The tax policies of Obama and McCain

[questor]

Moderation note: The first 8 posts of this thread were moved (with some difficult in choosing) from the 16477, because they are about the tax policies of McCain and Obama, not terrorist watch lists.

 

What would happen if by some fluke, the people decided they did not want to ''spread the wealth'', give non-taxpayers a portion of taxpayers [ your] money they haven't earned and have their taxes raised? I have always wondered why a liberal would vote for someone he knew was going to increase his own tax bill and tax businesses so they could not hire more people? Anybody explain how Obama will help their lives?

[pgrmdave]

"Redistribution of wealth" may cause businesses a small direct hit, but it provides their customers with deeper pockets.

[questor]

What good are somebody's deep pockets if you have to close your business because of higher taxes? Suppose you are making a 10% profit and have adjusted your lifestyle to this. The gov raises your taxes 2% and gives the money to non-workers. Who loses here? Do you think all businesses should be punished by higher taxes? Where will the jobs come from?

[Zythryn]

I have always wondered why a liberal would vote for someone he knew was going to increase his own tax bill and tax businesses so they could not hire more people? Anybody explain how Obama will help their lives?

 

I appreciate the honesty.

There are events happening that must be paid for.

A great example is coal plants (especially older ones).

The electricity is cheap when it comes from old coal plants. Unless you take into consideration the increased death rates and many illnesses.

If you include the cost of treating the increase in those illnesses, coal becomes a lot more expensive to society.

 

In addition, most of the people, liberal and conservative, will not have their taxes increased.

 

For those that will, perhaps the rest of the platform (universal health care, better standing with the international community, less government poking its nose where it doesn't belong, etc) more than make up for the increased taxes:)

[pgrmdave]

What good are somebody's deep pockets if you have to close your business because of higher taxes? Suppose you are making a 10% profit and have adjusted your lifestyle to this. The gov raises your taxes 2% and gives the money to non-workers. Who loses here? Do you think all businesses should be punished by higher taxes? Where will the jobs come from?

 

To be honest, I tend to think that there shouldn't be any taxes on businesses (except those which are useful to enact social change, i.e. taxes on cigarettes, or heavy polluters) because they simply end up getting passed on to the consumers. However, I think that you misrepresent taxes in a big way when you make it extreme. Most beneficiaries of taxes aren't people who just choose not to work - they are the elderly and the sick, they are people who want to work but are in between jobs (most people, the vast majority, who are on welfare are on it for less than six months). Then there are the taxes which go to helping everybody, like those which pay for police, fire, infrastructure, defense, government salaries, education...You can argue that the money is spent poorly, but I doubt you want to argue that there should be no money going to these things.

 

One of your problems questor is assuming that all liberals are the same, and share all the same beliefs. One of the problems of others on this site is assuming that all conservatives are the same, and share the same beliefs. There are as many ideologies as there are people, keep that in mind when talking about "conservatives" or "liberals" as though they are a unified group on all issues.

[REASON]

What would happen if by some fluke, the people decided they did not want to ''spread the wealth'', give non-taxpayers a portion of taxpayers [ your] money they haven't earned and have their taxes raised? I have always wondered why a liberal would vote for someone he knew was going to increase his own tax bill and tax businesses so they could not hire more people? Anybody explain how Obama will help their lives?

 

"Spread the wealth," the latest get your panties in a wad talking point that is a red herring.

[Moontanman]

What would happen if by some fluke, the people decided they did not want to ''spread the wealth'', give non-taxpayers a portion of taxpayers [ your] money they haven't earned and have their taxes raised? I have always wondered why a liberal would vote for someone he knew was going to increase his own tax bill and tax businesses so they could not hire more people? Anybody explain how Obama will help their lives?

 

Questor, please define share the wealth. How much of my taxes go to share the wealth? % please, How much of my taxes are actually put into the hands of people to lazy to work and that are just looking to slide through life with out any effort? I've paid a huge sum in taxes over my life span, I think the vast majority of those taxes went to things our society needs to function. Don't make broad statements that only serve to try and mislead. If I am sharing the wealth lets hear exactly how, where, and how much.

