened to three businesses on a town that only had five major businesses in the economy! It had a tremendous impact on our towns economy.

You can't give money (in tax breaks) and assume that the super rich will be fair with "spreading the wealth". The fact is that they will do what they already do. They will maximize the profits by paying as little as they can to their employees, cutting the quality as much they can get away with, and take their profits and look for the best return on their money, even if it takes their money out of the US as they in foreign markets and offshore investing.

Now that is a problem the government could tackle. Any "outsourcing" should be taxed to the point that it is to the business' own benefit to keep the work here. Although I agree you can't be sure the wealth will trickle down, I still think it's important to keep business healthy.

And just one comment. You seem to put all the blame on the company that comes in and "buys them up". Sometimes, a business is on it's way out and it takes an outside company to step in to salvage whatever can be salvaged.

I think a big part of the problem is that business is changing in and of itself. I used to work for a broadcasting company that provided music and djs on tape for smaller and medium markets who couldn't afford major market talent or who's market was so small, it wasn't in the record companies interest to provide free music. It was a fun and exciting business. Then the music industry changed. CDs and internet sources made our business obsolete. Instead of adapting our business to the new reality, the owners battled to hold on to the old ways until they finally had to close the doors.

The work force is in a state of flux. It is now more important than ever for workers at every level to keep educated and increasing their skills. It's not business' fault that our world is changing; it can only try to keep up.

I totally agree with spongie on this one. I work in employment law and she is telling ya like it is. Although there are now laws to protect the worker, there are many more laws that protect the employer and/or place such a high burden of proof against simple employment at will discharges that companies can get away with doing terrible things to employees....especially those nearing retirement age and/or those who suffer health problems. It's kind of getting away from the original issue, but I cannot believe we can count on these same people to do more than protect their own profit margin.

It is the disparity between the worker and the employer when it comes to wages and the means an employer will go to to maintain and increase his own profit while at the same time subjecting the employee to discriminatory practices and unfair wages and cheaper outsourcing of jobs that the employee has no recourse against and usually does not contest simply to insure not losing his job.

The tax code favors people making over a certain amount of money each year. By increasing the tax base of the ultra-wealthy while at the same time rewarding those companies who give back to the community and to their employees through tax credits, there will at least be some simblance of balance and fairness. And the economy and everyone will be better off.

Quote :

But what should I care where the uber rich spends his money as long as he's paying his employees and he's investing in his company to further his wealth. As he spends more money in his company, more people on the lower end are making money to spend. As he pays his employees better to stay competitive more people move up the chain and spend thier money locally. As he buys goods from the little guy down the street who can actually now compete against a foreign market that guy is spending his money. . . . etc. Make that happen is what I'm looking for.

...And he takes his company out of the US and fires his US employees and employs third world workers at a fraction he was paying his US workers.....

What needs to be done, and what Obama is propossing, is to support the small business. The maker of light bulbs, say, who hires locally, ploughs his profits back into the company (all this is already tax deductible), hires truckers and freight trains to take the light bulbs to distributers across the country, where they are sold to stores and purchased by consumers.

The top .01 percent of the counrty will be paying 10 percent more taxes under Obama's plan. the top one percent have an 8 percent increase in their taxes.

This will not effect the people who own businesses in your town. It will effect the mega corporations who are, by this plan, being mandated to keep some of those profits in the US.

Spongie said:

This will not effect the people who own businesses in your town. It will effect the mega corporations who are, by this plan, being mandated to keep some of those profits in the US.

Totally agree. And for most of those mega corporations that mandate is the ONLY way they can be counted on to do so....when it is in to their own benefit.

Quote :

totally agree with spongie on this one. I work in employment law and she is telling ya like it is. Although there are now laws to protect the worker, there are many more laws that protect the employer and/or place such a high burden of proof against simple employment at will discharges that companies can get away with doing terrible things to employees....especially those nearing retirement age and/or those who suffer health problems. It's kind of getting away from the original issue, but I cannot believe we can count on these same people to do more than protect their own profit margin.

So where does Obama address this or fix this ?

If the rich guy can do better outside the country thats his business. Its supposed to be a free country. Find a way to encourage him to stay rather than mandate him. Thats not what this country was built on to me.

