Hey, guys! Long time since I last posted a topic. With the new announcement that Obama's picked a great VP to win alongside him in November, I wanted to ask a question.

I've been told so many times that Obama was going to raise taxes that I almost believed it. Of course, I was still going to vote for him, but as a pretty big fan of fiscal responsibility, regardless of my very liberal social views, I figured I'd just have to deal.

Well, this late in the game, I'm just starting to look into the candidates' tax plans. It's the first time I've really cared, because it's the first election cycle since I've gotten a stable job and gotten married and bought a house. Here's what I've found:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html

Quote :

"According to a new analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain are both proposing tax plans that would result in cuts for most American families. Obama's plan gives the biggest cuts to those who make the least, while McCain would give the largest cuts to the very wealthy. For the approximately 147,000 families that make up the top 0.1 percent of the income scale, the difference between the two plans is stark. While McCain offers a $269,364 tax cut, Obama would raise their taxes, on average, by $701,885 - a difference of nearly $1 million."

Huh! Now, that's interesting. Looks to me like Obama's plan will cut taxes more than Mccain' will for everyone but the richest Americans. Of course, that's nothing new; that's what every Republican has done since my childhood, at least, even though the picture of the tax-and-spend liberal is still really big in some confused minds.

When I pointed this out to one of my Republican friends, he (in true Republican fashion) completely ignored it and just countered with "so you're ok with drastically increased capital gains taxes and a 45% death tax? Obama wants to increase the 'death tax'" even higher than it is now!

http://www.issues2000.org/economic/barack_obama_tax_reform.htm

Quote :

"Q: You favor an increase in the capital gains tax, saying, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28%." It's now 15%. That's almost a doubling if you went to 28%. Bill Clinton dropped the capital gains tax to 20%, then George Bush has taken it down to 15%. And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28%, the revenues went down. Obama: What I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. The top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year--$29 billion for 50 individuals. Those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair."

Now, that seems fair to me. Also, it doesn't affect me or my family at all, and if it did, it wouldn't affect me enough to make me want to vote for Mccain.

Next we have the "death tax," actually known as the estate tax. Here's Obama's plan for the estate tax - the one that my Republican friend is apparently so worried about.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/06/smallbusiness/estate_tax.fsb/

Quote :

"Obama proposes freezing the estate tax at 2009 levels: a 45% tax rate on estates valued at more than $3.5 million. Married couples can combine their exemptions for a total of $7 million."

3.5 Million! Are any of your parents or any of you worth 3.5 Million dollars? Do you plan for you and your spouse to be worth 7 Million? If you are, I'm sorry that you will only be leaving behind 1.25 Million or 3.5 Million respectively. That will probably be very tough for your families

Now, no, I don't think that tax should be that high. I think Mccain's plan to drop it by 10 or 20 percent may not be a terrible idea. However, is that an important enough reason for normal people to vote for him? Obama, whose plan will cut taxes for all but the richest Americans, should lose because he doesn't leaven Millionaires with enough money after they die? Doesn't seem like a good enough reason to me.

As for national security, Obama is less experienced, that's true. However, he won't be making those decisions himself. Our current President certainly doesn't, and Mccain won't either. He'll have advisors and a great VP who does have experience, and he'll do as good a job as anyone else can as President in this insane situation.

My point is this - Vote for McCain if you're rich, or if you disagree with Obama's stance on abortion (but don't forget what Mccain's stance was just a few months ago), or if you want to drill in ANWR. But if you're a normal person with a normal income and a normal life, if you're not rich, and if you're not a hardcore conservative, I just can't imagine what it is about Mccain that is so great and will affect you or those you love or what you stand to lose in an Obama presidency.

[Edited on August 24, 2008 at 1:02 PM. Reason : Wow, that's really long, sorry.]

[Edited on August 24, 2008 at 1:12 PM. Reason : .]

