"Obama's 95% Illusion"

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by chrmjenkins, Oct 25, 2008.

  1. chrmjenkins macrumors 603

    chrmjenkins

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    #1
  2. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #2
    Note the source of that graph. The WSJ is notoriously pro-GOP. See if you can find confirmation elsewhere.
     
  3. jplan2008 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    #3
    What an incredibly lame use of logic and numbers. They are talking about the "marginal" tax increase for earning more. Obama is leaving the tax rate the same as now, for families earning less than $250,000, but giving a $500 credit to each worker, for those earning less than $150,000 for the example given (or something like that), plus a credit for college and daycare. So, whatever my income , I'm getting that credit. So if I earn MORE, the credit is already counted, so each dollar I earn will be taxed at a theoretical higher rate. The numbers still don't look right to me in the graph, but the entire logic is faulty anyway. (not sure I was able to explain it coherently -- the argument is incoherent). They're trying to say that because I get the credit while I'm making $50,000, I will have no incentive to work overtime to make $60,000, because I'm not getting any more credit. It's absurd.

    EDIT: Their complaint is also the phase-out of the breaks as your income increases. The logic is that then there's less incentive to earn more. I find the argument crazy. You have to look at the EFFECTIVE tax rate for any given income, and see how it compares now vs. Obama plan.
     
  4. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #4
    Yes, yes... WSJ articles are worthless, Fox bites, Huffington Post op-eds are nothing but truth sent down from God.... welcome to the Macrumors PRSI forums.

    :rolleyes:
     
  5. jplan2008 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    #5
    Well, I've read numerous WSJ articles I agree with (this is an "opinion" piece copied from a group I don't much agree with on taxes, however), and HuffPo columns I don't agree with and in all cases I actually read before deciding.
     
  6. davidwarren macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    #6
    haha. I love that the WSJ is now an untrustworthy, biased source. That's great.
     
  7. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #7
    Haha, I noticed how you edited the part out (check the timer, after I made my post) about how you thought the WSJ was an incredibly biased GOP shill newsrag. Ah well, I guess that's my mistake for not quoting your post to begin with. Too bad people can't even admit to their own opinions any more.
     
  8. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #8
    It's become more so now that Murdoch has taken control.

    However, the graph is from the American Enterprise institute, not the WSJ. AEI is about the most fiscally irresponsible "thinktank" around.
     
  9. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #9
    People really need to read the article to understand the argument, because the graph is constructed to be incredibly misleading.

    Also, how often to parents have one child in college while the other is getting child care?

    This is nonsense math. Unfortunately, some people are easily fooled.
     
  10. jplan2008 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    #10
    Is that a joke? I didn't write a word about the WSJ. My edit was an addition about the "logic" in the article, after going to the original source. It's an "opinion" piece. It could be published anywhere. The WSJ has nothing to do with it.
     
  11. abijnk macrumors 68040

    abijnk

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2007
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #11
    I'm 15 years older than my brother, and my fiance is 19 years older than his youngest brother. ;) :D
     
  12. Aea macrumors 6502a

    Aea

    Joined:
    May 23, 2007
    Location:
    Denver, Colorado
    #12
    I didn't read the article, but looking at the graph and conditions tells me something...

    - Way too much variance, this is absolutely abnormal when you look at a graph of progressive taxation. What's with the large zero swing?
    - It's because of conditions, the source deliberately searched for conditions which would make Obama look like a taxer rather then somebody who will reduce taxes.
    - Even that said, I can't see how this math would work out, hundreds of credible sources (read: non-partisan, non-blog) posted detailed examinations on Obama's tax plans, none of them found him to raise taxes unless you were making a very good living.
     
  13. jplan2008 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    #13
    I'm not sure that the numbers work out, but Obama has a bunch of refundable tax credits that are phased out as your income goes up. The chart is showing ONLY the rate for the last dollar you earn. They are saying that losing the credit is like an increase. So at the level you are no longer getting the credit, the chart is charging you your regular rate plus the credit. The problem with that logic is that once you've accounted for the credit, your rate is the regular 15% or 20% for that income, not the 40% they're showing in the chart. And the EFFECTIVE rate at ANY income for ANY scenario, for ANYONE making under $200,000, is the same or less than under Bush. This group just doesn't like refundable tax credits. But we already have a big one signed into law by Ford and enlarged and commended by Reagan (EITC), and no one ever called them socialists.
     
