Astroturfers Disrupting Dingell Town Hall Meeting

[ccbatson]

Look again...it was/is an across the board cut...all brackets were decreased....ALL OF THEM. If you pay taxes, you will see a hike when they expire. If you happen to make money on an investment [[a capital gain), you will have a higher tax after the expiration. If you have a small business treading water but with gross revenue over 150K....tax hike. If you are the son or daughter of the owner of said small business and the estate is more than 1 million dollars [[necessary to keep the business afloat) and the parent/owner dies after the expiration of the tax cuts...yep, tax hike. I could go on, but you should get the point by now.

[gazhekwe]

No surprise to you, I was against the tax cuts from the beginning. What insanity, going into war plus needing massive infrastructure updating here, we are going to cut taxes? Shades of Credit Card Reagan.

Now, some truth from Factcheck.org:

No tax hike for middle class:

• [8-08] The [McCain campaign] TV ad claims in a graphic that Obama would "raise taxes on middle class." In fact, Obama's plan promises cuts for middle-income taxpayers and would increase rates only for persons with family incomes above $250,000 or with individual incomes above $200,000.

Capital Gains Rate: [8-08] It's untrue that Obama is proposing a 28 percent capital gains tax rate. He said in an interview on CNBC that he favors raising the top rate on capital gains from its present 15 percent to 20 percent or more, but no higher than 28 percent. And as for a 28 percent rate, he added, "my guess would be it would be significantly lower than that." Furthermore, he has said only couples making $250,000 or more [[or, his policy advisers tell us, singles making more than $200,000) would pay the higher capital gains rate. That means the large majority of persons who pay capital gains taxes would see no increase at all.

Estate Tax. The claim that Obama proposes to "restore the inheritance tax" is also false, as are the claims that McCain would impose zero tax and that Bush "repealed" it. McCain and Obama both would retain a reduced version of the estate tax, as it is correctly called, though McCain would reduce it by more.

The tax now falls only on estates valued at more than $2 million [[effectively $4 million for couples able to set up the required legal and financial arrangements). It reaches a maximum rate of 45 percent on amounts more than that. It was not repealed, but it is set to expire temporarily in 2010, then return in 2011, when it would apply to estates valued at more than $1 million [[$2 million for couples), with the maximum rate rising to 55 percent.

Obama has proposed to apply the tax only to estates valued at more than $3.5 million [[$7 million for couples), holding the maximum rate at 45 percent. McCain would apply it to estates worth more than $5 million [[$10 million for couples), with a maximum rate of 15 percent.

Letting tax cuts expire on only those with incomes over $250,000:
Obama has said he would pay for much of his [health care] plan "by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for people making more than $250,000 per year, as they are scheduled to do." That would certainly be a tax increase for those high-income persons, compared with what they are paying now. But whether that's imposing a new tax, or just letting an old one come back, depends on your point of view.

There is more on the estate tax also:

http://factcheck.org/askfactcheck/wo...fits_if_i.html

And those small business owners? Most would see a tax cut:

Nor would Obama's plans affect 23 million small-business owners; most, in fact, would see a tax cut. At most, a few hundred thousand of the most affluent business owners would see rates go up.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...s_of_2008.html

It is early days yet, and none of the proposals has solidified into legislative form yet. The tax cuts as signed by George W. Bush were scheduled to expire from 2003 through 2011. Here are the ones still pending expiration:


Child Credit: This credit will shrink from $700 to $500 per child on January 1, 2011.
The Income Tax: Rates will increase between 3 and 4.5 percentage points in each bracket on January 1, 2011.
The 10 Percent Bracket: The bracket will be eliminated on January 1, 2011, raising the income tax burden of many workers by 5 percentage points.
The 15 Percent Bracket for Joint Filers: On January 1, 2011, the upper limit of this bracket will shrink from 200 to 167 percent of the upper limit of the 15 percent bracket for single filers, creating a marriage penalty.
Standard Deduction for Joint Filers: On January 1, 2011, this will shrink from 200 to 167 percent of the standard deduction for single filers, creating a marriage penalty.
The Estate Tax: The top rate for this tax will increase to 60 percent on January 1, 2011, and the value of an estate exempt from taxation will shrink to $1 million, which is less than it is today.

http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/wm486.cfm

[rb336]

