Why Obama’s Tax Plan Is So Wrong

Barack Obama, if elected, promises to enact a tax plan that he claims will “cut taxes for 95 percent of workers and their families with a tax cut of $500 for workers or $1,000 for working couples.”

The statement is patently false, and it is beyond easy to prove it’s patently false.

The 5% of Americans that Barack Obama will attack with tax increases already pay more than 50% of the total income tax burden.  It is simply a naked act of class warfare to demand that people who are already overtaxed pay still more taxes.

To underscore the point above, it is also a fact that 40% of Americans pay no federal income tax at all.

How can Obama reduce federal taxes for 95% of Americans when 40% of Americans don’t pay federal taxes?  He can’t.  It is logically impossible.

What Obama will do is seize more from the wealthy, and – in an act of sheer pandering – give it to people who have not earned it.  He will use the IRS as a welfare agency.  You do all the work; I reap well over half of the benefit.

During his interview with Barack Obama, Bill O’Reilly called Obama’s plan “class warfare,” and Obama replied, “It’s not. Ninety-five percent is not class warfare.”  Sure it is.  Whenever one class of any size votes to take from another economic class, it’s class warfare.

Someone managed to stop Benjamin Franklin’s rolling in his grave long enough to ask him what he thought about Barack Obama’s tax plan.  Founding father Benjamin Franklin responded:

When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”

Wow.  That’s pretty tough.  All Barack Obama is doing is saying, “If you vote for me, I will seize other people’s money and give it to people who did not earn it in a direct transfer payment.”  But Benjamin Franklin understood with razor sharpness how profoundly wrong Barack Obama’s socialism was nearly two hundred years before Obama was even born.

The reason Benjamin Franklin was so diametrically opposed to Barack Obama’s socialist, class-warfare, welfare payment tax plan is because he understood the thought of another man who condemned Barack Obama nearly two centuries before Obama was born.

The 17th Century Scottish historian Alexander Tytler studied the rise and fall of nations and presented his findings in what we now call Tytler’s Cycle. According to Tytler, all nations go from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to freedom, from freedom to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, and from dependence back to bondage. Tytler said the absolutely critical thing that leads a nation to decline from abundance to selfishness and on down the vicious cycle, is when they vote themselves benefits from the national treasury. And Benjamin Franklin understood this basic fact of history.

Barack Obama doesn’t.

This election may come down to whether we want Benjamin Franklin’s independent America or Barack Obama’s socialist America.  It may come down to whether we want to heed Alexander Tytler’s warning to cultures from history, or disregard it.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

14 Responses to “Why Obama’s Tax Plan Is So Wrong”

  1. natasharyant Says:

    I hate obama. He sounds too much like Osama.

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    It WAS Ted Kennedy who called him, Osama Obama. What did he know, and when did he know it?

  3. harddriller Says:

    Everything about this idiot is wrong!

  4. RoPiNi Says:

    hahahahaha.


    There’s a small caveat to the 40 percent number — it includes nonfilers, typically taxpayers who don’t have to file returns because their incomes are too low.

    Nice. 40% of “Americans” includes children aged 0-??? (when they move out and get a real job).

    You do understand how that completely destroys your argument?

    For example…if you and your wife have 3 young children…60% of the “Americans” in your house don’t pay income tax.

    How silly.


    Whenever one class of any size votes to take from another economic class, it’s class warfare.

    When taxes for 1 family are so bad they can’t afford that third house, or plane or yacht, and those taxes help pay the winter heating bills of 19 other families, it makes sense to me.

    That’s 95% vs 5% “class” warfare. Or as those on one end call it, survival.

  5. RoPiNi Says:


    “When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”

    And it’s one of the main tenets of the 21st century GOP. “Cut Taxes” no matter what. Always vote for someone who promises to cut taxas, no matter what.

    That is exactly what he was talking about.

  6. Michael Eden Says:

    RoPiNi lacks the advantage of speaking from a knowledge of the facts.

    First of all, do you for one second think that Obama’s “95% of Americans will pay less in taxes” statement DOESN’T include children? Clearly it does. So why do you think that Obama has a right to smuggle children into HIS tax claims, and others don’t? Boy, do I smell the stink of bias on you.

    Second, the 40% figure is calculated on the basis of households who do not have to pay federal taxes based on their incomes. It DOESN’T include children, but is the percentage of WAGE EARNERS who don’t have to pay federal taxes (many of whom happen to have children). Further, it wouldn’t have anything to do with people who SHOULD file but don’t. If the government knew who wasn’t filing who were legally required to, it would go after them. Non-filers aren’t measurable.

    Here’s an article on subject.

    http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1410.html

    As is so often the case, I am being criticized by someone who is completely ignorant, who doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about, but who is arrogant nonetheless.

    The immediately above comment on Franklin’s quote is just irrational.

  7. RoPiNi Says:

    I read the article before replying. Why do you think I pointed out the part you missed.

    You didn’t read it right. Let me quote for you…

    During 2006, Tax Foundation economists estimate that roughly 43.4 million tax returns, representing 91 million individuals, will face a zero or negative tax liability. That’s out of a total of 136 million federal tax returns that will be filed. Adding to this figure the 15 million households and individuals who file no tax return at all, roughly 121 million Americans—or 41 percent of the U.S. population—will be completely outside the federal income tax system in 2006.