8/24/2008 12:59:59 PM

Quote :

"3.5 Million! Are any of your parents or any of you worth 3.5 Million dollars? Do you plan for you and your spouse to be worth 7 Million?"

i don't know what my parents are worth. i'm sure it'll be 3.5 million by the time they die, though.

i plan on being worth more than that by the time I die, too, in addition to anything that i inherit.

being worth a few million by that point is not really that difficult at all.

8/24/2008 1:07:35 PM

Good luck with that - more power to you. I don't see it as a good enough reason to vote for McCain though, especially since any laws signed by the next President have a high chance of being changed by the time you or your parents die.

8/24/2008 1:14:28 PM

sure...i'm just saying that it's not some pie-in-the-sky goal for anyone other than the very upper crust. it's something that impacts regular middle class people (somewhat upper middle class, anyway).

[Edited on August 24, 2008 at 1:16 PM. Reason : asdfasd]

8/24/2008 1:16:31 PM

Honestly I do not give a shit if Obama is increasing taxes for the "Above 2.87 million" people. My income will very likely not reach this level so I will not cry over Mr. CEO having to downgrade his next car purchase from a Maserati to a Mercedes Benz E Series.

What i do care about is the 18,982 to $37,595 and especially the <18,981 group getting the most significant percentage cut. The former group encompasses a wide array of situations. Just looking at the latter group though it is absurd that these people who already likely pay MINIMAL taxes will receive the largest cut. What is even more ridiculous is under Obama's liberal social welfare policies these people would likely receive increased gov't handouts and services. All paid for by the rest of society. Many of these services being ones that those in the group could afford but choose not to execute fiscal responsibility and sacrifice (i.e universal healthcare, increased food stamps, more subsidized housing, retirement). Granted this is not always the case and many have haphazardly found themselves in hard times. I drove through the housing projects in Wilmington the other day by accident and was funny to see how many Caddilacs, Benz's, Oldsmobile with expensive chrome rims, and even a Lincoln Navigator.

8/24/2008 1:17:54 PM

^yeah, yeah, let's screw the working poor, and those single parent families trying to raise a family on minimum wage out of a few extra bucks, just because there are some who may choose to spend whatever little pittance they have on rims or other foolishness.

8/24/2008 1:39:25 PM

Quote :

"it is estimated that less than one-third of one percent (0.27 percent) of all estates will pay the federal estate tax in 2006, about one out of every 370 estates. Based on census projections for 2006, 2.3 million people will die in 2006 and only about 6,300 will have taxable estates. 1 In other words, 99.7 percent of all people who die in the U.S. this year will be able to pass on 100 percent of their assets free of any estate tax"

http://www.citizen.org/documents/EstateTaxFinal.pdf
And that was when the exemptions were $2 million for individuals and $4 million for couples.

[Edited on August 24, 2008 at 1:40 PM. Reason : .]

8/24/2008 1:39:34 PM

man, thank goodness this very graphic wasn't posted as the original post in a thread two months ago. whew!

^^ Yeah, yeah, let's screw those who actually work hard for their income in order to allow Laquisha to buy more crack and buy some 20s for her car.

[Edited on August 24, 2008 at 2:13 PM. Reason : ]

8/24/2008 2:11:03 PM

Start with an appeal to TWW authority, and finish with a racist insult.

8/24/2008 2:30:33 PM

im glad that vast segment of the american citizenship can be describe as black crackwhores.

8/24/2008 2:35:43 PM

Quote :

"Vote for McCain if you disagree with Obama's stance on abortion"

the sad thing is that there are people that actually vote on this (my parents)

8/24/2008 2:52:10 PM

The Republicans had the White House, Senate, House and Supreme Court for 6 years and couldn't fulfil their promise to outlaw abortion. Why should they vote for them now?

8/24/2008 2:54:26 PM

Quote :

"it's something that impacts regular middle class people (somewhat upper middle class, anyway)."

Does this mean Obama is middle class? He and his wife are supposedly only worth two million at the most.

