Reading is Hard
Here's Rich Lowry at the The Corner a moment ago:
To put it another way, there will be some people out there who get neither a tax cut nor a tax hike. This isn't complicated stuff. And Obama has been explaining it the same way for the better part of two years. Maybe Lowry could go to his website and read the actual tax plan.
I thought Obama had always said he was going to cut taxes for families making less than 250k. But, as a friend points out, in his infomercial he said he'd cut them for families making less than 200k.This really isn't very hard to understand. Obama has always said that he will not raise taxes on those making less than $250,000. But that does not mean that everyone who makes under $250,000 will get a tax cut. His tax cuts are aimed at families making less than $200,000.
To put it another way, there will be some people out there who get neither a tax cut nor a tax hike. This isn't complicated stuff. And Obama has been explaining it the same way for the better part of two years. Maybe Lowry could go to his website and read the actual tax plan.
posted by A.L. at 9:46 AM
12 Comments:
Rich Lowry's writing and analysis sends little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. And his smile. Also.
You have to be impressed with the continuing party discipline that these guys have. I had a conversation with a client (I had to tread carefully) yesterday, where he simply repeated the same b.s. about the tax cuts and the income level always changing. I gently said what you already know, which only moved him then to the subject of "associations." Sigh.
That said, methinks Obama and Biden should have seen this coming and stuck to one explanation. As Adelai Stevenson replied when a Princeton student told him that he "had the vote of every thinking man in America", - "it's not enough, son, I need a majority!"
McCain has promised
the rabblement that
he will stop funding
research into Montana
Bear DNA.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=mccains-beef-with-bears
question - why do intellectuals like
Lowry approve of that?
Not at all paying attention to details, I would be surprised if Obama's plans from 2 months ago survived the financial crisis totally unscathed.
Jim P.
We're WINNING!
Is it $200,000? Or $150,000, as Biden said the other day? Or is it $120,000, as Bill Richardson said either today or yesterday? Does anyone really know what that value is?
Bill Clinton said he would cut taxes for the middle class back in 1992. After he became President and had a Dem majority in Congress, he raised everyone's taxes (and believe me, I noticed it), and the recession the U.S. was in got worse. That is until Gingrich and the Republicans got the majority and put in the "Contract For America".
I noticed the same thing but then realized there is a difference between "not raising" and "cutting." But I agree, to avoid confusion, they should stick to one number, or else say "Not only will I not raise anyone's taxes if they make less than $250k, but I will CUT their taxes if they make less than $200k." At least that way people would understand the references.
I didn't hear the Biden number but he should stick to the same script as Obama.
And the fact you know the difference between "lower" and "lower or remain static" explains how you managed to break 140 on the LSAT back in the day. Now, Lowry...
Maybe someone should take a look at this. It shows Obama has been lowering the bar on who would have to pay higher taxes since July (first, $250,000, then $200,000). Here's Biden changing that to $150,000. And, here's Richardson lowering that even further to $120,000.
Lowry is right and knows how to read. So, on whom will Obama raise the tax rates? $42,000 and up?
It isn't the income that matters. It's the taxable income, the marginal tax rates, and the points at which they occur.
Since taxable income is only somewhat dependent on income, thanks to our byzantine tax laws, the "income" at which there would be reductions or increases is largely meaningless, so why is it so important to nail down an exact figure again?
People like Lowry who are trying to find contradictions will find them even where there are none. It isn't reading comprehension, it's dishonesty that's at play here.
Spare me. Don't throw that BS "nuance" into this. What amount is Obama going to tax? $250,000? $200,000? $150,000? $120,000?
Steveil,
There's a cure for ignorance: find out what you need from here.
As the link makes clear, your tax liability under the plan will depend on a lot of things. They even provide a calculator to see how it would impact you, personally. According to the calculator, I would save 1K under the proposed plan -- and I would be able to fill out the form in less time, too (taking that one with a grain of salt).
Under McCain's proposals, I'd get a 2.5K tax credit for health insurance, but, since I'm not insured through an employer (self-employed), and it costs me 4K for my personal high-deductible policy, I'd be out 1.5K under McCain.
Since all this is so readily available, I deduce that, like Lowry, your only interest is in creating an imaginary "contradiction."
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home