It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Obama’s Income Tax Cliff for Senior Citizens

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 12:21 AM
Yes, jam, you are right. However, it doesn't stop Obama and McCain from trying to push this garbage down people's throats. I said exactly what you did on another thread. It is Congress that passes laws, the President can only either sign them or veto them.

But you are being silly. You expect the masses to really care about the facts, like you and I do. The purpose of this thread I created was to show people how little thought is put into these proposals by Obama and McCain.
What is has also shown is how people like disgustedbyhumanity don't want to read the facts, even when the independent Tax Foundation and the pro-Obama Katie Couric CBSTV admits that Obama's proposal is what I outlined. They blindly follow their candidates, and that is why we have the mess we have today. Candidates with no idea of what is going on, are promoted by the media that has no idea of what is going on, and voted into office, by the mass electorate that has no idea of what is going on.

Now stop exspecting people to LEARN things like who creates laws. Let them live in their dreamworld, where their messiah will lead them to the promised land of milk, honey, low taxes, and socialism.
A star for your efforts in trying to teach people some common sense.

posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 12:23 AM

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by whaaa

My business can't stand anymore of the GOPs economic model that favors the big corps and sticks it to the small business man. I'm facing Chapter ll and about to lay off my remaining workers as I type this. I was hoping to sell my small business and retire but now thanks to W and his crew, that's impossible.

Would you mind explaining what you mean about how the current tax favors large companies over small ones? I had a small corporation, and I saw no such disadvantage as a small business owner. Please tell me WHERE in the tax code, you are being disadvantaged?

I'm not talking taxcode. Where did I mention taxcode? I'm talking fuel costs, raw material costs and a generally unfavorable retail market due to the middle class having less disposable income.

Small businesses don't generally get subsidies or taxpayer bailouts. Haven't you noticed?

But keep up the negative campaign sloganneering, it's working great so far.

[edit on 22-10-2008 by whaaa]

posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 12:34 AM
It sounds to me like Obama and his gang haven't thought this out.

I highly doubt such a plan would ever be able to be enacted through Congress, especially with the high political power being presently wielded by organizations like AARP. Still, it's good to know what proposals may be in the wings should Obama get the office (and it appears he will at this time).

My thanks Prof, for bringing this to my attention. I am sure we will disagree on the lesser of the two evils before us, but we always seem to agree when it comes to issues.


posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 12:42 AM
reply to post by whaaa

I'm not talking taxcode. Where did I mention taxcode? I'm talking fuel costs, raw material costs and a generally unfavorable retail market due to the middle class having less disposable income.

This thread is about TAX code. If you want to talk about unfavorable economic climate, you are on the wrong thread. Your post then is completely off topic

Large companies have the same costs as you do.
In fact, if you look at the recent bankruptcies(and I'll exclude the financial bankruptcies), you will see a higher percentage of GNP in large corporation bankruptcies than small companies. Large companies like Sharper Image, Linen 'N Things, Lillian Vernon Corp, The Bombay Co., Levitz Furniture , Harvey Electronics Inc., CompUSA(shutting or selling aLL stores), ...and the list goes on.

By the way, most companies fail because of poor management, and failure to anticipate adverse circumstances. You might want to look at your business plan, if you ever had one, before you blame outside forces. Too many people hang out a shingle, go into business, and have no formal business plan, and that is a recipe for disaster.

It is critical for all businesses to have a business plan. Many small businesses fail because of fundamental shortcomings in their business planning. It must be realistic and based on accurate, current information and educated projections for the future.
Components may include:

* Description of the business, vision, goals, and keys to success
* Work force needs
* Potential problems and solutions(such as increase in costs of materials)
* Financial: capital equipment and supply list, balance sheet, income statement and cash flow analysis, sales and expense forecast
* Analysis of competition
* Marketing, advertising and promotional activities
* Budgeting and managing company growth

Here's a site for you next time you start a business:

posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 12:56 AM
reply to post by TheRedneck

