Obama v. McCain's Tax Plan - Whose do you like better?

[GHook93]

Whose tax plan is better for you? Obama vs. McCain :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Barack Obama

This is probably the best article on both candidates tax plans.
Obama:
(1) If you make over $250K you get the shaft
- Tax rate goes from 35% to 39%
- Your capital gains go from 15% to 20-28%
- All people in this income bracket will be taxed for Social Security
(2) Make $102K-$250K per year get tax breaks = no social security tax
(3) Tax credit:
- $250K = $0
- <$150K = $500 per worker and $4K per child in school
(4) Seniors making less that $50K = no income tax
(5) Bush tax cuts - he would keep the benefits for the middle class and take away ones for upper class.
(6) Estate "Death" Tax = 45% for estates above $3.5 million
(7) Corporate Tax Rate = 35%

MCain:
(1) Make Bush's tax cuts permanent
- Elimination of marriage tax
- Increase child credits
- Elimination of the highest tax bracket
(2) Raise dependent exemption from $3,500-$7,000
(3) Estate "Death" Tax = 15% for estates above $5 million
(4) Corporate Tax rate reduced to 25%

Comparison and Savings
Income Levels (% of population)..-....Obama....-.....McCain
$227K (5%).................................$23K More..-.....$15K less
$112K-227K (15%).......................$2,300 less.......$3,200 less
$66-$112K (20%).........................$1,290 less........$1,009 less
$38K-$66K (20%)........................$1,042 less........$319 less
$19-$38K (20%)..........................$892 less............$113 less
$0-$19K (20%)............................$567 less...........$19 less

The difference are Obama will reduce taxes to everyone but people who make $250K a year (for them he raises it sustainly). McCain will reduce taxes across the board but less for people making less money.

I obviously like the McCain strategy, not because my family falls in the 2nd terrier level rather for the the Corporate taxation and unintended effects Obama's plan will have. Higher taxes on Corporation make corporations move the burden onto the consumer and even worse go overseas. I am for 0% taxation on corps via the fair tax; therefore, I like McCain's plan better. Second, if you tax the highest income earns who set the prices and make determination of where to place operations you will have higher prices and corporations again going overseas. It always sounds great to stick to the man, but the man will stick it back to you 10 fold every time.

[HelioPrime]

People who make over 227K deserve to pay a little more back to society. Sorry but we shouldn't cower in fear of placing taxes on the richest members of society. Obama's tax cuts could very likely even out the addition of any healthcare taxes. In the end we could end up with universal healthcare for all without any real additional expense per person.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: HelioPrime People who make over 227K deserve to pay a little more back to society.

I agree but where do you draw the line between what is necessary for government to operate and what is simply punitive on those who make more money?

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 I agree but where do you draw the line between what is necessary for government to operate and what is simply punitive on those who make more money?

Not applicable in the situation. If Ghook is correct then 23K out of 227K+ Isn't anything overly burdening. Although I'm sure I'll be proven wrong and someone in NYC will have to take a Aston Martin lease next year instead of a Rolls lease due to Obama's unfair higher taxes.

[Thanatos]

I don't make 250k a year. Given my career path I'll probably never make 250k a year; paramedics seldom get over 40k. My dad doesn't quite manage 250k a year and he owns a software company. My mom makes 110k a year and can afford one house in my secret undisclosed yet scenic New Hampshire location and the equally secret undisclosed yet even more scenic location on Sanibel Island, Florida.

The vast majority of Americans are going to feel this compelling reason not to vote for McCain. Republicans are going to lose that traditional edge from having everybody think they're for lower taxes.

Oh, and Ghook, what is it you do for a living that earns so much?

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 I agree but where do you draw the line between what is necessary for government to operate and what is simply punitive on those who make more money?

Odd but I thought some more on this:

I think there is no way to be certain your not leaving room for abusive or unfair taxes. But we need them regardless. The answer some people will have is no taxes and let individuals care for themselves or their own communities and if they fail then it's that persons own damn fault.

But the reality is people seem to choose to live under governmental rule just to avoid that sort of situation. We might not always like the choices made by whatever given government but it's a far better world than every man and town for itself. So taxes are a needed "evil" of modern society.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: HelioPrime Not applicable in the situation. If Ghook is correct then 23K out of 227K+ Isn't anything overly burdening. Although I'm sure I'll be proven wrong and someone in NYC will have to take a Aston Martin lease next year instead of a Rolls lease due to Obama's unfair higher taxes.