If there are so many problems in business law well than I guess thats where you start then isnt it.

I dont see that where you start is to over tax the guy so he moves his buisiness elsewhere - where does anyone win there ?



I fully admit that both cincy and sponge no far more than I do about this subject but that doesnt mean I cant have an opinion on it. Sometimes you get so caught up in all the ' knowledge ' that the 4 year old has a simpler more basic answer. You never know.

Quote :

And just one comment. You seem to put all the blame on the company that comes in and "buys them up". Sometimes, a business is on it's way out and it takes an outside company to step in to salvage whatever can be salvaged.

Renee, the businesses that were trashed in my town were healthy businesses. As a matter of fact, that was the whole point....

A thriving bathroom fixture business was bought up in a hostle takeover, the top guys were obsorbed into the parent mega business, the better numbers because of the smaller business's earlier profits allowed the stock of the parent business to go up, and once that happened, all the distribution contracts of the smaller business were taken by the mega parent company, all the local emplyees were fired, and the factory still stands empty to this day.

They kept the name of the original company on the fixtures, sent the manufacturing over to Taiwan, and raised the prices.

The top guys who were living in very nice houses, buying nice cars, and buying nice clothes and dining in nice restaurants in my town, moved to New York. The very nice houses were bought by the mega parent company, then dumped on the market extremely below market value, which impacted all the real estate values of my town...and still do to this day.

The ramifications of of this buyout still haunts the town, and it's been over 20 years.

And that was one busness in this town. This happened to two additional busniesses, all healthy.

Whats wrong with the rich wanting to get richer ? What's wrong with running a tight ship and turning the biggest profit ? Once there was a contest for good workers in this country and the guy that treated them the best got all the best workers. Now he has his hand forced in every move he makes and has to hire who he has to hire to avoid law suits and having his product not bought due to public pressure. The result is the good workers get shafted and stop being good workers.

The whole system is in trouble - not just the money but our entire system of work ethics. Those things cant be forced, they must be learned. Clean up the homeless guy ( the mentally well one ) and give him a sense of accomplishment and purpose and he'll amaze you. Treat your employees well and you make more money BUT not if the government gets thier hands in it and starts changing everything about your business ethics and mandating how you do business. Then its **** the workers, I've got to eek out what I can from this monster.

More government involvement does not seem to me to be the answer. Its the old you can attract more with honey than vinegar. Reward the companies with tax credits that treat their workers well and keep thier money in the country. Let them go outside the country when they need to and deal with it however it has to be dealt with.

simple answers I know but damn it - simple is always better.

It's not a matter of overtaxing the employer. This is not an issue of "overtaxing" but rather placing mandates and rewarding those who comply. As it stands now, the mega companies have no desire or need for tax breaks because those tax breaks are already written into the existing tax laws.

Of course, there are simplistic methods that the government can take to address these economic issues. And most of those methods are part of the tax incentive programs. And there is constant proposed litigation to strengthen labor laws, just as there is constant opposition. It's hard and necessary work, both to promulgate and to address the opposition. But it should never be formulated on a fear that if something is done, the company will just move away any more than a worker subjected to discrimination should let it slide out of fear of losing their jobs.

Morgan, you start to correct the problem by admitting there is a problem.

Deregulation and trickle down economics, tied in with "greed is good" mentality, has to at least take some of the blaim for the current inflation/recession stagsession we are in now.

We need regulation and oversight to keep mega company owners honest. They are already taking their hiring out of the country. There are advanages to having businesses in the US.

I am not at all afraid that making mega business pay 10 percent more in taxes (which probably will just bring them in line with the tax CUTS they have received over the past 30 years), will force all the big companies to other countries. The US is still a major player, tax increases or no. US tax laws still favor mega companies over that of many other industrialized nations, even with a ten percent tax increase.

Barack Obama introduced the Patriot Employer Act of 2007 to provide a tax credit to companies that maintain or increase the number of full-time workers in America relative to those outside the US; maintain their corporate headquarters in America; pay decent wages; prepare workers for retirement; provide health insurance; and support employees who serve in the military.

