[kscoyote]

How McCain and Obama will change your tax bill - Jun. 11, 2008

John McCain's tax cuts | Salon News

The Tax Policy Center's computations show stark differences between the Obama and McCain plans in their relative impact on middle-class and high-income taxpayers. A middle-class family making $66,000 a year would see their taxes drop by $319 a year under McCain's proposal, while a wealthy family making $604,000 a year would see a cut of $45,000. By contrast, Obama offers the biggest breaks for taxpayers at the bottom and in the middle of the income spectrum, while imposing sizeable tax increases on some of the highest earners -- those making more than $250,000 annually. Under Obama's plan, the middle-income family would receive a tax break that is three times larger than McCain's -- $1,042. The wealthy family would see a tax increase of $116,000 a year.

[v6stang3215]

I do believe McCain's plan is better. I don't think the wealthy should be punished for making money that they have worked hard to earn. I am also a believer in the trickle down effect. So taxing the wealthy will still be hurting the mid to lower class.

[kscoyote]

Originally Posted by v6stang3215

I do believe McCain's plan is better. I don't think the wealthy should be punished for making money that they have worked hard to earn. I am also a believer in the trickle down effect. So taxing the wealthy will still be hurting the mid to lower class.

That's worked out well for the past 8 years.

Somebody has to pay the bill - the wealthy USE more infrastructure, more police, more roads, more airports, and have NOT invested in jobs here. Furthermore, overseas American Interests are VERY expensive to maintain.

While levees crumbled up and down the Mississippi this past summer, because no one's done any maintenance on them for the past 8 years, and levee failure destroyed a major American city, and the dollar shrivels because of budet deficits larger than at any time in history -we can pretend that Bushonomics work, or we can go bak to balanced budgets, strong dollars, and free up the blockage of money that's currently going overseas, because iddle-class families can't afford to buy anything, except the gas to go to work and wealthy families are investing in China.


Your choice. Choose well.

[countymounty]

a nonpartisan policy group, who was sponsored by the Democratic National Convention, today announced ……………………

[mw2003GT]

Regardless of tax cuts or increases, I hope you are aware of the Global Poverty Act that Obama is strongly supporting. It equates to $485 billion in our tax dollars going to the U.N. (OTHER COUNTRIES). Read about that before you worry about these minor dollar values that you are worried about.

[kscoyote]

Originally Posted by countymounty

a nonpartisan policy group, who was sponsored by the Democratic National Convention, today announced ……………………

Mmmmm-hmmmm! Somebody has to pay for the analysis, McCain's bunch had an opportunity to respond.

Where are all those jobs promised the first go-round? - We lost 483,000 jobs in the last quarter.

Originally Posted by mw2003GT

Regardless of tax cuts or increases, I hope you are aware of the Global Poverty Act that Obama is strongly supporting. It equates to $485 billion in our tax dollars going to the U.N. (OTHER COUNTRIES). Read about that before you worry about these minor dollar values that you are worried about.

And yet, taxes go down.



washingtonpost.com

Conservative columnist Michael Gershon

Then I made the worst mistake of the commentator: actually meeting the object of your scorn. I found, as usual, that disdain is easier from a distance. Though we remained at odds on some issues, Coburn politely assured me that his motivation was not stinginess. His main goal was to increase the number of people receiving treatment.

So let the record show: After a compromise that accommodated his concerns, Coburn not only supported the bill but urged other conservatives to do the same.


The bipartisan expansion of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) -- along with the President's Malaria Initiative -- is significant in a number of ways.

_________________________________

Bush is already doing similar initiatives (whch Trip will recall my praising him for)

Originally Posted by countymounty

And who is in charge of Congress?

Sorry, they can't do much not a very big majority - Bush has gotten most of what he's asked for, from telecom immunity to denying a repeal of the tax cuts on wealthy families.

His economic policy is still in place - there isn't much of a difference.

[countymounty]

Originally Posted by kscoyote

Where are all those jobs promised the first go-round? - We lost 483,000 jobs in the last quarter.