  14. Cleverboy macrumors 65816

    Cleverboy

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Location:
    Pocket Universe, nth Dimensional Complex Manifold
    #14
    Actually, regardless of the source, its important that THINKING people separate opinion pieces from ACTUAL news articles, researched by reporters. Also, I wouldn't link to the WSJ opinion/editorial. Go straight to the source of the information, the American Enterprise Institute:
    http://www.american.com/archive/2008/august-08-08/the-folly-of-obama2019s-tax-plan

    I'd Google to find some perspectives, because I simply don't have time to analyze the clear "achilles heel" that is obviously hidden in the basic assumptions regarding the graph:
    So, unless you're an economist... it sounds like there's not much to see here unless you're trying to make the chart mean something MORE than it does.

    ~ CB
     
  15. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #15
    any one who beleived Obama's 95% crap was the truth from the beginning needs to get some profession help.

    It was crap from beginning and full of slide of hands and twisting of words. End result is the middle class will get screwed. It ALWAYS get screwed no matter who is in office. They help the rich because they control the money and the help the poor because that is where the largest chunk of the voters are. But the middle class do not make enough to get help and are not enough them to matter at the polls.

    Politions make the scum of the earth look good. They are liers cheat and the worse then that lives that care about one thing and one thing only, themselves. All they want is more power. They are all unfit to lead.

    This years choices are crap. Obama and McCain both suck and are complete crap. It does not matter who gets elected. We are all going to get screwed.
     
  16. Cleverboy macrumors 65816

    Cleverboy

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Location:
    Pocket Universe, nth Dimensional Complex Manifold
    #16
    "Slide of hands". Interesting. That's almost as bad as saying "stream of conscience".

    Anyhow, I think the middle class has been shown to be coddled by Democrats and ignored by Republicans (at least the majority that believe in trickle-down economics). Being a moderate Democrat like Clinton, is the best balance in my opinion. Being dissmissive and cynical doesn't make you automatically sound smarter or more authoritative. Just because Obama seems to radiate a delerium of optimism, doesn't mean his actual moderate fiscal policies have no substance. I keep reading your posts, and I'm taken that you always sound both cynical, non-factual, AND opinionated.

    Start linking to stuff that shows you're doing some reading and interpretation and not just assuming every hunch you have is mana from heaven. It would be a lot more interesting to read. And, don't use the word "crap" so much.

    ~ CB
     
  17. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #17
    The middle class is the majority of the country. And it looks like they are indeed going to make a difference.
     
  18. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #18
    Not to start another dispute but I'll think you'll find that the working class are by far the majority,that is people who's only means of income is their labour. Describing yourself as middle class doesn't make you so and being almost entirely invisible in the mainstream media doesn't make you nonexistent.
     
  19. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #19
    Their editorial board has always been that way. This is the same paper that ran no less than 64 editorials on the "suspicious" circumstances of Vince Foster's suicide. The same paper that called people too poor to pay income taxes "lucky duckies". The same paper that carried an op-ed piece which tried to characterize Paul Wellstone's memorial service as a viciously partisan event. Yeah, lotta credibility there.

    Dictionary.com
     
  20. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #20
    That made me giggle a little.
     
  21. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #21
    Not as funny as voodoo economics, though. :D
     
  22. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #22
    American Enterprise Institute

    Link

    More

     
  23. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #23
    Obama's economic plans are not great, but they are far better than McCain's. It's like comparing Clinton's plans to Bush's. Anyone who knows anything about each of them knows the details and we've been over this so many times, do we really need to do it again. Go to the McCain vs. Obama thread, or the one comparing their tax policies.

    The simple fact is he's merely undoing what Bush's tax system has done, and taking us back to the Reagan days with some Clinton pandering thrown in for the middle class who knows they're being screwed.


    Again, as I said in another thread, call it "socialism" or whatever all they want, but most people don't want to be handing even more money over to the rich to screw up their pensions and ship their jobs overseas, so when they say they'll "redistribute the wealth" back to the lower and middle classes, as long as they aren't like the people in the videos we've been posting about the McCain/Palin supporters, all but the rich are probably going to say "yes please".

    To quote Bill Maher - trickle down economics... they even tell you they're peeing on you.
     

Share This Page