Decide for yourself if this is "socialism" or sound economics:

Let's take a look at Obama's proposals.

If there is one hallmark of the Obama proposals, it's his broad promise to extend tax cuts to lower- and middle-class Americans while cutting benefits to the wealthiest Americans. At the center of his plan are promises to extend the child care credits and marriage bonuses and penalties. He will maintain the 10 percent, 15 percent, 25 percent, and 28 percent income tax brackets. He would also lower tax rates on capital gains and qualified dividends for taxpayers in those four tax brackets.

But he would reinstate the 36 and 39.6 percent tax brackets for wealthier households and increase the rate on capital gains and dividends for taxpayers in those brackets. The study assumes a 25 percent tax rate for capital gains and qualified dividends.

Obama would also restore the phase-outs of personal exemptions and itemized deductions, but set the income threshold at $250,000 for married couples filing jointly. As under current law, the thresholds for the phase-out of personal exemptions would be lower for singles and heads of households, but those for the phase-out of itemized deductions would not vary with filing status.

The thresholds would be indexed for inflation as they are under current law. Obama would also extend several smaller expiring tax cuts, including the adoption credit and the simplifications to the earned income tax credit.

Here is a synopsis of other key proposals in his tax policy platform:

Estate Taxes: Obama would make permanent the estate tax law in its 2009 form. That includes an exemption from taxes on estates of less than $3.5 million and a top tax rate of 45 percent. The study assumes the exemption would remain fixed in nominal terms as it is under current law and that the state death tax would remain deductible and not revert to a credit.

Making Work Pay Credit: This new proposal would be a refundable tax credit for wage earners and the self-employed. The credit would equal 6.2 percent of up to $8,100 in earnings, yielding a maximum credit of about $500. Spouses filing jointly could each claim the credit based on their own earnings. All thresholds would be indexed for inflation after 2009. The credit is intended to offset some of the regressive Social Security payroll tax and encourage low-income people to work, but it does so at a substantial cost -- $728 billion over 10 years, the study notes.

Universal Mortgage Credit: Under current law, taxpayers who itemize their deductions may deduct mortgage interest. Obama has proposed a refundable credit equal to 10 percent of mortgage interest for non-itemizers, up to a maximum credit of $800 (indexed after 2009).

Savings Incentives: Tax-favored retirement accounts would be changed to improve incentives to contribute to them. Automatic 401(k) plans would become mandatory for employers offering retirement plans, simply requiring employees to opt out instead of opting in. Employers who do not sponsor other retirement plans would have to offer access to automatic IRAs via a payroll deduction. If an employee does not opt out or specify an IRA account, the employer would automatically contribute a share of earnings to a designated employee account.

His plan also calls for a new saver's credit that would be fully refundable and would equal 50 percent of qualified retirement savings contributions up to $500 for an individual and $1,000 for a couple (for a maximum credit of $250 and $500, respectively). The credit would phase out at a 5 percent rate when AGI exceeds $32,500 for individuals and $65,000 for couples. The credit thresholds would be indexed for inflation after 2009.

American Opportunity Tax Credit: Current law allows a nonrefundable credit of 100 percent of the first $1,200 of qualified higher educational expenses and 50 percent of the next $1,200 up to a maximum of $1,800 per student (in 2008). Obama would make it a fully refundable, 100-percent tax credit for the first $4,000 of expenses. The credit would go directly to the college or university.

Earned Income Tax Credit: Obama has proposed several expansions to the earned income tax credit. He would increase the maximum amount of earned income on which the credit for childless workers is calculated and increase the amount at which the phase-out begins, and in 2012 it would be indexed for inflation. He would double the phase-in and phase-out rates for childless workers who pay child support from 7.65 to 15.3 percent. Thus, their maximum tax credit would double from $555 to $1,110 in 2012.

Obama would also increase the credit rate from 40 to 45 percent for taxpayers with three or more children (but keep the phase-out rate at 21.06 percent). Finally, the phase-out threshold for joint filers would be $5,000 higher than for heads of household (up from $3,100 under current law) and that amount would be indexed for inflation after 2009.