8/24/2008 3:39:09 PM

well, you'll note an increase in the tax decrease for people in the tax range vs. the people right below it. wonder if that's cause it would help obama and his buddies. naaaah

8/24/2008 3:54:27 PM

Obama is in the range where he would have the +8.7% tax increase.

8/24/2008 4:05:28 PM

I'm sure Obama is only out to help himself and his buddies by taxing himself and his buddies an extra $115,974 a year

8/24/2008 4:05:42 PM

Quote :

"let's screw the working poor, and those single parent families trying to raise a family on minimum wage out of a few extra bucks, just because there are some who may choose to spend whatever little pittance they have on rims or other foolishness."

Nice scarecrow. Yeah though if you are so destitute then maybe you should reconsider about having 10 children. Who am I fooling they get their children subsidized thanks to the hard work from the rest of society from taxes collected from the working class all the way up through the upper middle class and the elites.

8/24/2008 4:27:45 PM

There are so many strawmen in here, one spark would light the place up.

8/24/2008 5:18:28 PM

Quote :

"What i do care about is the 18,982 to $37,595 and especially the <18,981 group getting the most significant percentage cut. The former group encompasses a wide array of situations."

You're right. For too long, people making <$35,000 have been rolling in their wealth and riches, carelessly and needlessly avoiding their fair share of taxes. It's time for those at and around the poverty line to step up! The government needs their money. And it's not like they need healthcare or food of their own anyway

8/24/2008 5:21:39 PM

one day, all the rich people will leave and make their own country without all the taxes. Then no one will be able to support the poor people here.

8/24/2008 5:28:28 PM

Quote :

"And it's not like they need healthcare or food of their own anyway "

The gov't already pays this for them (welfare and medicaid).

That way they have extra money for 40's and weaves

8/24/2008 5:30:04 PM

Might I also add:

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfaremothers.htm

Quote :

"Many conservatives criticize welfare because it increases benefits when a mother has another child. This, they argue, is an economic incentive to have more children, an ill-considered policy which inflates the rolls of our welfare programs. As columnist Ellen Goodman wrote: "A family that works does not get a raise for having a child. Why then should a family that doesn't work?" (1) Unfortunately, this argument is incorrect. Working families do receive "financial incentives" to have more children, and far larger ones than welfare provides. A working family receives a $2,450 tax deduction per child, and can claim up to $2,400 in tax credits to offset the costs of child care. By comparison, a welfare mother can only expect about $90 per month in increased AFDC payments for another child. "

Quote :

"The average AFDC family is virtually the same size as the average American family. Of all welfare families, 73.9 percent have two children or less. (3) Of all American families with children, this figure is 79.1 percent. (4) (Families without children are not qualified for welfare, even though they may need it, so there are conceptual problems with adding childless families to either side of this comparison.) "

8/24/2008 5:33:31 PM

Quote :

"a welfare mother can only expect about $90 per month in increased AFDC payments for another child."

What was the price of dogfood again?

8/24/2008 5:47:30 PM

8/24/2008 6:30:43 PM

Looks to me that mccain isnt wanting to take more of anyones money. Sounds like a fair plan to me.

Also he isnt proposing yet another entitlement programs, ON TOP of the ones we cant afford already.

But if there is a graphic then its as good as law. We all know how well those middle class tax cuts clinton promised worked out. Its a simple strategy of saying one thing, then doing another.

Ill let you guys get back to being self centered and class warfare/ jealousy issues.

8/24/2008 6:36:40 PM

Quote :