[CraigD]

I have always wondered why a liberal would vote for someone he knew was going to increase his own tax bill and tax businesses so they could not hire more people?

At the risk of answering a disingenuous rhetorical question/talking point, I’d hazard that almost nobody, regardless of views on government, would willingly cast any vote for any person or referendum to increase the amount of federal, state, or local tax he or she pays.

 

Neither presidential candidate Barack Obama nor John McCain have, in any public statement or publication of which I’m aware, stated that they would raise the amount of federal income tax that I, personally, pay (for 2007, $12179). Comparing Barack Obama’s Comprehensive Tax Plan to public statements by John McCain (after some searching of JohnMcCain.com - McCain-Palin 2008, I’m unable to find a similar document), I find that Obama’s proposal would result in my federal tax being decreased by about $2,000, McCain’s, decreased by $600.

 

The primary reason for the difference between the two is the Obama plan’s tax refund of 10% of home mortgage interest. If I rented rather than owned a home, or did not have a home mortgage loan, my tax decrease would change to Obama’s, $500, McCain’s $600.

 

It’s important to note that the power to collect income taxes is not granted to the US President, but to the individual states, and to Congress, the latter due to 1913’s 16th Amendment. So when either of the presidential candidates promise a particular tax plan, they’re at best promising that they would promote and sign into law such a bill drafted by and ratified by Congress. My impression of the history of US federal tax law is that it is rare for Congress to oppose a federal tax decrease promoted - usually very publicly - by the President, and also rare for a President to veto subsequent increases in taxes proposed (but rarely very publicized) by Congress.

 

IMHO, the tax plans hinted at (for even Obama’s more documented proposal is too poorly detailed to be considered a true “plan”) by both presidential candidates are bad ideas, as both result in significant loss of federal revenue, without being paired with significant decrease in federal spending. According to Federal Budget Spending and the National Debt, at present, federal spending is exceeding revenue by nearly $1,000 billion/year, and the total national debt exceeds $10,000 billion. Although much of the current extraordinarily high deficit is due to the recent enacted ”financial system bailout” law, even without this, the growth of the national debt is thought by a consensus of most experts and non-experts alike to be unsustainable.

 

The only solution I can see to the current federal budget deficit is a dramatic reduction in federal spending. The only major area of the budget that I can see where such a reduction can be made without resulting in severe hardship for large portions of the American people is the US military.

 

As with income taxes, the power to raise and support a military (literally “armies” and “a navy” in the Constitution, but nearly unanimously accepted to apply to all branches of the US millitary) is given to the Congress. However, recent history has shown that Congress is usually strongly influenced by the President in its exercise of this power. Therefore, I think the next President’s attitude toward the funding of the military are critical for the wellbeing the American people, and to a lesser extent, the rest of the world’s.

 

My decision to vote for Obama rather than McCain is in large part based on my perception that he and the currently Democratic Party majority Congress are more likely to reduce military spending than McCain and the same or even a much different Congress.

[TheBigDog]

At the risk of answering a disingenuous rhetorical question/talking point, I’d hazard that almost nobody, regardless of views on government, would willingly cast any vote for any person or referendum to increase the amount of federal, state, or local tax he or she pays.

 

Neither presidential candidate Barack Obama nor John McCain have, in any public statement or publication of which I’m aware, stated that they would raise the amount of federal income tax that I, personally, pay (for 2007, $12179). Comparing Barack Obama’s Comprehensive Tax Plan to public statements by John McCain (after some searching of JohnMcCain.com - McCain-Palin 2008, I’m unable to find a similar document), I find that Obama’s proposal would result in my federal tax being decreased by about $2,000, McCain’s, decreased by $600.

 

The primary reason for the difference between the two is the Obama plan’s tax refund of 10% of home mortgage interest. If I rented rather than owned a home, or did not have a home mortgage loan, my tax decrease would change to Obama’s, $500, McCain’s $600.

OK, this is off topic for the thread, and I should start a thread dedicated to contrasting the Tax policy of the two candidates, but for now...

 

What is the position of the candidates on renewing the Bush tax cuts that were established for 10 years and due to expire in the middle of the next presidential term? This will be an increase in the income taxes of everyone who makes more than $32,000/year. I would hope that the candidates who are claiming that they will not increase taxes on the so-called middle class are not considering that this is NOT a tax increase because they didn't do it. Time will tell.

 

Bill

[Turtle]

A few weeks back I listend to Warren Buffet on Charlie Rose. He made it clear that he pays a lower income tax rate than his secretary and that he sees this as not fair. He thinks he should pay more, that is a 'fair share'.

An exclusive conversation with Warren Buffett - Charlie Rose

 

Calling Obama's tax plan an 'increase' strikes me as disingenuous because he is actually proposing stopping the tax breaks given to the wealthy by the previous legislatures. Given that Warren is supporting & advising Barack, I have confidence Barack's plan is well reasoned. :shrug: :doh:

[questor]

If Warren Buffet thinks he should pay more taxes, why doesn't he do it? Is there a law against it? This is BS. If he thinks his secretary is not getting her share, why in H... doesn't he give her a raise? Is there a law against this also? She would undoubtedly be happier with cash in her hand than hear him talk about ''fairness''.

 

In my opinion, liberals are known for not understanding unintended consequences. Two examples...Welfare, this sub-prime mortgage mess. For anyone here to work numbers showing a vote for Obama is going to lower their taxes is going to be in for a nasty surprise. You may try to juggle the numbers between what Obama and McCain are promising, but you are going to have to face the reality of a totally leftist government. Granted Bush has totally bungled this administration by aiding and allowing the sub-prime lending to continue, but don't forget who started the whole thing. True conservatives do not espouse deficits and loans to the unqualified. We are in DEEP do-do and more spending and entitlements are going to dig us deeper.

[Zythryn]

What is the position of the candidates on renewing the Bush tax cuts that were established for 10 years and due to expire in the middle of the next presidential term? This will be an increase in the income taxes of everyone who makes more than $32,000/year. I would hope that the candidates who are claiming that they will not increase taxes on the so-called middle class are not considering that this is NOT a tax increase because they didn't do it. Time will tell.

 

Bill

 

According to Barak Obama's platform, no person making under $250,000 will have their taxes increased.

Repealing a portion of the Bush tax cuts for families over $250,000 while continuing to leave their tax

rates at or below where they were in the 1990s:

o Ordinary Income: The top two income tax brackets would return to their 1990’s levels of 36% and

39.6%. All other tax brackets would remain as they are today. Obama would also restore the 1990’s

levels for the personal exemption and itemized deduction phaseouts (known as PEP and Pease).

Obama would work with the Treasury Department to adjust the thresholds of these rates slightly to

ensure that no married couple making less than $250,000 (or single making less than $200,000) was

affected by these changes.

Quoted from http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Factsheet_Tax_Plan_FINAL.pdf

I'll see if I can find McCain's

It looks like McCain would not change anything regarding the Bush tax cut.

http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/JobsforAmerica/taxes.htm

[Turtle]

If Warren Buffet thinks he should pay more taxes, why doesn't he do it? Is there a law against it? This is BS. If he thinks his secretary is not getting her share, why in H... doesn't he give her a raise? Is there a law against this also? She would undoubtedly be happier with cash in her hand than hear him talk about ''fairness''.

 

Given the short interval between my posting the Buffet interview and your rant against it, I have to guess you didn't watch it as it runs an hour. It's slightly possible that Warren answers some of your questions therein. :shrug:

[Moontanman]

If Warren Buffet thinks he should pay more taxes, why doesn't he do it? Is there a law against it? This is BS. If he thinks his secretary is not getting her share, why in H... doesn't he give her a raise? Is there a law against this also? She would undoubtedly be happier with cash in her hand than hear him talk about ''fairness''.

