The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 2 of 5)

Re: Philip Klein's Searching for Obama's 95 Percent;

I like you pressing the Obama Campain to define their terms with precision. Another good question to press the Obama campaign on is: Will this $1,000 per couple be a one-time event or will it be an annual event?

Please write a followup article with any more concise information that you are able to pry out of them.

-- Paul Ringstrom

"If Barack Obama can effectively claim that his plan cuts taxes on 95 percent of Americans, then the term 'tax cut' has no meaning."
 
Actually, it does, but not in a way Democrats could ever admit to.
 
How? Given that the corporate income tax operates as a sales tax, and that the half of Social Security and Medicare tax alleged to be paid by employers is simply passed on to consumers, there's no one in America, however poor they may be, who doesn't pay tax. A rebate, then, could fairly be construed as a tax reduction for something approaching that 95%.
 
Of course, to get to that point the Democrats would have to admit that both taxes are simply frauds perpetrated upon a credulous public.

-- Tom Kratman

The mantra that one often hears about taxing the wealthy is that they can afford to pay the tax. Be sure, I'm not wealthy by any means. My wife and I receive pension benefits from our former employers and we receive Social Security, a portion of which is taxed, thanks to Al Gore and Bill Clinton.

I would like to ask the liberals that continue to make the argument about paying higher taxes why those on the liberal side continue to take all the deductions allowed by the tax code. Why don't Democrats such as John Kerry (who reportadly paid at a rate of 12% the year he ran for President), Obama and others that believe the rich should pay more taxes simply refuse to take advantage of the tax regarding deductions. They are not required by law to take deductions, are they? Shouldn't they just pay at the tax rate for their bracket as a show of good will about their position of the rich paying more?

-- Glenn Richardson
Hendersonville, North Carolina

I enjoyed your article on trying to pin down the Obama campaign on the 95% tax "cut." It is funny how nebulous their clarifications are! In Axelrod’s reply where he stated: "The mechanism for it has to do with deferring part of the withholding taxes, but you should talk to our budget folks on that." It sounds to me like they are changing withholding tables, but you would still be responsible for the full withholding tax liability at the end of the year. You may see more money in your pocket after you cash your check, but you still have to pay that "deferred" tax liability.

-- Larry F.

I would like to know how the Bush tax cuts will figure in Obama's plan. I understand he would allow the tax cuts to expire, This would be a tax increase for many of us. So then he will give me a $500.00 tax cut from the 2000 tax rate. Yippee!
 
McCain plans to keep the Bush tax cuts intact if the Dems will let him. I think this is  a no brainer for me.

-- Ron Byrd

COOL IT

Re: Paul Chesser's Green Journalism:

topics:
Reader Mail