While it's not over-burdening, does it have to be, to be wrong? I think there needs to be a more definitive budget to warrant taking a greater sum from the upper brackets and more accountable government before we simply start throwing money at it.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Thanatos I don't make 250k a year. Given my career path I'll probably never make 250k a year; paramedics seldom get over 40k. My dad doesn't quite manage 250k a year and he owns a software company. My mom makes 110k a year and can afford one house in my secret undisclosed yet scenic New Hampshire location and the equally secret undisclosed yet even more scenic location on Sanibel Island, Florida.

My pops makes well over $250K and my father-in-law makes WELL over $250K (ironically both are voting for Obama and have never NOT voted Democratic

Oh, and Ghook, what is it you do for a living that earns so much?

B to B sales for one of the Credit Bureaus. I manage a $12 million territory!

[GHook93]

See what many people didn't view is the 10% higher tax on corporations. That is the key for me. We can't compete with China, India and Mexico by going down to their level (low wages, deregulation and no environmental controls). We need to compete in other ways. Lowering taxes on domestic corporations is a start. We need to learn from Dubai who has the most rapidly growing corporate sector in the world. The have 0% taxation on corporations. That is something we can do without the fairTax (see below for details), but lowering the corporate taxation by 10% is a start!

[maximdewinter]

Quote by: GHook93 See what many people didn't view is the 10% higher tax on corporations. That is the key for me. We can't compete with China, India and Mexico by going down to their level (low wages, deregulation and no environmental controls). We need to compete in other ways. Lowering taxes on domestic corporations is a start. We need to learn from Dubai who has the most rapidly growing corporate sector in the world. The have 0% taxation on corporations. That is something we can do without the fairTax (see below for details), but lowering the corporate taxation by 10% is a start!

Hey, I was just getting to it. It is really the centerpiece of the McCain Tax plan. We are the originators of the low corporate tax rate and have shown it to be so effective that dozens of other countries copied our recipe for success. Now everybody has lowered their corporate rates and everyone is in a competition to draw companies. Our corporate tax rate can go up to 39%. That is very bad for us and why countries like Ireland with a minuscule 12.5% is booming and attracting business.

Also hurting us greatly is our self imposed , defacto "energy tax " which results from legislating against improvements such as refineries and offshore tapping of natural gas. Most industry requires natural gas in one way or another and companies are avoiding producing in the US because it is much cheaper elsewhere due to offshore drilling in other countries. Also our electric grid is completely outdated.

McCain is the clear choice on this issue. He wants to lower corporate taxes, drill offshore, and wants to upgrade the power grid to millennial standards. Obama really has nothing to stimulate growth and that is completely out of step with what the rest of the world has done and is now doing.

[Technosoul]

But the Republican party still spends billions and wants the future generations to pay for it all, running up a debt with China and elsewhere.

It would be nice if a person could get his car fixed and tell the garage to bill his great grandchildren for the costs. But we can't do that. So why let Bush/McCain do it with their bills?

Love it, leave it, or fix it. (fixing stuff costs money).

[Compugasm]

Quote by: maximdewinter Obama really has nothing to stimulate growth and that is completely out of step with what the rest of the world has done and is now doing.

Hmm, that is pretty convincing. As much as I hate corporatations, I'd have to agree that raising taxes is the face of a recession doesn't sound right.

[ironeagle]

I do not support either ones plan becuase Obamas plan is socialistic/communist because it requires the rich to pay the taxes of the poor, and it is the redistribution of income. Totally against our nation's constitution. I do not agree that anyone should recieve social security who has not paid into it, and the death tax is a horrible law that has crushed and dissolved some of the most American home based, and small family businesses, all so the government could steal away these businesses assets to prevent families from willing their businesses to their families. The death tax is imoral and unecisary it only allows large corporations to continue to operate. I have read many articles on what happened to small businesses including a family ranch when the death tax was enforced, the death tax will come back in 2009 or 2010 (can't remember which) if it is not voted down or abolished forever. In fact I recieved a letter from one of our congressmen in response to a letter I wrote to him. In the letter I asked him these questions, what is the point of the American dream, what is the point of starting a business to leave for your children, if the state and federal governemnt come in after I die to take it all away from them?

[GHook93]

Quote by: Technosoul But the Republican party still spends billions and wants the future generations to pay for it all, running up a debt with China and elsewhere.

Yes because the Giant Bush has acted like a Democrat. To McCain's credit and this is something NOBODY can take from him is that he never designates a single dollar to wasteful pork projects. That is the best evidence for making a case that he won't continue the spending game (Yes yes come back with the war cost - I am sure that Obama won't make the retreat as quick as the D's think and he will still keep us in Afghanistan like he should). Another testiment to McCain's commitment to cut spending is the fact that he original voted against the Bush tax cut plan, because he wanted it to also include a section to cut spending! He agreed with the fundamentals of tax cut plan, but wanted that section introduced to it.

