On The Nonesense Sen. Obama's Tax Proposals Are 'Welfare For People Who Don't Pay Taxes'....

[The Magistrate]

First, the statement that Sen. Obama's tax credit will go to "approximately 60 million Americans, who pay no taxes at all" is something to bring tears to the eyes and laughter to the lips. There are no persons filing an income tax return "who pay no taxes at all". They may owe no income tax to the Federal government once all deductions are figured in, and the Earned Income Credit is applied, but they certainly pay taxes. They pay excise taxes on their utilities, and on many common purchases; they pay sales taxes, property taxes (renters simply pay these for their landlord; it is a major component of rent), and a variety of other levies, including the payroll tax (in fact, they pay in truth the portion of that tax labeled 'employer contribution, since it is a cost of employing them, and otherwise would be part of their salary): in fact, these people generally pay over a third of their total income in taxes to various levels of government.

Second, Sen. Obama's tax credit proposals, however labeled, are in fact nothing more than an extension of the Earned Income Credit referenced above. This is hardly a measure with roots in Socialist or Marxist agitation. It was a proposal first bruited about by Milton Friedman, the arch-priest of 'free-marketeer' theology, and proposed and passed into law by that well-known proponent of world Communism, Richard Milhouse Nixon.

Third, let us be absolutely clear about what the Earned Income Credit actually is: it is a government subsidy to businesses that pay low wages, enabling the persons they employ to continue in employment that does not pay them sufficiently to procure necessities of life in our society. Those businesses would be unable to procure employees without it, or willing and reasonably contented employees, anyway. The difference between decent wages and what is actually paid, which is made up by the Earned Income Credit supplied by the Federal government, goes directly to the profit of the business, and the pockets of its owners and shareholders, as well as buoying the salaries of its managers.

[mrcheerful]

1. Wouldn't that be more like McCains tax plan?

After all he just gave Wall street billionares a $700 bilion welfare check and they didn't pay taxes.

[The Magistrate]

2. An Excellent Point, Sir

A great deal of wealth is redistributed upwards by Republican policies, and they are intended to do that from the start.

The question is not whether government will redistribute wealth, but only in what direction this will be done by government.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

3. Wow, that point you make about EITC is so obvious but I'd never thought of it before

It's one of the many "AHA" moments I get so frequently from reading the wonderful contributors here.

Thanks! :thumbsup:

[The Magistrate]

7. Thank You, Ma'am

It always pays to trace things all the way down the line.

Even classic 'welfare' spending is actually subsidy to various corner groceries, land-lords, 'rent-a-centers' and cut-price credit furniture outlets. That is where most of the money winds up, after all: it does not stay in the hands of the people who cash the checks, and without the cash those checks provide, many of these businesses could not continue in existence.

[dkofos]

4. You're right IT'S NONSENSE. But it seems that's all they have left.

[leftofcool]

5. Earned Income Credit?

You might want to check your facts on this one

[The Magistrate]

6. Always Happy To Be Enlightened, Ma'am

Please provide any correction you feel required.

[EFerrari]

8. I had thought Rayguns passed the EIC because as a young couple

who didn't really make enough to make ends meet with mirrors, we were happy to have it. But, maybe I'm thinking of some other credit. Maybe that was for a childcare deduction or something. 1979ish, when my Nick was twoish and trying to introduce the cat to his favorite toy, the toilet. lol

[The Magistrate]

10. It Applies Only To Persons With Dependents, Ma'am

So perhaps you did not notice it earlier. The original proposal by Friedman was termed 'a negative income tax', and in perhaps the one decent and socially responsible thought of that wretch's life, was intended to establish a 'floor' of income below which persons ought not to be allowed to drop, for the good of society and the economy.

[Cerridwen]

16. Minor correction - just because so many people will read this and

take you at your word based on your reputation.

The EITC can *sometimes* be taken by those without dependents. Their *earned income* and adjusted gross income (AGI) must conform to certain guidelines.

My apologies, but I'd hate to see someone who could use it not take it based on "what The Magistrate said" without a bit more information to hand.

I am in complete agreement with your OP and I, too, had an AHA! moment about the use of EIC as you noted in your OP. Thank you.

[Kurovski]

9. Thank you for the thoughtful OPs you've posted these days.

K&R.

[The Magistrate]

15. Thank You, Sir!

[shadowknows69]

11. The rethugs all took their 1200 buck from Bush's "stimulus plan"

Without a gripe about socialism though didn't they?

[fascisthunter]

12. Great Catch....

[Warren Stupidity]

13. All they have, sir, are lies.

All they do, with all due respect, is lie their motherfucking asses off.

[The Magistrate]

14. True, Sir

Lies have no more place in political life in a democracy than counterfeit currency does in economic life. Both abuse and debase the system in an attempt to get something for nothing.

[varelse]

17. Precisely

I've worked most of my life for one of those "low wage" businesses you're referring to, and I've been thinking of posting the same thing ever since this "issue" was raised by RW pundits - I only wish I had your eloquence. Thanks for making this point so well. K&R

[Kurovski]

18. Kick. (nt)