    43.4M returns and 91M individuals makes it evident that those returns include dependents. This is also clear from the footnote [1]. He also completely inflates his numbers by including non-filers (15M households and 30M people).

    Non-filers don’t get tax cuts. And, conversely, rarely have their taxes raised.

    And I’m dead on with the Franklin quote and you now know it. The GOP’s manter is “cut taxes”. Even if there’s a war, “cut taxes”. Even if there’s a boom, “cut taxes”. Even if there’s a recession, “cut taxes”.

    Always voting for someone who always promises to give you more money is *exactly* what he was talking about.

    And if you think 15% on capitals gains is “over taxing”, you should go back and see what the “Greatest Generation” had to deal with…and why they got the label. Dang selfish boomers.

    The highest tax bracket used to be 90% for pete’s sake.

  8. Michael Eden Says:

    Let me quote the very next two paragraphs for you:

    “Using IRS data, we are able to create a profile of these individuals who are outside the federal income tax system. As Table 1 shows, those who file as single or head-of-household are much more likely to be non-payers. One-third of single filers pay nothing in federal income taxes, and almost two-thirds of those who file as head of household pay nothing. In contrast, just 22 percent of married filers are non-payers.

    Why do many single filers face zero tax liability? One reason is that single filers tend to be younger and earn lower incomes than married filers—especially single parents who file as head-of-household. As a result, married taxpayers pay roughly 75 percent of all federal income taxes, despite filing only 40 percent of returns.”

    The simple fact of the matter is, most analysts agree with the 40% figure. And the people Barack Obama is referring to in his pandering are in the group that DON’T pay federal taxes. It is a documented fact that the bottom 50% of taxpayers pay less than 3% of total income tax revenues. Obviously, a whole bunch of people AINT PAYIN’.

    Your statement about Franklin is crap for the following: Even if we assume that “low taxes” with “high spending” is what Franklin actually meant by “vote themselves money,” your thought STILL mandates that we support conservative Republicans.

    Conservative Republicans want more spending for the military (a Constitutional mandate). It is DEMOCRATS who have demanded massive social spending/welfare and the creation of one entitlement bureaucracy after another. If you say, “Ah, but the war in Iraq is costing us billions!” Let me remind you that WWI, WWII, Korea, the Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, and Bosnia were all Democrat efforts. Let us agree to take war-spending off the table, lest Democrats look really bad.

    Conservatives would LOVE to reduce taxes, and would LOVE to reduce government spending to match the lower taxes. And if we ended all the programs that Democrats created over the last 7 decades, we could easily do just that. If you think the Constitution mandates the Department of Education, you’re just flippin’ wrong (or they would have HAD one). Same goes to a whole bunch of other Democrat-created bureaucracies.

    So even if you’re right, you’re just as wrong.

    My interpretation of Franklin is that he is referring to the notion of the people taking money out that they didn’t put in. And that is exactly what happens under liberalism, in which the rich are heavily taxed, and people who aren’t paying squat demand more and more.

  9. ES Says:

    Work harder; pay more for someone who doesn’t want to- the new American way…

  10. ES Says:

    Work harder; pay more for someone who doesn’t want to- the new American way…

  11. ES Says:

    Any government that is capable of giving you everything you need is also powerful enough to take away everything you have…..

  12. Michael Eden Says:

    “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” – Ben Franklin

    This happens in two ways: voting themselves money that will be paid by their children, grandchildren, etc., and voting themselves other peoples’ money. Both are suicidal.

    Obama will do a great deal of both.

    This part of the reason that John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Other people use their right to vote to take from someone else, to make others pay for their “rights.”

  13. Madison Says:

    In response to RoPiNi. Your argument is that Republicans are the ones allowing people to vote themselves more money…nope. Republicans cut taxes so that we can keep more of our own money that we work for. You see, the government gets its money from people that work hard and pay taxes. If i voted for a Democrat because i knew he would see to it that i get a welfare check every month (and that is what they do for people)…thats voting myself free money, thus validating Franklin’s claim. Not voting to keep more of the money that I EARN!

  14. Michael Eden Says:

    That’s a great point, Madison.

    I remember reading 1 Samuel chap 8. The people wanted a king to be like the other nations. It bothered Samuel but he took the request to the Lord, who said, “They’re not rejecting you, but Me.” And then God proceeded to tell Samuel that the king would impose all these big government programs and tax the people and use them as pawns to advance their big government agendas.

    That’s big government in a nutshell. And for a government to tax people who work hard and confiscate their wealth so you can “redistribute” it to people who never bothered to educate themselves, or work hard, or vigorously pursue their dreams – all for the sake of building a political base of people who vote themselves money – is stealing. Its stealing if a thief takes it, and its stealing if the government takes it.

    It’s good to take care of the poor. There was a time when people took care of their own families, and churches helped their communities. That still happens, but what used to be common has become rare as the government took over and people turned “the poor” over to big government agencies that mismanage funds to waste, fraud, and corruption.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: