Obama/ McCain: What they'll do to your tax bill

Ok, so what? McCain's plan for open trade would spur the economy and allow for his tax breaks for the so- called wealthy. Obama is against free trade, he's stated that many times. And, Obama would let the tax breaks we obtained from the Bush administration lapse in 2010. Any family of four earning $50,000 will pay more than $2000 more in taxes when this happens, and it will happen if Obama is elected. And, by the way, those wealthy people, (the shameless rat bastards), pay the majority of the taxes in this country as it is.

It would appear that an Obama White House would mean more money in MY pocket... for a change.

It's nice to have a relatively impartial panel show the effects of the candidates' proposals. But the President doesn't pass tax laws. That's up to Congress. So though this article is interesting it isn't as relevant as I'd like.

Good effort though. Thanks for posting this.

Barbara,
I don't LIKE free trade, it is putting us at third world levels not raising them up as promised. I've heard quite a few Obama statements on free trade, usually expressing that there are issues like enforcing environmental agreements, etc, but I haven't to date heard him say he was just plain against free trade, and I would have celebrated, myself. As for spurring the economy, are you trickle down idiots going to keep trying to sell that crap forever? The last eight years of spurring the economy has damn near eradicated the middle class, and poor, run the deficit up to unbelievable levels, and picked our pocket worse than any president I can remember by lousy policy that sent the dollar on a free fall. The only ones who have benefited from bush "spurring the economy" are the elite, friends of Cheney and his. Those shameless rat bastards also control almost all the wealth. I see no problem with asking those that have excelled within our system to pay taxes commensurate with their burgeoning wealth to pay for it. Many pay less, as they don't have income, they have capital gains (15%). What's your tax rate?

This was actually a good article. Unfortunately like all articles on taxes everything is predicated on what is happening right now and the foreseeable projections. And once again neither candidate has made any promises to quit feeding the bloated pig(government) which is the REAL problem and cause of deficits. I think free trade has helped some but hurt some. Even though I think it is over all a benefit to America's economy as a whole, that won't convince the people, let alone the states, that have been hit the hardest with free trade policies.

The problem I have with Obama's tax cut plan, even though he doesn't really commit with a plan, is that he wants to get more money from the rich and give to the poor. In an already unbalanced federal income tax system that sees the top 50% paying 96% of the taxes and the top 5% of wage earners paying 53% it is creating an even more lopsided balance sheet.

This is why I think they are both wrong. A flat tax that includes capital gains is the only answer that is FAIR and makes sense. The Fair Tax is very close second, maybe even better, but is untried and untested. Either of these would eliminate the demagoguery involving who is paying more and let the politicians discuss REAL issues of importance.

And Barbara, I'm not sure where you got your info from, but a full 85%-90% of Americans will pay less in taxes under Obama, as the table clearly shows.

Free trade = American companies dumping American workers and paying people in other countries too little to buy anything from us. And the rich people who are going to spur the economy? They buy everything from Europe, so we're screwed again.

A flat tax is regressive, and has been shown time and again to unfairly impact lower wage earning families and favor the rich. Highly oppose that one Jeff. You cite how much taxes the rich pay, as a percent, without mentioning, as all conservatives fail to do, what percent of the wealth those you defend control in this country. Income taxes are not a fair tax on the rich, in the first place, as they don't take home a paycheck, many get their money from dividends and capital gains, etc. Many of those rates are lower than income tax on those that toil eight hours a day 5 or 6 days a week. Remember those hedge fund managers that paid 15% on 36 billion dollars, while the average Joe was paying what, 28% on his paltry paycheck.

What I found interesting is that Obama'a health plan was not figured into those tax "cuts". You can count on a heafty tax increace with Socialized Medicine.

"It would appear that an Obama White House would mean more money in MY pocket... for a change."

That can only mean you've got barely nothing and will get barely nothing.

It isn't single payer, Colonel. Count again.

"That can only mean you've got barely nothing and will get barely nothing."

Funny how conservatives seem to be unable to read a chart. 85% to 90% of the citizens of this country will pay less under Obama's plan. Read it again, or probably for the first time, more likely.

Not to mention that I think the chances of universal insurance becoming a reality are a real challenge, until people speak up a lot more.

Thanks for the link. I like Obama's plan. At least he understands it is the 90% of Americans, the ones he wants to give more money to, that are the ones that spend the money, which is what makes the top the top. If everyone is broke, no one can spend any money.

