Trillion Dollar Tax Increase? Can anyone substantiate this Clinton's Claim against Obama.

[FrenchieCat]

In terms of why it would be a bad thing?

Who would benefit from such tax increase, and who would be affected negatively?

Obama's Trillion Tax increase that Hillary is refering to would do the following:

Obama’s plan proposes that people who make $50,000 or less a year should not pay taxes on Social Security. His plan also includes raising the payroll tax cap.

“We might exempt middle class folks for maybe $97,000 for up to $200,000; there might be some exemptions, but those people are making over $200 - $250,000; they can afford to pay a little more on payroll tax.”

Obama said that Clinton is describing this as a “trillion-dollar increase cut on hard-working Americans.”

“What's worse is, Senator Clinton, when she was on a rope line in Iowa and somebody asked her about this... she said she'd deal with the same plan that I just offered.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/01/16/politics/fromtheroad/entry3721988.shtml


What is your opinion of this plan, and how would it affect you?

[BootinUp]

1. Why do we want to give the repukes a SS argument in the GE? nt

[FrenchieCat]

4. Is that the answer to my question?

Do you think that the plan is a bad one for the lower and middle class? Do you think that Hillary is criticizing Obama because she is "concerned" about an SS argument in the GE?

How many people do you think earn over $250,000 (individually). Why should we fear that this 6.2% of the population will risk the GE?

Isn't Hillary's plan to gather a commission on Social Security? Is that really a plan?

Just like her current Stimulus plan to calls for a 90 days "freeze" on Mortgage rates? Is that a real solution?

Why is what she is proposing, which equals to non actions superior to Obama's proposal, in your opinion?

[BootinUp]

13. I don't think SS reform

should be voted on in an election while we are running large deficits. It could be a big loser.

[FrenchieCat]

18. Social security doesn't affect the deficit.....

If all one is doing is shifting who pays for social security.

That's all that is happening. The top 6.2% would paying more as opposed to paying exactly what those making $50,000 and under are paying. This would make Social Security tax more progressive.

Currently, a person working at taco bell who is paid $1,200 monthly to work fulltime pays $892.80 in social security taxes, or 6.2% of their annual earnings, while someone making $250,000 a year pays $6,045 or 2.4% of their earnings to SS.

Why is that a good thing?

[TwilightZone]

2. "trillion-dollar increase cut on hard-working Americans."

They should probably decided whether it's an increase or a cut.

In answer to your inquiry, I doubt that the SS portion alone is what Hillary is referring to.

[Levgreee]

3. Obama simply mispoke there

maybe was told what it was, instead of seeing the flier. too bad

[FrenchieCat]

7. It is a tax cut and a tax increase at the same time.....

Read below.

[FrenchieCat]

6. It would be a tax cut on the middle class, and a tax increase on those

earning (individually, not per family) on those making $250,000 and over (Phased in for those making between $200,000 and $250,000).

Those earning under $50,000 wouldn't pay any social security at all. That's a tax savings via payroll tax on small businesses as well. The impact on a family of two earning $100,000 (1/2 for each spouse) is $6,200 per year.

[TwilightZone]

11. It depends on your definition of "middle class".

Obama's definition stops at $97,000 a year. His debate response:

Obama: I've heard you say this is a trillion dollar tax cut on the middle class by adjusting the cap. Understand that only 6 percent of Americans make more than $97,000, so 6 percent is not the middle class — it's the upper class.

Hillary disagrees that "middle class" stops at $97,000.

Factcheck.org basically says that both Obama and Hillary are being somewhat misleading with various points in the argument.

See "A Trillion-Dollar Tax Increase" at the link below:

http://www.factcheck.org/clinton_vs_obama.html

I can't vouch for the veracity of their assertions, and I don't know how partisan they may be.

[hedgehog]

27. I'll grant you that people making $97,000 are still middle class in the sense that they have to

worry about paying bills, college loans, retirement savings, etc. However, they are way better off than most Americans and can afford to pay Social Security taxes. I'm one of them.

[TwilightZone]

29. A lot depends on location.

In San Diego, for example, the average price of a home is nearly $600,000. $100,000 a year in that environment is quite certainly not "upper class".

[FrenchieCat]

28. Whatever "Middle Class" means,

This proposal from Obama would not affect those making up to $200,000 per year....period.

So there is not point in discussing who is and who is not middle class.

What I do know is that his proposal saves those making $50,000 a great deal.

I do believe that those making $50,000 need the most assistance. Do you?

[TwilightZone]

30. You seem to be missing the obvious.

He didn't start talking about exemptions until after the debate.