Child/Dependent Care Credit: The child and dependent care credit is a nonrefundable tax credit available to individuals paying for child care needed so they can either work or look for work. Obama's tax plan would make the credit refundable and increase the maximum rate from 35 to 50 percent. It would also increase from $15,000 to $30,000 the threshold at which the credit rate begins to phase down and reduce the rate by 2 percentage points (rather than the current 1 percentage point) for each $2,000 or fraction thereof above that level. The minimum credit rate would remain 20 percent and would apply to taxpayers with income above $58,000.

Senior Income Tax Exemption: Seniors earning less than $50,000 would be exempt from income taxation. Those entitled to a net refund from the government would remain entitled to that refund. The threshold would be the same for both single and married households and would not be indexed for inflation (so its value would erode over time).


R&D and Renewable Energy Production Credits: Obama would make these permanent.

Corporate Taxes: Obama has proposed taxing carried interest as ordinary income, eliminating all oil and gas loopholes, and requiring publicly traded financial partnerships to pay the corporate income tax. He would sanction countries that act as international tax havens and refuse to share financial information with the United States.

He would impose a windfall profits tax on oil and gas companies, require information reporting of basis for capital gains, reallocate multinational tax deductions, and close loopholes in the corporate tax deductibility of pay for chief executives. Combined with other as-yet-unidentified provisions, the campaign expects these provisions to raise $76 billion in revenue each year, according to the study.

Overall, the Obama plan would provide the largest tax breaks, measured as a percentage of after-tax income, to the bottom fifth of income earners compared with current law. Each succeeding fifth would, on average, receive a tax cut, but those at the very top of the income ladder would pay more. The increase in taxes would be dramatic for those at the very top of the income scale, representing 8.7 percent of after-tax income for the top 1 percent of households and 11.5 percent of income for the richest 1 in 1,000, the study notes.


Yeah....I know it's long, but how can we argue against Obama's tax plan without first of all stating what it is.

Morgan, why have any taxes at all? Why not just run a completely Capitalistic country? Survival of the fittest? The rich get richer, and there is no governmental support for those who are not, well, "the fittest." We depend on the goodness of the wealthy to support those in need, build roads, police, military etc. No regulations, no government oversight.....

.....We do need govenment regulation and oversight. We depend on taxes. We need to get away from cronyism.

The question is where do those funds come from?

The fact is that we do need taxes to support govenment programs,(including more money going to mental health programs to rehouse many of the homeless who are there because of mental desease.)

You can't give tax cuts forever. The final end to tax cuts is no one pays anything. What I like about Obama's program is that there is tax relief to the lower class, middle class, and small busness owner. Th wealthy will have slightly higher taxes, and it is only the mega wealthy, the super rich, who will have the biggest tax bite...but that tax bite is only a 10 percent increase, and as I said in an earlier post, that 10 percent is probably less than the tax decreases that super wealthy guy has gotten over the past 30 years.

Please keep in mind that we are talking about profits and income that are being taxed. Any money put back into the business in improvements and increased wages and benefits to the employees is tax deductable.

Here's a fun one, and very simple.

I look at McCain's tax program and at Obama's. McCain in red, Obabma in blue. You'll note that McCain proposes to give a less than a one percent tax cut to the middle class (and a measly .02% increase ot the lower class), but a nearly 4.4% tax cut to the super wealthy.

Obama gives a 5.5% tax cut to the lower class, a 2.4 % tax cut to the middle class, and a 11.5% tax increase to the super wealthy.

http://healthcarehacks.com/files/fruganomics/u17/Picture_1_7.png

I dont have any problem with Obamas plan as it is. I just think it misses teaching the people to fish. I'd like to see someone aim more at the bottom of the problems instead of trying to band aid the mess. That doesnt mean of the two that Obama's isnt a better plan. I think it is. But I think somewhere there is a plan 3 that trumps them both.

cincy I'd just like to point out something to you. I like Obama. I think he's the better candidate but I don't think he can walk on water. Your zeal is cloying sometimes. I'm only pointing that out because it can hurt your candidate sometimes more than help them and I thought you might want to know. I'm sorry if it offends you, honest. You were the same way with Kerry who said many things I liked but I got to where I couldn't stand the sound of his name.

sorry for the honesty.