" WILLIAMS: A nation of thieves COMMENTARY: Edgar K. Browning, a Texas A&M University economics professor, has a new book aptly titled "Stealing from Each Other." Its subtitle, "How the Welfare State Robs Americans of Money and Spirit," goes to the heart of what it is about. The rise of equalitarian ideology has driven Americans to steal from one another. Mr. Browning explains that certain kinds of equality have been a cherished value in America. Equality under the law and, within reason, equality of opportunity are consistent with a free society. Equality of results is an anathema to a free society and within it lie the seeds of tyranny. Mr. Browning entertains a discussion about when inequalities are just or unjust. For example, college graduates earn income higher than high-school dropouts. Some people prefer to work many hours and earn more than others who prefer to work fewer hours. Students who spend 25 or more hours a week on classroom preparation earn higher grades than students who spend five hours. Most would agree that these inequalities are just. There are other sources of inequalities that are unjust, such as when incomes result from fraud, corruption, stealing, exploitation, oppression and the like. Such sources of inequality play an insignificant role in producing income inequality in America. Most economists agree that income is closely related to productivity. Much of the justification for the welfare state is to reduce income inequality via income transfers to the poor. Mr. Browning provides some statistics that might help us to evaluate the sincerity and truthfulness of this claim. In 2005, total federal, state and local government expenditures on 85 welfare programs were $620 billion. That's larger than national defense ($495 billion) or public education ($472 billion). The 2005 official poverty count was 37 million persons. That means welfare expenditures per poor person were $16,750, or $67,000 for a poor family of four. Those figures understate poverty expenditures because poor people are recipients of non-welfare programs such as Social Security, Medicare, private charity and uncompensated medical care. The question naturally arises: If we're spending enough to lift everyone out of poverty, why is there still poverty? The obvious answer is that poor people are not receiving all the money spent in their name. Nonpoor people get the bulk of it. Mr. Browning's concluding chapter reveals what the welfare state costs us. He acknowledges the noneconomic costs such as infringements on liberty and strains on the political process but focuses on the quantitative economic costs. The disincentive effects of Social Security have reduced the gross domestic product (GDP) by 10 percent, the federal income tax (as opposed to a proportional tax) by 9 percent and past deficits by 3.5 percent for a total of 22.5 percent. He guesses that welfare programs have cut GDP by 2.5 percent. Overall, redistributionist policies has created incentives that have reduced GDP by a total of 25 percent. Without those, our GDP would be close to $18 trillion instead of $14 trillion. So what's Mr. Browning's solution? First, he reminds us of the biblical admonition "Thou shalt not steal." Government income redistribution programs produce the same result as theft. In fact, that's what a thief does; he redistributes income. The difference between government and thievery is mostly a matter of legality. Mr. Browning's solution is captured in the title of his last chapter, "Just Say No," where he proposes, "The federal government shall not adopt any policies that transfer income (resources) from some Americans to other Americans." He agrees with James Madison, the father of our Constitution, who said, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." For years I've used Professor Browning's and his colleague Mark A. Zupan's excellent textbook "Microeconomics: Price Theory and Applications" in my intermediate microeconomics class. "Stealing from Each Other" is a continuation of his academic excellence. Walter E. Williams is a nationally syndicated columnist and a professor of economics at George Mason University. "

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/14/a-nation-of-thieves/

8/24/2008 7:00:13 PM

Quote :

"Without those, our GDP would be close to $18 trillion instead of $14 trillion."

Wow, wouldn't that be great? (Economists like making up numbers.)

Without the outdated price system, everyone could enjoy the benefits of our productive technology equally.

8/24/2008 7:30:15 PM

Quote :

"Without the outdated price system, everyone could enjoy the benefits of our productive technology equally"

Without a transparent price system, there would be a decreasing pie from which to attempt to enjoy equally.

8/24/2008 7:47:17 PM

if all information in the world was accessible to everyone, our total productivity would probably double overnight. Although the S&P 500 would crash.

8/24/2008 7:49:24 PM

Quote :

"Unfortunately, this argument is incorrect. Working families do receive "financial incentives" to have more children, and far larger ones than welfare provides. A working family receives a $2,450 tax deduction per child, and can claim up to $2,400 in tax credits to offset the costs of child care. By comparison, a welfare mother can only expect about $90 per month in increased AFDC payments for another child."