[FrenchieCat]

37. No, you seem to be missing it....

The Flyers were printed after the debate.

You also seem to miss the more obvious, that the proposal of CUTTING payroll Taxes on those making under $50,000 was always there but is not mentioned in the flyer.

The whole point is that Hillary is conveniently not letting folks who make $50,000 and under that Obama wants to increase how much money they keep in their pocket by a whole lot.

[TwilightZone]

39. You do know that there is an election going, right?

Since when do *any* - and I mean ANY - politicians make ads proclaiming the positives of their opponents' plans?

That would be never. They all do it, including your candidate. Omission is the name of the game.

[FrenchieCat]

44. Thank you for making that point.....

Its a political attack that misleads voters. In other words, it is desingeneous.

:hi:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

5. No, of course not. It's tendentious political spin, and dishonest at heart

[AtomicKitten]

8. Clinton has rapid-fire slime machine throwing out sh*t to see if it sticks.

Can't decide if I find that better or worse than her misrepresenting something he or, as we have seen, did not say, and reacting to that.

[FrenchieCat]

25. Yep.....they are getting desperate....

As Obama said recently, they have had their political machine in place for the last 20 years....and yet, he comes in and is able to compete with them.

They are absolutely furious.

They don't understand that their time has come to chill, and let someone from the new generation with fresh ideas and a new approach come to the forefront.

These tactics that I have seen the Clinton campaign use leaves me cold....including disenfranchisment that they are engineering in Nevada. :(

Worst still, that Democrats on this board would find this quite admirable.

[AtomicKitten]

35. the audacity of hope

The GOP will rise up and hit Hillary with both barrels because they despise her so, but Obama seems to bring out the best in people and even the GOP seems to get that he is a different breed of animal entirely. They mimic his message and try to invoke civility. Pretty amazing dichotomy in that, eh?

I am very proud of the campaign Obama has run. It reinforces why I support him. And as a Democrat, I am ashamed of the campaign Clinton has chosen to run. It is bereft of integrity punctuated with flashes of anger from Bill Clinton, someone I once admired greatly, but not so much now.

[flpoljunkie]

9. Sure sounds like what the Republicans would use against a Democrat, and it's untrue, to boot!

But, hey, "It's her turn!"

[FrenchieCat]

12. That's what saddens me about Hillary's campaign thus far.....

it is very deceptive.

I don't like it.

Obama's plan is actually very progressive and very sound....and would affect the right people.

The point is that cutting the Income tax does help those making under $50,000 in the way that this plan would.

Obama would be, right out of the gate, allowing anyone making under $50,000 to keep an additional 6.2% in their pocket. That's quite a bit......in terms of tax cuts making a difference.

On $50,000, that's a $3,100 that a person would feel in there net take home pay.

It is a very progressive proposal...and obviously Hillary ain't about to offer anything close...considering that she's denouncing it.

[TwilightZone]

16. Technically, it's true.

Taxing all earnings would indeed amount to a $1.3 trillion increase over the next 10 years alone, according to estimates by Cato Institute Social Security expert Michael Tanner, who says he drew his figures from projections by the Social Security Administration staff.

Source: http://www.factcheck.org/clinton_vs_obama.html

Factcheck.org basically determined that both Obama and Clinton are being somewhat misleading in their claims. The link provides an analysis.

Note: I can't vouch for the veracity of factcheck.org. I have no idea of their partisanship or lack thereof.

[FrenchieCat]

21. Fact check is leaving out the fact that Obama is not is not going to

take the caps off for those making $97,500 to $200,000.

Hillary is also not mentioning the tax CUT aspect of this proposal to lower income families.

[TwilightZone]

23. Which he doesn't seem to have mentioned until after the debate.

As far as I can tell, he didn't talk about exemptions for $97k - $200k until after the debate. The comments about it in your link were made the day *after* the debate.

If he "meant" $200k at the time of the debate, why did his debate rebuttal specifically say $97k?

[flpoljunkie]

22. What's not in question is Hillary's using same playbook against a fellow Dem the R's use on all Dems

[TwilightZone]

36. That, however, is not the question being asked in the OP.

I don't disagree that the assertion is a curious one. It is, however, accurate in a technical sense. The OP didn't ask if it was a Republican tactic. It asked if the claim could be justified.

Its questionable nature aside, it appears to be accurate, at least based on the two studies cited by factcheck.org.

[FrenchieCat]

40. On a technicality.....or simply misleading?

Guess it also depends on what the word is, is. :shrug:

[TwilightZone]

41. No more misleading than significantly changing the plan the day after the debate...

and then complaining that it was misunderstood.