And who is in charge of Congress?

[kscoyote]

Originally Posted by mw2003GT

Regardless of tax cuts or increases, I hope you are aware of the Global Poverty Act that Obama is strongly supporting. It equates to $485 billion in our tax dollars going to the U.N. (OTHER COUNTRIES). Read about that before you worry about these minor dollar values that you are worried about.

There's already a thread on that.




But I don't mind.

[tripleblack]

Anyone who has ever read any of the threads about oil companies and taxes knows my viewpoint: Corporations don't pay taxes, people do, and any additional tax meant to punish the oil companies for high oil prices will just come out of our hides instead - a particularly stupic form of self abuse.

Barack Obama has recently added some sugar for working familes earning less than $150,000 per year - a $1000 tax credit paid for by a gigantic new tax on oil companies.

See the circle?

It would be wise for everyone to take ANY promise of goodies from ANY politician (and there will be many in this election year cycle) with a large grain of salt - and discover WHERE that money is coming from before signing on.

In this case, the formula is usually 3 to 1, ie, for the government to raise $1000 for all those working families, they will have to first TAX all those working families $3000 (in this case, indirectly via the oil companies). NOT helpful in my view.

I haven't seen the total bill yet for this concept, but I'm guessing that the payout will be a third (or less) vs what is pulled in - sort of like the lottery, come to think of it. But unlike the lottery, this is a tax on EVERYONE, not just those who choose to play the game.

[quote, Neal Boortz www.nealboortz.com ] Wherever I went during the last weekend – whether a charity golf tournament on Saturday or just hanging around the club or the airport on Sunday – the talk was of Obama and his sense of entitlement and arrogance. Last week there were several media stories – even from far-left MSNBC – about Obama's arrogance and sense of entitlement. I particularly like the quote from Bonnie Erbe – quite the liberal, Ms. Erbe – about Obama's recent efforts:

"From using a logo resembling a presidential seal at one speech earlier this year (an obvious error and never seen again) to addressing a crowd of 200,000 in Berlin and meeting with heads of state before he has reason to, Obama's puerile self-absorption may backfire on him and turn off the very voters he needs to turn on: the white working class."

So ... look for The Chosen One to return to the "little people" this week. Back to his roots, so to speak.

Oh ... and can we address that "white working class" thing again? Would that be why Obama proposed a massive income transfer from the evil "Big Oil" companies to that very group this past week? In case you missed it, The Chosen One proposes to tax the dog squeeze out of those evil, nasty, vicious, corrupt, stinking oil companies so that he can send a $1000 check to every "working family" in America. Obama's campaign tells us that if a single person earns less than $75,000 a year, or $150,000 for a married couple, you are a working family. Earn more than that and you're not working any more. There you go white middle class ... that is Barack Obama recognizing that he has been a little too impressed with his imperial self lately and he wants to make amends.

There is a problem here, though it is not one that the government educated dumb masses of this country are likely to figure out on their own. Just who owns the profits these oil companies have earned? That would be the stockholders. And just who might these stockholders be? Well, about 1.5 percent of them are oil company executives. The rest are the rank and file Americans who own mutual funds and workers who will rely on pension plans for their retirements. Pension plans and mutual funds, you may not know, are major investors in oil company stocks. This means that the retirement incomes of school teachers, firemen, police officers, municipal workers, flight attendants, warehousemen, truck drivers, hotel employees and other service sector workers and others may rely in part on the financial health of the oil companies in which their pension funds hold stock. Obama the Magnificent wants these pension funds to cough up some of their earnings so that he can hand out checks to voters. Too bad the government-educated masses can't see through this, and too bad the media won't point it out to them. [quote]

[Vortex]

Yes, let's tax those Evil rich people. The ones who are by any other means middle class but happen to own a business. Try and find a poor person and get a job. They don't seem to be hiring in this slow-down. Would you prefer the "rich" pay a higher tax rate? or more in Taxes?
Where does it say that government is supposed to create jobs? If you want jobs to come back here, get the FairTax enacted. We'll have more jobs than people. Besides, how would you like someone in india with computer problems have to call up and get some good-ole boy from Kentucky walk them thru it?