 

In my opinion, liberals are known for not understanding unintended consequences. Two examples...Welfare, this sub-prime mortgage mess. For anyone here to work numbers showing a vote for Obama is going to lower their taxes is going to be in for a nasty surprise. You may try to juggle the numbers between what Obama and McCain are promising, but you are going to have to face the reality of a totally leftist government. Granted Bush has totally bungled this administration by aiding and allowing the sub-prime lending to continue, but don't forget who started the whole thing. True conservatives do not espouse deficits and loans to the unqualified. We are in DEEP do-do and more spending and entitlements are going to dig us deeper.

 

I guess the Conservatives have no guilt over manipulating the sub prime market to make money hand over fist and contributing to the problem? I guess taking advantage of something that was already going on is ok? So now it's true Conservatives we need to single out as good and Liberals and Neocons as bad? Just who are the true Conservatives? How do I tell the difference? Do true Conservatives use Koolaid and lube and the neocons just Koolaid? Are you going to answer my question about how much tax money in % is actually going to help the lazy stupid people who won't work? Just exactly how much of the Koolaid have you drunk? I was watching The View today and it hit me, I know who you are Questor, you are Elizabeth Hasslebeck, I should have known :doh: I do have to say, scary as it it is to agree with you, a political machine totally dominated by one party is a bad idea, look at what the last eight years have given us :shrug:

[jackson33]

TAX BRACKETS, TAXABLE INCOME, BASED ON SINGLE PERSON FILINGS

 

2000;

O - 26250 15%

26259 - 63550 28%

63550 - 132600 31%

132600 - 288250 36%

288350 - UP 39.6%

 

 

2008;

0 - 8025 10%

8025 32550 15%

32550 - 78850 25%

78850 - 164550 28%

164550 - 357700 33%

357700 - UP 35%

 

Obama has said, "we should return to the 1990's tax rates" (pre-Bush cut).

 

I assume the savings or cuts are based on usage of credits/exemptions/allowances and there is no indication of brackets staying the same (2008) or the rates different of those in 2000.

2000. The examples also mention no deduction which are instrumental in figuring any tax due. A person or families income has no bearing on the final tax debt, other than standard deduction, which also is not mentioned. I venture no person with 'taxable income' over 50k ever files using the standard deduction.

 

 

Small Business has the option of paying Income Taxes (owner(s)), Corporate Taxes or a combination. To incorporate requires about 300.00 and filling out a couple forms. Under Corporate Law, the business pays about 35% on all profits above 1.00. Wages, even to the owner(s) are deductible and then the owner pays Income Taxes, after deduction. Investment into any business are already deductible. New employee's expenses are deductible, whether they work in the US or China. Giving a credit to hire an employee, is meaningless, with out any specifics on requirements. Could a person hire 100 people on Dec. 30th, take the 300K credit on that years taxes, then fire them on Jan. 2nd the next year.

 

The Tax Plan is pure nonsense and subject to what economic conditions are when taking office. Wasn't it Mr. Clinton who figured this out when dismissing HIS TAX CUT's after taking office....

[questor]

Moon, your hatred of conservatives has blinded you to the real culprits in the genesis of the sub-prime meltdown. Why not examine the roles of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and other Democrats in the congress and their insistence on issuing loans to unqualified buyers? In addition, why do you think conservatives were the main participants in manipulating the sub-prime market? Wasn't Acorn a large player here? Why don't you find out the percentages of manipulation by both sides? You may be wasting steam over the wrong people.

[questor]

I believe both candidates formulated their economic plans before this crisis. It does little good to build your game plan on what these men say. After the election, you will probably find little comparison between what they say and what they will be forced to do. McCain has promised to eliminate earmarks and use a line item veto on all bills before him. That's a very strong positive in my book. Obama has been truthful in warning us he will raise taxes and ''spread the wealth'', I take him at his word and put that down as a big negative. What is it that he and the liberals want? We already have the highest standard of living in the world, the best opportunity to become wealthy or choose whatever job you are qualified for. Total freedom within the law and the world's best chance to become the best you can be. What else can we do? We can't force people to work hard, we can't force people to be ambitious, we can't force people to get an education or stay off drugs, or stay out of jail, or make wise life choices, what do we get for higher taxes?

What do we get for what we have already done?