Obama plans $246 million in tax breaks for the rich!

@Taskr36 (13923)
United States
February 3, 2009 11:41am CST
There you have it folks. For as long as I can remember democrats have been complaining that Republicans only give tax breaks to the rich. Now, anyone with sense should know that's a lie and anyone who filed their taxes during the Bush presidency KNOWS that's a lie because they got their stimulus checks. I even got a check in 2001 when I was making $7/hour. Now the new porkulus plan has a clear and specific tax cut for the rich. Unlike Bush's tax cuts this is designed to solely benefit the rich people in Hollywood, so as not to reward those CEOs running big companies that employ millions of Americans. "A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film." http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/03/stimulus/ So how do you feel now that your own messiah is targeting tax breaks not only for the rich, but for the rich that don't even provide jobs for ordinary Americans?
1 person likes this
2 responses
• Canada
3 Feb 09
What in the name of all holy h3ll do the RICH need more tax breaks for? I think it's the poor people who need some breaks now and then. People like my husband and I who are on low incomes (disability, social security) more than the people who are already rolling in money,
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27280)
• United States
3 Feb 09
Wow, talk about being misleading! I didn't see any information about this in the link you posted other than the list which included "$246 million for Hollywood movie producers" or something to that effect so I had to do more research. I can certainly understand how some people would be opposed to this particular tax break but they should at least know what they're opposing! Read more about it here: http://www.thewrap.com/article/1228 Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's office said Tuesday morning that the provision would allow investors in bigger-budget studios to write off 50% of movie making equipment, which could be worth $246 million over 11 years. According to Congress Daily, a trade paper, the Senate bill, like the House version, extended tax incentives allowing companies to write off 50% of their equipment costs. But the Senate bill was amended to include "certain motion picture film or videotape," increasing the provision’s cost from $5.07 billion to $5.32 billion. Congress Daily quoted a lobbyist for the industry as saying that the movie equipment has been "unfairly excluded" from bonus depreciation in the past, which has generally applied to most other equipment purchases. But Republicans are hopping mad about the addition to the bill, decrying it as an example of pork and of payback from an Obama administration that got lots of love from Hollywood during the campaign. Sources say that Sen. Tom Coburn, a Republican from Oklahoma who has been a leader in the fight against entitlements, plans to offer an amendment to strike the provision, as early as today. (End of excerpt) Funny you'd say that these tax breaks are "not only for the rich, but for the rich that don't even provide jobs for ordinary Americans," because it was just reported that the Michigan Governor just announced plans for a movie studio in her state which would provide jobs for a large number of people. I don't have the exact number for you right now, so please don't attack me for it, but you ARE aware that making a movie takes more than just a director and some actors, aren't you? Annie
@Taskr36 (13923)
• United States
3 Feb 09
"$5.07 billion to $5.32 billion" And that's your $246 million right there Annie. It was broken down and simplified by the GOP, but the numbers are still there. Of course SOME jobs are provided by the movie industry, every industry can provide some jobs, but they are not a big employer and giving the fat cats producing films a targeted tax cut does nothing to stimulate the economy.
@anniepa (27280)
• United States
4 Feb 09
"$5.07 billion to $5.32 billion" And that's your $246 million right there Annie. It was broken down and simplified by the GOP, but the numbers are still there. Taskr, I'm not illiterate in math, I wasn't disputing the figures. Usually when something is "simplified" by the GOP it means it's been misrepresented or spun so as to make it easier to mislead people. The way you wrote it some probably took it to mean "Hollywood" would just be handed $246 million. They wouldn't know it has to do with depreciation and is spread over 11 years. Annie
@Taskr36 (13923)
• United States
5 Feb 09
They also wouldn't know that it's even more targeted than it appears. It is specific to film which means ONLY the Hollywood producers using film, and not digital, would benefit from this. It's a very targeted tax cut that benefits a very small number of people, who are VERY rich, and does nothing to stimulate the economy. Do you really think that it is a valid part of economic stimulus and not simply a way of rewarding Hollywood for endorsing democrats?