[flpoljunkie]

48. Hillary's twisting Obama's position here--she's obviously "in it to win it" at all costs!

[Bluerthanblue]

10. I cannot imagine what

it would be like to earn over $50,000 a year, never mind 4x's that.

It would affect me, and all those I hold close in clearly positive ways financially.

Which means it probably has little chance of happening in my life.

But then, I can hope can't I?

Or shall we remove even hope from the little people-

:shrug:


I see nothing in Hillary's plans that is much different. Why doesn't she quit with the finger pointing, and concentrate on her OWN plan, and what makes her the best choice???

[FrenchieCat]

15. No, Hillary's plan is to "Hold committee meetings".....and goes no further.....

She wants to deal with the Income Tax portion of our tax system, not the payroll tax issue...which Obama take up head on.

Payroll taxes is what lower income folks pay the most of. So yes, this really would affect your pocketbook. We aren't talking about a tax credit, we are talking about money that you would see in your paycheck that you didn't see before....everytime you got paid.

[OHdem10]

14. Obama could come right back with a flier---Has HRC committed

to Saving SS as a Program or will she privatize.

When I watched their responsees in Debate, I was not sure.

I understood Obama will save the program .

I was left wondering what HRC. I understood she had the
97,000starting point. She raised this objection but did
not say what she would do.

I think Obama can easily clarify that recognizes that he
can consider th people making 97,000-200,000 Middle Class
and this can be a burden. Many of these are 2 earner families
with children. In hgh cost of living states, this is a killer.

Who is for privatization???? Flyer

[Sparkly]

17. This is totally confusing to me.

Payroll taxes and taxes ON Social Security are different things, and it's confusing that these seem to be used interchangeably.

And, "tax cut" vs. "tax increase" ...

The AP article quotes Clinton as saying, "It doesn't just fall on the wealthiest of Americans. ... It would be a trillion-dollar tax increase on middle class families, and I think there are better approaches to solving the long-term challenges we face in Social Security."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080117/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_social_security

But the article linked in the OP has:

Obama said that Clinton is describing this as a “trillion-dollar increase cut on hard-working Americans.”

snip

“What's worse is, Senator Clinton, when she was on a rope line in Iowa and somebody asked her about this... she said she'd deal with the same plan that I just offered. But now is saying it is a trillion-dollar tax cut.”

Also confusing is the fact that neither Clinton nor Obama seem to have set rigid plans for Social Security, and (perhaps wisely) don't want to weigh into it that specifically right now. Again from the AP:

Currently, workers pay Social Security taxes on the first $97,500 in income — anything above that is exempt. Obama said he would consider keeping the exemption for up to around $200,000, but anyone earning more than that should have to contribute more. He was not specific about what he would do.

"There might be some exemptions, but once people are making over $200,000 to $250,000, they can afford to pay a little more in payroll tax," Obama said.

What Clinton seems to be objecting to is the notion of a potential tax for the $97,500 - $200,000 range.

Edit: One other thing I meant to mention is that the AP article that started this was written by the infamously snarky Nedra Pickler, and relies on a "private" conversation "overheard" by "an Associated Press reporter." So I'd take that for what it's worth. I've also seen a flier on this that isn't clearly from the Clinton campaign, and uses the phrase "a president that" rather than "a president who," which strikes me as amateur... So, grain of salt and all that.

[FrenchieCat]

19. But Obama is not proposing a tax increase for those making

$97,500 to $200,000.

That is not Obama's plan...

Obama says clearly what his plan is in my OP.

SO that is in essence the problem. Hillary is making a determination of being troubled with something that Obama is NOT proposing.

She's doing this in order to alienate Middle class voters away from Obama....but she isn't telling it like it is.

In other words, she's lying....and hoping that folks will simply get confused. Just like the way that the GOP tore her plan apart on Health Care back in 1993. They were deceptive in their accusation of that health plan, and GOP supporters supported the disinformation campaign...along with the media, which is one of the reasons that my family currently pays Kaiser $1,056 dollars for coverage per month, which doesn't include my $30 co-pay.

Same tactics. In addition, she has no plan of her own on this.

[TwilightZone]

20. "We might exempt" does not equal "not proposing."

Might is a pretty shaky word.

By the way, the comments included in the CBS article you linked were made after the debate. Hillary's assertion was made on his pre-debate position, which seems to have been removing the cap. As I noted in my other response, Obama seemed to confirm this in his debate response, when he clearly indicated $97,000 in his rebuttal.

[FrenchieCat]

32. Well, there isn't anything concrete then...including Clinton's convenient

Claim on the tax increase portion of Obama's proposal, without mention on the tax CUT portion to those making $50,000 and less.