Hey, Redneck, you still up too? I guess we'll both be in the doghouse tonight, friend. LOL!
It's just frustrating when I present the facts, show the links, including CBSTV, and some people continue to deny ignorance.
Anyway, we might not even disagree on the alternatives as much as it looks. I actually don't like either of them anymore. McCain has shown with his mortgage proposal for buying all the problem mortgages, that he is as much of a socialist as Obama is. I don't think either one of them actually understands exactly what the implications are of their(actually their advisor's) proposals.
However, I do believe that this senior tax proposal of Obama's is a whopper(apologies to Burger King) of a goof-up, and no one caught it in his campaign until it was already out. Then, rather than admit they screwed up, they actually try to stick with it, and admit, yes, that is the way it works. It is truly amazing, and you know what, I guess I can't blame them, because very few people seem to get it anyway. It's the good old American "Throw enough you-know-what against the wall, and see what sticks". As Yakov Smirnoff would say "America, vot a Country!"

I'm just trying to get people to think here, like you are. As many have said, in the vernacular 'No matter who gets elected, we're SCREWED." Truer words were never spoken.
Good night. It's too cold to sleep in the doghouse tonight.

posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 10:26 AM
reply to post by ProfEmeritus

Yeah, I was still up, thanks to a decent level of pain last night. Let's hope today goes smoother. It should; I'm almost mainlining nicotine.

It just seemed to me from your posts overall that you saw McCain as the lesser of the two evils. I see Obama as that lesser. Neither have my support; both worry me to no end. McCain himself has his own little taxation fiasco running, based on allegations made by Obama openly in the debates and not refuted by McCain. Apparently McCain wants to include benefits in income now, which means that cheap insurance many people have been getting from their employers suddenly comes with a higher price tag.

In the end, it comes down to which one can more likely get their proposals through Congress. Obama has less 'experience', which translates in my mind to less people who owe him favors. McCain suspended his Presidential campaign a few weeks back to return to Washington in order to help that financial bailout bill pass, despite there not being a vote imminent and him not being on any committees involved at the time. What could he have been doing to help the bill along other than twisting arms? And if he can twist arms on that issue, what is preventing him from twisting arms on other issues, like taxes?

I'm placing my trust on the tax situation in the hands of the AARP (can't believe I am doing that
) rather than either of these two candidates. After all, they are more directly tied to their membership than any present politician, and appear to have more political clout as well (remember the Social Security privatization they defeated?).


posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 11:09 AM
reply to post by TheRedneck

Good morning. I hope your pain lessens soon.
I see your logic on Obama. I look at it though, as a concern that the Dems will control both Congress and the White House, and I'm concerned that this is a dangerous situation, the same situation that existed from 2000 to 2006, when the Republicans basically controlled both, although in the Senate, it was a deadlock because of Republicans like Olympia Snowe and Lincoln Chafee who frequently voted with the Dems. I was hoping for a split government, because quite honestly, every time the government passes a bill, it HURTS us, not helps us.
It certainly looks like Obama is going to win, but it isn't that there's much difference between them. They both are pushing for socialist programs to some extent, and I know this is NOT what our Founding Fathers wanted.

Anyway, given the situation, which looks pretty certain now, I will register a protest vote by writing in Ron Paul, a person that at least understands the financial situation better than either of the two, and someone who still believes in the Constitution, and Democracy, not socialism. Socialism, as espoused by both candidates, is a disincentive to work, which means more people will not work, leaving the rest to pick up the tab.

Joe Biden spoke the truth the other day about the crisis within 6 months. I would have voted for Joe in a heartbeat, if he were the nominee, instead of Obama. Joe has this nasty habit of just telling the truth, and that is what I would REALLY like in a President.

The partisanship on both sides has blinded Americans to the fact that neither candidate really believes in what is best for America. Both have the same interests to corporations and groups that have funded them.

posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 11:53 AM

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus

The reason this happens is that Obama's plan, as stated in his official campaign publications, throws taxpayers directly into the 15% bracket as soon as they cross the $50,000 threshold,

Can you show me where this is stated in Obama's plan? The link at your source does not connect to Obama's plan.


I believe the people in your example are now paying 25%. So a 15% rate would be quite a nice tax cut for them.

See Chart Here

[edit on 22-10-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 12:11 PM
I just want to add that ALL of us are taxed on our total income. It's not like the first 50K isn't taxed. We ALL get "slammed" into the next tax bracket when we reach it, even if it is only by $1.

I just don't understand the point of your post at all.

Another Tax Rates Table shows that in most cases, these seniors are now being taxed at 25%. Obama's plan LOWERS their tax burden significantly.

And those who are now paying 15% now will be lowered to 0.

posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 12:19 PM
reply to post by ProfEmeritus

Thought you might like these two articles to better illustrate your point.

posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 12:20 PM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

The tax table that you linked to deals with TAXABLE income, that is, income after all deductions, adjustments and exemptions have been taken. Obama's plan deals with total income, before deductions, exemptions and adjustments.

Note the following, which is in the beginning of the Tax Foundation link from my OP:

(note that the threshold is for total income, which is greater than taxable income).

I hope that clarifies it for you. I can see how people might be confused though. A married person filling jointly making $50,000 in Total Income(as in Obama's plan), after taking the standard deduction, 2 exemptions, and an average number of adjustments would be making roughly $30,000 of TAXABLE income, as as you can see, from your chart, that is the 15% bracket, so that their tax would be $4,500 under Obama's plan, but if they made $1 less($49,000), then Obama's plan says they pay no taxes.

As CBSTV has said:

Tax experts across the political spectrum also fault the Obama plan's abrupt $50,000-a-year threshold. As described by the campaign, seniors making, say, $48,000 would pay no income tax, while someone with income slightly more than $50,000 could pay several thousand dollars in income taxes. Seniors nearing the $50,000 threshold would have incentive to quit working.

This would force seniors to quit after making 49999, and of course, that would make no sense to the economy.
There has NEVER been a situation like this in the IRS code, because it is not a graduated tax, and that is the aim of the current tax system.
This proposal has just been thrown on the wall, as have proposals of BOTH candidates, without any real thought behind them. The problem is that most Americans aren't even aware of contradictions like this. They vote based on the sound bites.
Neither candidate even understands what "they" (really, their advisors) are saying, and it's obvious that even they don't understand what they are really proposing.
The MSM is complicit in all of this, because it is their responsibility to research and check these things. That has not happened in a long time. Investigative reporting has been replaced by sloppy "National Enquirer" style
reporting.- You know like "Check out the new UFO diet that Elvis, who is alive, has used to father seven children with Paris Hilton, while making a trip to Venus, in a ship stolen from NASA."

I hope this helps.

posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 12:25 PM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

I just don't understand the point of your post at all.

The point is that under the current law, if someone gets placed into the next bracket, only that portion over the bracket boundary is taxed. With Obama's plan, THAT WOULD NOT BE THE CASE. SPECIAL RULES, which he is proposing, would come into effect, to exempt $49,999 dollars, but he has not proposed it as an exemption!
Really, what he should have done is given a 49,999 tax EXEMPTION for seniors, if that was his intent. THEN, they would only pay tax on the overage over 49,999, and what you are saying, would take effect.
Please don't argue with me about it. All the tax experts agree that what I am saying is what the situation is. Ask your tax preparer.

You are still confusing TAXABLE income with TOTAL INCOME. THEY ARE TWO SEPARATE things. The second table you referred to is for TAXABLE INCOME, NOT TOTAL INCOME.
In the example I gave you in my first reply to you, the TAXABLE INCOME would be $30,000, NOT $50,000.

[edit on 22-10-2008 by ProfEmeritus]

posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 12:31 PM
reply to post by jam321

Yes, jam, that does also explain it. I can see that BH is confusing Taxable Income with Total Income. Obama's proposal is talking about Total Income. As I sstated in the example of a couple making $50,000 in TOTAL income, there taxable income would be about $30,000 and THOSE tables that BH are pointing to, would be used with the $30,000 figure. He is using the WRONG number.

posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 12:37 PM
Ok. Can you show me where, in Obama's tax plan, that he talks about this $50,000 threshold?

