The Obama Tax Plan is really a welfare plan

[PhiGam]

Barack Obama's tax plan is the opposite of supply-side economics. He proposes to raise marginal rates for just about every federal tax. He also proposes a raft of tax credits that taxpayers can receive if they engage in various government-specified activities.

Moreover, the tax credits would mostly go to those who pay little or nothing in federal income taxes. His trick is to make the tax credits "refundable." Thus, if the tax credit is for $1,000, but the taxpayer would otherwise only pay $200 in taxes, the government would write a check to the taxpayer for $800. If the taxpayer pays nothing in federal income taxes, the government would pay him the whole $1,000.

Such credits are not tax cuts. Indeed, they should be called The New Tax Welfare. In effect, Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand a slew of government spending programs that are disguised as tax credits. The spending on these programs is then subtracted from the total tax burden, in order to make the claim that his tax plan is a net tax cut overall.

Full article:
http://www.wsj.com/article/SB1219103...st_emailed_day

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

Full article:
http://www.wsj.com/article/SB1219103...st_emailed_day

Just to clarify, this is an OPINION PIECE, not a news article, this is the author's byline:

Mr. Ferrara is director of entitlement and budget policy for the Institute for Policy Innovation. He served in President Reagan's White House Office of Policy Development, and as associate deputy attorney general under the President George H.W. Bush.

Further clarification as to just who/what IPI is:

The Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI) is a think tank based in Lewisville, Texas and founded in 1987 by Congressman Dick Armey to "research, develop and promote innovative and non-partisan solutions to today's public policy problems." [1]

The conservative Capital Research Center ranked IPI as amongst the most conservative groups in the US, scoring it as an eight on a scale of one to eight. ... The IPI was solicited by tobacco companies in 1995 to submit comments in response to proposed federal regulations by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration restricting the marketing of tobcco products. IP responded by sending comments in favor of the industry to the FDA.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...icy_Innovation

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

Just to clarify, this is an OPINION PIECE, not a news article, this is the author's byline:
[/B]
Further clarification as to just who/what IPI is:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...icy_Innovation

FTW.....

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

Just to clarify, this is an OPINION PIECE, not a news article, this is the author's byline:
[/B]
Further clarification as to just who/what IPI is:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...icy_Innovation

True - although, we also have people citing the Huffington Post and other extremely partisan sites on here as well, so I think the objectivity train when it comes to campaign discussion (on both sides) went bye-bye a long time ago...

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

True - although, we also have people citing the Huffington Post and other extremely partisan sites on here as well, so I think objective discussion of the campaign (on both sides) went bye-bye a long time ago...

Oh, I have no problem with people posting opinions and opinion pieces, but I think it should be presented as what it is and not posted as an "article" with a WSJ domain link.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

Oh, I have no problem with people posting opinions and opinion pieces, but I think it should be presented as what it is and not posted as an "article" with a WSJ domain link.

Fair enough - it should probably be labeled more clearly.

[PhiGam]

I apologize for neglecting to mention that its an opinion piece. It was the best written article I can find about how deceiving Obama's tax cuts are (there are plenty in WSJ alone). The only people that will truly benefit from his tax cuts are the non-taxpayers. While he will lower the income tax for 95% of Americans, he is going to raise every other form of taxation on capital gains. Basically: His "tax cuts" will increase taxation on the middle class and will only help poor people.

[Kevin]

This all assumes that Obama can get anything through the legislature.

Bush would tell you that's a lot to assume.

[CrackerBarrel]

I agree, fully-refundable tax credits are bull$hit. It's an opinion piece, but the opinion portion of it is that the tax plan is bad. The fact part is that it is fully refundable and targeted towards a very low-income demographic, meaning poor people get "refunded" "taxes" which they never paid in the first place. It's a way to essentially increase welfare transfers without having to deal with the political fallout that would come from actually increasing the size of the TANF welfare program (i.e. increasing welfare in name and not just in effect).

[PhiGam]

Originally Posted by CrackerBarrel

I agree, fully-refundable tax credits are bull$hit. It's an opinion piece, but the opinion portion of it is that the tax plan is bad. The fact part is that it is fully refundable and targeted towards a very low-income demographic, meaning poor people get "refunded" "taxes" which they never paid in the first place. It's a way to essentially increase welfare transfers without having to deal with the political fallout that would come from actually increasing the size of the TANF welfare program (i.e. increasing welfare in name and not just in effect).

Well put.