Twisted statistics paint wrong picture of Obama’s tax plans
To the Editor:
It is difficult to know where to begin a response to the letter from Deanna Wood in the January 7 issue of the Tri-City Times. I must assume she is captive to right wing dogma and simultaneously unable to grasp basic mathematics. Her argument is fatally flawed in two important aspects.
Both major presidential candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain, campaigned with platforms advocating tax cuts aimed at the middle class. By any objective measure the projected effects of their proposals were remarkably similar. Obama did indeed pledge an early end to the Bush Administration tax cuts, which are scheduled to lapse after 2010 in any case. The Bush tax cuts funded 95 percent of the tax cut monies to the top five percent income families in the country. Here is the first time where Ms. Wood's argument falls apart: she assigns the revenue associated with the repeal of the Bush tax cut and applies it equally as an average to all taxpayers. Wait a minute! The top five percent got 95 percent of the benefit, but by Ms. Wood's math all taxpayers share the cost equally. This is nonsense and a lie, not to mention wrong mathematically. This is also a perfect example of how people twist statistics to their benefit. In fact, the lapse of the Bush tax cuts will affect only families earning $200,000 or more or businesses reporting $200,000 or more in profits (not sales.)
Regarding Ms. Wood's assertion that she should not have to "pay" for the repeal of the Bush tax cuts since she did not vote for Obama, by applying her corkscrew logic I, as a person who did not vote for George W. Bush in either election, would like a refund of my tax money spent in the misguided war in Iraq, which I opposed before we sent our troops. (By the way, I always did and continue to support our presence in Afghanistan, so put away the liberal-bashing clubs).
I will wait patiently at my mailbox waiting for my Iraq war refund check. I've got as much chance of cashing one as Ms. Wood has being excused from the "tax increase" she claims in her letter.