I'm sorry. I can't find it.

posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 12:50 PM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

It WAS here

Which now gives the error message

The page at the following address was not found

posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 12:53 PM
Whoa! I'm not the only one asking for this information from Obama's plan.

The Tax Foundation's Hit Job on Obama

I asked Tax Foundation spokesman Matt Moon for the evidence, supposedly from the Obama campaign itself, that the candidate would throw seniors into the 15 percent bracket for all income after they crossed 50K.

Moon's reply:

The whole point of Mark's analysis ... is that Obama does not include the crucial details about whether or not there would be a phase-out. ... he's saying that a plain reading of Obama's campaign plan makes no mention of a phase-out, which therefore assumes that there would be an "income tax cliff."
UPDATE: The Obama campaign disputes the Tax Foundation's analysis, saying that his plan does actually include a phase-out of the tax break, so that the tax bill would rise gradually above $50,000 in income and there would be no "cliff."

This guy doesn't like Obama's plan either, but not for the reason's your guy has assumed.

posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 12:59 PM

Originally posted by redhatty
It WAS here

I saw that. They probably took it down to correct it when this hit piece came out. I can't explain why the "cliff" business hasn't been corrected and posted, but I do think it should be posted on his website somewhere...

posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 01:00 PM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Eliminating Income Taxes for Seniors Making Less than $50,000. Barack Obama will eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year.

That it what his website says. To get the details, you need to go actually go to this site to see where their numbers come from. They (the Obama website) takes the example of a widow, making $35,000 (TOTAL income) saving about$1,900. Let's see where that came from. After exemptions(regular and senior over 65 exemption), standard deduction or average deductions for such a person, TAXABLE income would be about 15,500
Now go to the calculator, on the link above, type in 15,500 in the TAXABLE income area, click single in the selection box, the click calculate. You come up with a figure of a little over $1,900. Obama's plan says you owe no taxes, since your TOTAL tax was $35,000, that is under $50,000 TOTAL Tax.


posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 01:06 PM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

By the way, CBS disputes that. They quote Obama campaign officials CONFIRMING the CLIFF. See my link of wcbstv above.
I think they got caught on this one. By the way, the TAX Foundation IS the original link I posted, not a new source.

And yes, I notified both Obama's campaign and McCain's campaign when I discovered this. I assume others have. My whole point here is not to make a partisan point, because anyone that has seen my posts recently knows that I am fed up with BOTH campaigns. They are both lying, deceiving, and completely ignorant as to their proposals, and are changing them by the minute.
Today, Obama just modified another of his tax proposals(see Drudge) and McCain just modified his mortgage bailout plan yesterday. I can't keep up with it, and neither can anyone else.

Our entire election process is COMPLETELY broken.
At this point, I can't even see wasting any more time, as what we discuss today will change tomorrow.
I think I'll go and talk about UFO's or something that is saner. LOL!

[edit on 22-10-2008 by ProfEmeritus]

posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 01:21 PM
reply to post by ProfEmeritus

In that same article, it says:

Congress likely would add a phaseout, according to tax experts. "Everyone knows there would never be this $50,000 cliff," said Ben Harris, a senior research associate at Brookings.

And I don't see a problem with modifying his plan as he goes. He's not even the president yet! He has lots of plans, but OF COURSE, there are going to be modifications. He wouldn't leave seniors in the dust like that.

It doesn't matter to me if you're partisan or not.
I just want to get to the truth.
This one startled me, so I wanted to dig into it and find the truth. I feel like we have.

And according to OBAMA HIMSELF, there is no cliff. It's a progressive thing. All the charges of this "cliff" come from people who are assuming something about his plan. He has refuted it.

So, until he comes out with the details of this plan, I'm going to believe him, not others who are assuming something because of missing details.

Thanks for this thread, though because I learned a lot!

[edit on 22-10-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in