In my opinion tax credits and deductions should be capped at 2 per individual or 4 for couples filing jointly. I do not think i should have to pay/subsidize that fat bitch in Arkansas that was in the news for having 15 children. At least though in her "christian" household these kids will likely end up being more of an investment as they are likely to be responsible members of the community. Can not say the odds are as good for LaTika's welfare children to whom she doesn't know the father.

8/24/2008 8:02:07 PM

Quote :

"Without a transparent price system, there would be a decreasing pie from which to attempt to enjoy equally."

So the economists claim. However, machines don't care about dollars. Technology functions regardless.

8/24/2008 8:28:16 PM

Quote :

"Looks to me that mccain isnt wanting to take more of anyones money. Sounds like a fair plan to me. Also he isnt proposing yet another entitlement programs, ON TOP of the ones we cant afford already. But if there is a graphic then its as good as law. We all know how well those middle class tax cuts clinton promised worked out. Its a simple strategy of saying one thing, then doing another. Ill let you guys get back to being self centered and class warfare/ jealousy issues. "

Obviously, we can only go with what they tell us they're going to do. I seem to recall the Clinton economic plan bringing us a giant economic boom, but maybe the liberal media just tricked me into thinking that We can only base our decisions on what Obama and McCain say they'll do. We can't know what they'll actually do.

8/24/2008 9:37:47 PM

actually, the tech explosion is what gave us the economic boom. And clinton had nothing to do w/ that boom. Thanks for trying, though

8/24/2008 9:43:32 PM

aha i almost posted that a few minutes ago but didnt

8/24/2008 9:45:33 PM

^^ Thank you. Clinton got way too much credit for the 90s. We had no real social issues or world issues to deal with. The internet came into fruition. Which opened a huge, mega, ginormous market with tons of tech jobs and such. And to top it off, it was riding on a bubble. So of course times were going to be good.

Im not supporting Bush but I can somewhat, painfully, sympathize with him. He has had to deal with the .com bubble, housing bubble and 9/11. Then he got us into Iraq and Afghanistan - make whatever you want out of that. Im merely pointing out that he hasnt had the help that Clinton had.

Im not promoting or down playing either president. Just saying that a their impact is often overstated because of world/US conditions.

8/25/2008 12:13:30 AM

Dirty, you missed my point. Clinton also ran on middle class tax cuts and increased spending. However, once he got in office he raised taxes and got his universal healthcare scrubbed by the republicans. Think we have a surplus if national healthcare passes? And people love to give him credit on welfare reform, but dont remember him vetoing the bill twice before he was basically dared to veto it again.

Again, the fact that people are talking about ADDING entitlement programs when we cant support the current ones is amazing. But people its ok, as long as you get yours and dont have to pay. right?

8/25/2008 12:34:54 PM

I do not understand why obama is set on punishing those who make responsible decisions financially and education wise by having to subsidize those who make poor decisions and voluntarily refrain from making a postive contribution to society.

On the other hand I do not see how McCain is going to lower taxes given the current deficit and the current spending rate.

Neither are very responsible.

8/25/2008 1:09:04 PM

everyone wants something for nothing, and a lot of stupid people can vote

8/25/2008 1:09:40 PM

that's a relatively deceiving chart when you consider it's income tax only.

8/25/2008 1:10:49 PM

Quote :

"3.5 Million! Are any of your parents or any of you worth 3.5 Million dollars? Do you plan for you and your spouse to be worth 7 Million? If you are, I'm sorry that you will only be leaving behind 1.25 Million or 3.5 Million respectively. That will probably be very tough for your families "

There is an economic efficient aspect to the death-tax as very often the $7 million in question is locked up in the ownership of a business which, absent a death tax, can be managed by the descendants or sold off whole in time. However, with the death tax, the government refuses to accept 50% of the business in shares, it demands payment in cash, which the descendants do not have. As such, they must quickly find a buyer, which means fire-sale prices if they find one at all, but often means liquidating the business by firing the workforce and selling off company property with substantial dead-weight loss for society at large in the form of reduced production, abandoned customers, and unemployed workers. Now, yes, much of this loss is doubled up on the inheriters, forced to destroy a $7 million company to extract $3.5 million in cash, so they can inherit $1.75 million and send $1.75 million to the government. The inheritors will always be fine, whatever happens, but should America's citizens suffer a $5.25 million loss just so the government can claim $1.75 million? I seriously doubt it.