""" A flat tax is regressive, and has been shown time and again to unfairly impact lower wage earning families and favor the rich."""

It has never been done in America so it hasn't shown anything but it HAS in Europe namely Germany when their economy was failing and it has shown great success.

"""You cite how much taxes the rich pay, as a percent, without mentioning, as all conservatives fail to do, what percent of the wealth those you defend control in this country""""

Who earns what? The top 1% earns 17.53% (2000: 20.81%) of all income. The top 5% earns 31.99%(2000: 35.30%). The top 10% earns 43.11% (2000: 46.01%); the top 25% earns 65.23% (2000: 67.15%), and the top 50% earns 86.19% (2000: 87.01%) of all the income.

"""Income taxes are not a fair tax on the rich, in the first place, as they don't take home a paycheck, many get their money from dividends and capital gains, etc.""""

I said capital gains would be included as income in the flat tax. Same percentage. As far as the fair tax NOBODY would pay an income tax. Al taxes would be paid when purchasing non-necessity items.

Informative article -- especially the point that deficit funded tax cuts pushes the burden to the future and actually harms the economy.

Don H. you and Phil Gramm must belong to the Marie Antoinette school of economics -- "Let them eat cake." Gramm is being floated as a possible McCain cabinet member. His comment , "You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession. ... We have sort of become a nation of whiners." has to make you ask how out of touch McCain is with reality if this is his economic guru.

Jeff, a flat rate tax sounds good. It certainly would be simpler. I can't imagine however that congress, both parties included, would ever give up their power to add exemptions and deductions for their pet constituents.

Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid

Top 1% made an annual $364,657(17.53% of income earned)or higher and paid 39.38% of the all income tax.


Top 5% made an annual $145,283(32% of income earned) or higher and paid 59.67% of income taxes

Top 10% made an annual $103,912(43%) or higher and paid 70.30% of the income taxes.

Top 25% made and annual $62,068(65.23%) and paid 85.99% of the income tax.

Top 50% makes an annual $30,881(86%) or higher and paid 96.93% of all income taxes.

Bottom 50% made an annual $30,881 or less(14%) and paid 3.07% of all income

Source: Internal Revenue Service

Chuck I agree. Ending the debate on who pays what in taxes and who gets loopholes takes a lot of power away from government. That's one reason why I like it and think a flat tax or fair tax should, if proven to work, become a constitutional amendment and permanent.

Your chart of figures on personal income is misleading, as I said before, because personal income, for the rich, is only part or none of the picture, as you know. In that regard, you try to mislead. Personal income does not include many of the returns on investments of the rich. They far exceed those figures in percent of money taken in, or percent of total wealth controlled.

Those are both candidates wish lists the realities are most likely going to be very differecnt. We have spent and spent for 8 yrs now its time to start drawing down the amt we owe.

The flat tax, don't try to call it the "fair" tax (a conservative think tank construct like death tax) unless you support one I haven't seen, is regressive. It's possible to conceive of one, that isn't regressive, I suppose, but the devil on this is in the details, and I haven't seen a formula put forth by conservatives that didn't somewhere in it give unfair advantage to the rich.

Carol,
I believe you are right, but this obviously shows candidate intent, and their particular (class) areas of concern.

"The richest 1 percent of Americans currently hold wealth worth $16.8 trillion, nearly $2 trillion more than the bottom 90 percent. A worker making $10 an hour would have to labor for more than 10,000 years to earn what one of the 400 richest Americans pocketed in 2005." - The Nation

""" Your chart of figures on personal income is misleading, as I said before, because personal income, for the rich, is only part or none of the picture, as you know. In that regard, you try to mislead. """""

I am not misleading at all Ron. When they talk about raising income taxes they are talking about raising income taxes. So when they talk about going after the richest ten percent they are talking about earned income not other investments. It seems that YOU are misleading when you claim that going after the rich and only raising income tax makes any impact on the filthy rich. That's why democrats never go after those who have tax sheltered accounts and offshore accounts like the Kennedys and the Kerrys. Because THEY don't want to pay more taxes they just want people who work for it to pay more.

As far as raising capital gains tax, That is one way to get more money out of small investors who don't have enough money to move to offshore accounts but the filthy rich will do what they always do. Move their money to places the government can't touch. That's why when there is lower capital gains tax the government takes more money in taxes from it. More of the ultra wealthy keep their money there and actually pay into OUR government not invest in offshore accounts.