It would be nice if a person could get his car fixed and tell the garage to bill his great grandchildren for the costs. But we can't do that.

LOL, what do you think Obama is going to ask our grandchildren's great grandchildren to do with all his social programs? It is funny you toss these attacks at the R, when really you should be much more afraid of the spending the D's plan to do.

So why let Bush/McCain do it with their bills?

Very disingenious attack! Beside the war (and for a long time they disagreed on it also), McCain and Bush are opposites on most issues.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: GHook93 Yes because the Giant Bush has acted like a Democrat.

LOL... And he's the only one? Name one Republican President who has decreased the federal budget.

The whole "Republicans favor small government" thing is one of the most ridiculously untrue statements a group of people have ever gotten away with.

And cutting taxes without a requisite comparative cut in spending is actually RAISING taxes due to the time value of money.

[GHook93]

Quote by: tivodan1116 And cutting taxes without a requisite comparative cut in spending is actually RAISING taxes due to the time value of money.

Precisely the reason that McCain wanted to have a section for spending cuts in Bush Tax Cut Bill. McCain has the track record against spending.

So to sum it up I agree with you.

[thebuescherman]

McCain has repeatedly voted against major Bills because of the inclusion of pork. Such an example is the Everglades Restoration project in Florida. He liked very much the idea of 1b going to its restoration, but he wasn't quite so happy with the 500 million dollars of pork attached to it. Name me one other person who is willing to do that. Obama will no doubt use this to attack McCain, claiming he "votes against environmental restoration", so perhaps the McCain camp needs to make this more well known.

Also, a conservative may believe in small government, but not a Republican. Its seems to me that being a Republican no longer means adhering to this fundamental conservative belief. This gives me a bleak hope for the party's future, as it really is, IMO, the defining characteristic of a conservative. There are too many Republicans in Washington, and not enough Conservatives.

[maximdewinter]

Quote by: Technosoul But the Republican party still spends billions and wants the future generations to pay for it all, running up a debt with China and elsewhere. It would be nice if a person could get his car fixed and tell the garage to bill his great grandchildren for the costs. But we can't do that. So why let Bush/McCain do it with their bills? Love it, leave it, or fix it. (fixing stuff costs money).

I find the term Bush/Mc Cain a partisan construct that really has no meaning. I would find the contruct Obama/Jimmy Carter equally nonproductive despite the fact that so far Obama's world view is much closer to Jimmy Carter's than John McCain's is to George Bush.

Like him or not Mc Cain has departed radically from the Bush Administration on several key issues.

1. The surge in Iraq. It has worked. Mc Cain had the testicular fortitude to say all along that it was needed, Bush put his faith in Rumsfeld and almost competely botched the mission. Whether the Iraq War was necessary is another issue...his management of the American Military would be demonstrably different and better than George Bush

2. Mc Cain has long been a supporter and a "money where your mouth is" kind of guy as it pertains to pork spending. He was one of the originators of the line item veto bill to prevent earmarks. (the bill was struck down by SCOTUS) but at least Mc Cain can say he tried to decrease pork. Bush can't.

3. Mc Cain is stupidly for Cap and Trade where Bush smartly isn't

4. Mc Cain has departed markedly from the Bush stance on climate change and green house gas emissions

5. Also differing on drilling in Anwar

6. On foreign policy he also has a record against the "go it alone" foreign policy of George Bush.

7. Interrogation of prisoners ...he is different

8. Illegal immigration too

Sure there are points of similarity, but if you fail to see the differences just ask any Conservative how widely Mc Cain splits from George Bush. And if there is anybody who has a track record of at least keeping out of control spending on the front burner it's Mc Cain, not Bush (and of course Obama has shown little interest in the national debt issue so don't expect much>)

[xyzer]

Tax laws that aren't fairly proportional should be outlawed. If one pays 10% then all income levels should pay 10%. I think if we are to be guaranteed equality under the law then our tax bills should reflect it. Why should Gates pay more for his capital gains than I do? Is that a just reward for success? Paying more in income taxes doesn't get one better or greater civic services, does it? I'm for a flat tax.

[GHook93]

Quote by: xyzer Tax laws that aren't fairly proportional should be outlawed. If one pays 10% then all income levels should pay 10%. I think if we are to be guaranteed equality under the law then our tax bills should reflect it. Why should Gates pay more for his capital gains than I do? Is that a just reward for success? Paying more in income taxes doesn't get one better or greater civic services, does it? I'm for a flat tax.

Kill 2 birds with one stone. Get America's strong competitive edge back and make it fair - establish the fair tax Americans For Fair Taxation:. Repeal the 16th amendment, get rid of property, corporate, income taxes and have just the one fair tax. Make one of American's biggest vices one of our major assets - our love for consumption!