Why do you think that is? That Hillary would only talk about one portion of Obama's plan, and not the other?

What is her plan to put money in the pockets of those making $50,000 and less. Does she have one? or does anyone give a fuck about those folks less? :shrug:

[Sparkly]

24. I don't think either has a definite plan about the cap, do they?

I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing at this stage.

[suston96]

26. Most people don't understand what needs "fixing" in Social Security.......

The problem will be some 80 million baby boomers retiring and hitting the SS system faster and in greater numbers than the increases in population that join the work force.

Not all those 80 million jobs vacated by the BB retirees may be filled because they may be eliminated. Meanwhile, the increased population, presently at 300 million, will need more new jobs because, well, people have to work.

Hillary Clinton wants these matters studied because no matter if those wealthies are taxed above and beyond the present salary cap, the economy - jobs - have to grow. That's why she wants a "commission" to study ALL the facets of the forthcoming problem with Social Security.

If the economy grows and the jobs grow and are filled by new workers, the problem may resolve itself.

And instead of laying a tax - which is what raising the cap would mean - on those in the upper brackets, repealing the Bush tax cuts would be much more beneficial to the nation.

[FrenchieCat]

38. I don't think that repealling Bush's tax cuts will be more beneficial in

saving Social Security...because that is dealing with Income tax..which is not dealt with in the same manner as Payroll tax.

Payroll tax has always been what poor people pay the most of....Because for many of the, the income tax is already low.

Bush also did the "commission" thing. That's just a stalling tactic....not to have to offer up anything. Hillary's "commission" proposal is just her playing it "safe"...and not telling anyone anything as to what she will do.

[suston96]

42. "I don't think that repealling Bush's tax cuts will be more beneficial in ....

.....saving Social Security."

I didn't say that. Repealing those tax cuts would be more beneficial to the national economy.

Whatever saving Social Security needs, would be more easily effected with economic and job growth.

That's why this matter has to be studied rather than destroying incentives for people earning and paying regular income taxes on higher incomes which can be used by Congress instead of borrowing from the SS trust funds.

[cloudythescribbler]

31. QUESTION -- a trillion dollar tax increase per what: year? decade? Where does HRC specify? nt

[TwilightZone]

33. Roughly $1.3 trillion over ten years

Taxing all earnings would indeed amount to a $1.3 trillion increase over the next 10 years alone, according to estimates by Cato Institute Social Security expert Michael Tanner, who says he drew his figures from projections by the Social Security Administration staff. A similar estimate comes from Citizens for Tax Justice, which figures the measure would bring in $124 billion per year.

http://www.factcheck.org/clinton_vs_obama.html

[cloudythescribbler]

45. This assumes (a) ALL income over $97K? (b) no tax cut under $50K?

REmember that when people make estimates, they are based on assumptions, and whether CATO, HRC, or the Repukes (who do this EVERY ELECTION), they merely need to assume the MOST UNFAVORABLE ASSUMPTIONS to get a higher number.

[FrenchieCat]

34. You've got to ask the people passing out the flyers......

What I do know is that the flyer forgets to let people who make under $50,000 know that Obama wants to give them a tax cut of 6.2% on their earnings (money that they will see in each and every paycheck they receive) which adds up to $3,100 per year for those making $50,000.

[sinkingfeeling]

43. The entire story makes no sense. Is Obama talking about 'not paying taxes on

Social Sercutiy'? or about not paying 'into' SS? And what the hell does 'trillion-dollar increase cut on hard-working Americans' mean?

[FrenchieCat]

46. did you read the thread?

Folks making under $50,000 would pay not payroll taxes....they would still get SS at the end though.

Folks making $50,000 to $97,500 would remain as they are currently.

Folks making $97,501 to $250,000 would be indexed to have a small increase that increases the more one makes.

Folks making $250,001 or more would feel an increase because their earnings would not be capped to be tax by SS.

Social Security is SS.

Trillion dollar increase would be felt by those making $250,000 and more.

Payroll tax cut would be felt the most by those making $50,000 and less.

You can decide who the "hardworking Americans" are.

This is Hillary Clinton playing on the ignorance and fear of voters. In essence, doing the GOP's work by calling a Democratic candidate a Tax and spend Democrat. Using GoP stereotypes.

[sinkingfeeling]

47. Then it's a stupid idea. My comments were about how badly worded the OP and CBS story

was. If that's Obama's plan, then maybe I won't vote for him should he win the nomination either. It totally undermines the principles of Social Security.

[FrenchieCat]

49. Those who see 6.2% of their check disappear

when they can barely make rent, would disagree with you.

Sometimes society is supposed to help those who have less.