Jeff,
As you have so eloquently demonstrated, the rich will do anything to avoid paying their fair share, and we can get to the nitty gritty, now. What you are saying is, since we can't count on the rich to keep their investments where they will pay their fair share of taxes, and will seek to hide and shelter their wealth from the tax man whatever way available , we need a wealth tax. I heartily agree. Thanks for demonstrating it's necessity so well. I knew I could count on you, lol. In relation to the class based tax relationship, as I have noted elsewhere, since the late seventies, the distribution of wealth has gone from the lower, to the upper classes, much on the back of Republican leadership. For instance, here's a little independent analysis of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts -

Tax Policy Institute Front Page, From Brookings -"Tax cuts are not free; they must be financed with some combination of tax increases or spending cuts. The central goal of this paper is to apply this standard insight from public finance to analysis of the distributional effects of making the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent. We estimate not only who benefits directly from the tax cuts, but also who benefits and who loses once the financing of the tax cuts is considered. We consider two scenarios: one in which each household pays an equal dollar amount to finance the tax cuts and one where each household pays the same share of income. In both cases, more than three-quarters of households end up worse off if the tax cuts are made permanent and financed. In addition, there are large aggregate transfers from the majority of low- and middle-income households to an affluent minority. These results show that, far from simply "giving people their money back," making the tax cuts permanent would impose significant losses on tens of millions of American households."

I think you all should check out the Fair Tax.

The fact that you guys are not all already talking about how to pass the Fair Tax scares me. Check it out, its amazing.

www.fairtax.org

Andy Brady
Andy@kabliga.com
www.kabliga.com

Ron that's why I am for a flat tax on all income. We both know there will never be a wealth tax because democrat politicians are some of the wealthiest people on earth and you know how that goes. In fact I know Obama has certainly never stood for one. We both know that he only "looked at" raising the capital gains tax and when the wealthy democratic establishment has a few words with him behind closed doors I am sure that he will stop looking at it. Even Bill Clinton lowered capital gains when he raised the income tax rates.

When you allow politicians to continually pick the winners and losers of tax policies there will always be an endless debate. Class envy and warfare. As far as that analysis from the Brookings Institute, so what? That's their opinion. There are other "think tanks" that disagree with their analysis and offer on to the contrary. You can go on and on. As far as a flat tax I will agree with you that the rich won't get punished enough in your opinion. But I can guarantee you that no tax increase Obama proposes or even gets into law will either. In the end the workers pay and the ultra rich elitists skate.

Andy I agree it is an amazing tax system that lets you keep all your money earned and only taxes non-necessity purchased items. That means the more money you have to spend the more taxes you pay. The rich pay more and poor pay less. Unfortunately there are two reasons why it will never get passed into law. 1) People trust the evil they know more than the evil they don't know. 2) People who think that taxes are supposed to punish the rich will always be afraid that the rich won't see it as a punishment. Their hatred and jealousy of people with more money then them clouds their ability to think clearly on any policy let alone taxes.

"85% to 90% of the citizens of this country will pay less under Obama's plan. Read it again, or probably for the first time, more likely."

Ron -- you have to recognize that there are two phases to the Obama plan. Phase one is DO NOTHING and let the Bush tax plan expire -- and that is when EVERYBODY gets a tax increase. (please debate me on that if you like). Phase two is where Obama tries to implement his plan which helps the lower income folk... and the amount per person is so small it would make little difference in peoples lifestyle.

So Don, where did you get the inside scoop on the two phases of the Obama tax plan?

"When you allow politicians to continually pick the winners and losers of tax policies there will always be an endless debate. Class envy and warfare."

It won't change a thing as they will still be deciding what is exempted, what is included, and what exemptions will be ended or continued. It's a conservative pig in a poke, and I haven't seen one proposed by the right yet, the main group pushing it, that didn't involve favoritism for their base, the rich. If done right, I'll grant you it has merit, as long as it covers all forms of monetary gain for the rich, and not just the paychecks of the smucks that make them rich.

"As far as that analysis from the Brookings Institute, so what? That's their opinion. There are other "think tanks" that disagree with their analysis and offer on to the contrary."

Not that appear on the front page of the tax policy institutes web page, there's not. I wonder why? The fact that there has been a redistribution of wealth to the elite is well documented, Jeff. Do you argue that point?