Especially when I point out that this only happens to the medium sized firms. The ultra rich enjoy having their companies listed on stock exchanges and therefore can tap liquidity at will, losing only that which was demanded by the government. It is only the small companies which end up being destroyed by the inheritance tax, go figure; perhaps those in power prefer to avoid the rise of new competitors using whatever means are available.

8/25/2008 1:15:07 PM

^ Well, it wasn't like Clinton never thought of welfare reform before 1996. Indeed, if we want to talk about campaign promises, Clinton also campaigned in 1992 on "changing welfare as we know it" and he did. He did not veto the same bill each time, he vetoed similar bills that provided states with less funding through TANF. Eventually they reached a compromise that both Republicans and Democrats could live with.

Now, obviously, like any legislative effort, there is plenty of credit (or blame?) to go around. Both Newt and Bill left their marks on the final bill and the our current welfare system has been much changed by it. Personally, I think it has changed for better because it provides help for poor individuals without making them dependent on a system (it's a hand up, not a hand out ). It leaves the state's a lot of freedom for how to structure their system and some have done very well. Check out Wisconsin.
http://dcf.wisconsin.gov/w2/

8/25/2008 1:16:12 PM

fuck small business owners at least obama has his way the minimum wage will be raised

Quote :

"Raise minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2011 and tie future rises to inflation."

hell i can quit my day job and work at McD's for almost $10 per hour!!

8/25/2008 1:19:10 PM

Like I said, I can't defend a 45% rate, even for those worth 3.5 or 7 mil. I do think it could be lowered, and I'm sure there's some corrupt reason why some want to lower it and a corrupt reason why others don't.

I do care more about the poor being helped than business owners.

However, I don't think the estate tax is nearly enough of a reason to vote for or against someone.

8/25/2008 4:48:42 PM

I dont see anything wrong with treating everyone the same. ala the fairtax.

That is true equality. Which most libs dont really want.

8/25/2008 5:17:56 PM

Quote :

"I do care more about the poor being helped than business owners. "

So you care more about some lazy fat ass mom or some thug who can only get a job making $9/hr after obtaining a criminal record for various felony offenses; than a hard working diligent couple that run the local mom and pop store or the crafty college grad that obtained a loan in order to start a business making a product that may cause the next paradigm shift.

YEAH FUCK businesses b.c EVERY incorporated business is some multi-billion dollar greedy corporation.

The only fair solution is our socialist drifting society is a flat tax after a certain universal standard deduction which can vary depending on dependents.

^ to be fair many "conservatives" these days seem to be more interested in helping out their big business buddies (including shareholders) than ensuring free capitalism and fiscal responsibility.

[Edited on August 25, 2008 at 5:54 PM. Reason : ll]

8/25/2008 5:52:18 PM

but you see... if we treat everyone the same, then who will pay for the entitlements?

8/25/2008 5:55:39 PM

After all that has happened in the past eight years, if America is so afraid of whatever perceived threat that Obama supposedly brings to reward the Republicans with another term in office, it deserves to be punished with the terrible policies, dissolution of civil liberties and subjugation of democracy for which it yearns.

8/25/2008 6:05:17 PM

how exactly would electing Obama be a reward to the Republicans again?

8/25/2008 6:16:48 PM

Quote :

"dissolution of civil liberties and subjugation of democracy "

Oh Noes! Give me a break, do you actually believe this crap? Wait, who voted for FISA? Shit.

8/25/2008 6:16:54 PM

Quote :

"if we treat everyone the same, then who will pay for the entitlements?"

If we treated everyone the same, we'd all have plenty. The machines would pay for this universal entitlement.

Unfortunately, that's not how it works.

8/25/2008 6:20:50 PM