Capital Gains Rate: [8-08] It's untrue that Obama is proposing a 28 percent capital gains tax rate. He said in an interview on CNBC that he favors raising the top rate on capital gains from its present 15 percent to 20 percent or more, but no higher than 28 percent. And as for a 28 percent rate, he added, "my guess would be it would be significantly lower than that." Furthermore, he has said only couples making $250,000 or more [[or, his policy advisers tell us, singles making more than $200,000) would pay the higher capital gains rate. That means the large majority of persons who pay capital gains taxes would see no increase at all.

capital gains should once again be based on how long an asset is held, with a 35% rate for those held less than a year, dropping 2.5%/year to a minimum of 20% in order to create a far more stable, long-term oriented market rather than the get-rich-quick scheme we currently have. also, there needs to be a 0.1% tax on each market transaction accross the board

[Pam]

Funny post on another forum about these town hall disrupters:

http://www.democraticunderground.com...ss=389x6296630

[MCP-001]

Of the above? I don't believe any of the above programs were ruled unconstitutional. In fact, other than the CCC and REA, all of those programs still exist.

And that whole Judicial Reorganization Bill of '37?

The one that had more people angry against it than HR 3200 does right now?

That all came about, why?

No, it's not. From the Social Security Administration website [[www.ssa.gov):

Q. I'm 37 years old in 2009. If nothing is done to change Social Security, what can I expect to receive in retirement benefits from the program?

A. Unless changes are made, at age 65 in 2037 your scheduled benefits could be reduced by 24 percent and could continue to be reduced every year thereafter from presently scheduled levels. See the 2009 Trustees Report.

Yup. A 24% reduction [[assuming we do NOTHING in the next 28 years) sure sounds like bankruptcy to me.

Fuzzy math, anyone?

No just poor reading comprehension on your part.

From the very same people you linked:

"The financial condition of the Social Security and Medicare programs remains challenging. Projected long run program costs are not sustainable under current program parameters. Social Security's annual surpluses of tax income over expenditures are expected to fall sharply this year and to stay about constant in 2010 because of the economic recession, and to rise only briefly before declining and turning to cash flow deficits beginning in 2016 that grow as the baby boom generation retires. The deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets until reserves are exhausted in 2037, at which point tax income would be sufficient to pay about three fourths of scheduled benefits through 2083."

Yes, going broke in 2037 according to the SSA. Thanks for proving my point.

Interestingly enough, the run-up in debt as a percentage of GDP was nearly eliminated by the end of the Eisenhower administration. How that points to us "getting stuck with the bill today" for World War II is beyond me.

You like fiscal conservatism? View this graph and explain how your icons Reagan and the Bushes are such saints of prudent financial management.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Could it be? That tax cuts for wealthy sons of bitches don't grow the economy faster than the debt incurred???

Regarding your poor reading comprehension, re-read my posts above regarding my opinion on Reagan & Bush v1.0 & v2.0.

[rb336]

"current program parameters" actually includes syphoning off funds from socsec to hide the actual budget deficit - something dubya did with every budget.

[ghettopalmetto]

MCP,

If Social Security is going to be broke, or insolvent, in 2037, then how will they have sufficient assets to make three-quarters of [[estimated) scheduled payments until 2083?

Pardon my comprehension, but in my parlance, "broke" means "having zero money". Having a bit less for an additional 50 years does not equal "broke".

[MCP-001]

MCP,

If Social Security is going to be broke, or insolvent, in 2037, then how will they have sufficient assets to make three-quarters of [[estimated) scheduled payments until 2083?

Pardon my comprehension, but in my parlance, "broke" means "having zero money". Having a bit less for an additional 50 years does not equal "broke".

And that's what it is.

The system will be paying out more money that it will be taking in, to people living longer, with cost of living increases to boot.

In short, it cannot pay out what was claimed to be paid out.

Oh, the government will try.

But in the end, SS will collapse.

[MCP-001]

And that's the problem with "pay-as-you-go".

Another bad idea from FDR.

[ccbatson]

In the sense that there are no funds in trust to pay claims, both SS and Medicare are already broke...The claims are being paid out of current tax revenues...NOW, not in 10 or 20 years. Coupled to the drop in tax revenue resulting from socialist policy and higher taxes assessed, plus the huge increase in liberal spending [[with the exponentially increasing interest owed on that debt)....being broke will be a relatively good thing by comparison to being in a perpetual fiscal downward spiral anchored by these foolish FDR/new deal type entitlements. It is like being caught in a black hole whose gravitational pull gets stronger as you go further in.