"You can go on and on. As far as a flat tax I will agree with you that the rich won't get punished enough in your opinion. But I can guarantee you that no tax increase Obama proposes or even gets into law will either. In the end the workers pay and the ultra rich elitists skate."

It's a ton better under Democrats for the middle and lower classes, whatever he does. So much so, it's not even funny, Jeff. 75% of the deficit that has flushed the dollar has been accrued under just three Republican presidents, and that has been the worst case of government in my pocket ever. According to what I've researched, I have a lot of company, too. You don't speak for the middle class, you speak for the rich, like true "new" conservatives have, for this last half of my life.

" "85% to 90% of the citizens of this country will pay less under Obama's plan. Read it again, or probably for the first time, more likely."

Ron -- you have to recognize that there are two phases to the Obama plan. Phase one is DO NOTHING and let the Bush tax plan expire -- and that is when EVERYBODY gets a tax increase. (please debate me on that if you like). Phase two is where Obama tries to implement his plan which helps the lower income folk... and the amount per person is so small it would make little difference in peoples lifestyle."

Which is why I consider it imperative we also elect progressive congress people that will help him straighten out this mess Bush is leaving us. They have the whole year to change the tax code before ANYBODy pays a dime, one way or the other, and the idea we all get a tax raise is obviously semantics. As for the amount being so small, it would net 580 dollars beyond present levels for the average taxpayer, from what I've read, and that ain't chicken feed to me. If it is to you, that explains entirely the support you give this administration that has tilted everything in your favor. That's your cue to ridicule me as a loser, by the way, it's in the playbook.......

"""The fact that there has been a redistribution of wealth to the elite is well documented, Jeff. Do you argue that point?""""

You really can't redistribute wealth to people you already took it from. To be honest the workers who pay taxes kept more of their own money. It wasn't redistributed.. That is in terms of the income tax which in it's progression is one of the most unfair taxes you could imagine. The more someone makes in a year the higher percentage he should have to pay? It is completely unfair and indeed a punishment.

The capital gains tax is a benefit to anybody who has a 401 k plan or modest diversified investment portfolio. Yes the rich benefit from it too but if fairness is punishing everybody equally I stand corrected.

I won't defend Bush or the republican congress's overspending and weak dollar policy. The democrats can hammer away about that and they are correct.

"You really can't redistribute wealth to people you already took it from. To be honest the workers who pay taxes kept more of their own money. It wasn't redistributed.. That is in terms of the income tax which in it's progression is one of the most unfair taxes you could imagine. The more someone makes in a year the higher percentage he should have to pay? It is completely unfair and indeed a punishment."

As I said, that redistribution of wealth is documented, and indisputable since the latter seventies. It hasn't all been a function of taxes, that is but one component of the class warfare declared against the middle and lower classes, as you well know. I don't consider it inherently unfair for those that benefit the most from the society that allows them to excel, and in the case of those that seem to be favored by Republicans, grossly excel, to be asked to support that system they benefit from at a higher level than those they have used to do it.

"The capital gains tax is a benefit to anybody who has a 401 k plan or modest diversified investment portfolio."

I have two 401Ks and I'd be happy to forgo the lower rate to close the giant loophole this is for the rich.

"Yes the rich benefit from it too but if fairness is punishing everybody equally I stand corrected."

The rich benefit, on a personal level, far beyond anyone else, and it is an unfair situation. Like I said, if they are given the facts on this, I think most would like to see it addressed, and I think it will be.

"I won't defend Bush or the republican congress's overspending and weak dollar policy. The democrats can hammer away about that and they are correct."

I hope you don't mind if a little old independent hammers away a little too, lol.

I am leaning towards the flat tax too.

If it was done fairly, I wouldn't oppose it either, but as I said above, those that are seducing others with it's simplicity, and seeming fairness, don't intend to do it right from all the proposals I've seen so far. On another thread, we went into this a bit, and it is all in the details of what is exempted, what is included, who decides, and why.

Our current tax code was once a flat tax, got out of control, was remade into a flat tax, and look at it now, its time to revamp the entire system.

FAIR TAX

It's impossible to call it a fair tax, till you know how it is implemented.

"So Don, where did you get the inside scoop on the two phases of the Obama tax plan?"

I'm informed. One, the Bush plan has to expire (congress needs to do nothing to make that happen), and two, Obama has to get his plan through the house and senate.

Oh boy.......

**lending moral support but it's late and jean's tired** (I read all of the comments, though... ;o) )