5 Great Reasons To Vote Against Obama
1. He wants to tax working Americans back to the Stone Age. He lies when he says he will cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans. You know it’s nonsense because they can’t keep their numbers straight from hour to hour. Obama claims everyone making under $250,000 is safe, or is it $200,000 (the infomercial) or $150,000 (Joe Biden)? On Friday, Gov. Bill Richardson cut it to $120,000.
Oh what a tangled web we weave. The fact is, the wealth-spreaders have vowed to do away with the Bush tax cuts. So everybody who pays any income taxes is going to take a hit. Plus, the friends of ACORN also plan to get rid of the cap on Social Security withholding taxes. That means everyone who makes over $102,700 will be slaughtered. I don’t have room to talk about capital gains.
Let’s think about this one for a moment. FICA, the social security and medicare taxes, are set at 15% of the first $102,000 and then they go away. The employer pays half, unless you happened to be self-employed. In that case, you pay the whole thing. So, if the democrats erase the cap, that is an automatic 15% tax increase on all money earned over $102,000. There will also be the tax increase from allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire. And there will be the tax increase on the “rich”, defined somewhere between $120,000 and 250,000. So, how big will these tax increases actually be? More than 15%, less than 30%? Maybe. Maybe more. Nobody knows because Congress writes the laws. And that means Pelosi and Reid.
He has four other terrific and amusing reasons. The courts, the snottiness of the Obamabots, etc. Read it all.
I borrowed this picture from my favorite PUMA site because it explains my feelings towards Obama and a picture is worth a thousand words.
- Aggie
Count to 10 said,
November 3, 2008 @ 12:18 pm
Its not so much that the employer pays half as it is that the government hides half of the payroll taxes from you so you don’t see just how big a chunk they are taking.
On a related note, the Bush tax cuts would be a major reason that the “median” income went down during his presidency: those tax cuts effectively gave everyone who payed taxes an instant net pay raise without changing gross pay. If you look at the effect on supply and demand, this means that you would have a new equilibrium at a lower gross income, but the net income will still be higher than before the tax cut. Pay is often difficult to change, so, over time, the median gross income will go down as new hires come in and salaries are renegotiated, necessarily giving net income a downward trend after it spikes upward. Oh, and there will be more workers.
After a tax increase, net income goes down suddenly, while gross income will increase over time. Again, net income will over time follow gross income, but, in the absence of other factors, will never get back to where it was before the tax increase.
Also, all of this ignores the impact that marginal tax rates have on motivation.