[95MGTS]

Funny how wealthy is defined as those making $250K a year. Absurd. That amount might go further say in Corinth, Mississippis than San Diego, CA but wealthy? Needs to be futher defined. For those making big money, often it's from investments anyway, the tax earned on interest is small. The very fact that there is an icrease in the tax on the wealthy is absurd. The top percentage of wage earners already pay the most in taxes.

Originally Posted by _Will_

Share of Income Taxes paid by American workers:






The IRS has once again released this information, these numbers are from 2005.


The Top 10 Percent of Income Earners Paid 70 Percent of Federal Income Tax

Under McCain's plan, my taxes are reduced by 2 over Obama's...McCain has my vote for that reason and that reason alone.

[kscoyote]

Originally Posted by tripleblack

Anyone who has ever read any of the threads about oil companies and taxes knows my viewpoint: Corporations don't pay taxes, people do, and any additional tax meant to punish the oil companies for high oil prices will just come out of our hides instead - a particularly stupic form of self abuse.

Barack Obama has recently added some sugar for working familes earning less than $150,000 per year - a $1000 tax credit paid for by a gigantic new tax on oil companies.

See the circle?

It would be wise for everyone to take ANY promise of goodies from ANY politician (and there will be many in this election year cycle) with a large grain of salt - and discover WHERE that money is coming from before signing on.

In this case, the formula is usually 3 to 1, ie, for the government to raise $1000 for all those working families, they will have to first TAX all those working families $3000 (in this case, indirectly via the oil companies). NOT helpful in my view.

I haven't seen the total bill yet for this concept, but I'm guessing that the payout will be a third (or less) vs what is pulled in - sort of like the lottery, come to think of it. But unlike the lottery, this is a tax on EVERYONE, not just those who choose to play the game.

[quote, Neal Boortz www.nealboortz.com ] Wherever I went during the last weekend – whether a charity golf tournament on Saturday or just hanging around the club or the airport on Sunday – the talk was of Obama and his sense of entitlement and arrogance. Last week there were several media stories – even from far-left MSNBC – about Obama's arrogance and sense of entitlement. I particularly like the quote from Bonnie Erbe – quite the liberal, Ms. Erbe – about Obama's recent efforts:

"From using a logo resembling a presidential seal at one speech earlier this year (an obvious error and never seen again) to addressing a crowd of 200,000 in Berlin and meeting with heads of state before he has reason to, Obama's puerile self-absorption may backfire on him and turn off the very voters he needs to turn on: the white working class."

So ... look for The Chosen One to return to the "little people" this week. Back to his roots, so to speak.

Oh ... and can we address that "white working class" thing again? Would that be why Obama proposed a massive income transfer from the evil "Big Oil" companies to that very group this past week? In case you missed it, The Chosen One proposes to tax the dog squeeze out of those evil, nasty, vicious, corrupt, stinking oil companies so that he can send a $1000 check to every "working family" in America. Obama's campaign tells us that if a single person earns less than $75,000 a year, or $150,000 for a married couple, you are a working family. Earn more than that and you're not working any more. There you go white middle class ... that is Barack Obama recognizing that he has been a little too impressed with his imperial self lately and he wants to make amends.

There is a problem here, though it is not one that the government educated dumb masses of this country are likely to figure out on their own. Just who owns the profits these oil companies have earned? That would be the stockholders. And just who might these stockholders be? Well, about 1.5 percent of them are oil company executives. The rest are the rank and file Americans who own mutual funds and workers who will rely on pension plans for their retirements. Pension plans and mutual funds, you may not know, are major investors in oil company stocks. This means that the retirement incomes of school teachers, firemen, police officers, municipal workers, flight attendants, warehousemen, truck drivers, hotel employees and other service sector workers and others may rely in part on the financial health of the oil companies in which their pension funds hold stock. Obama the Magnificent wants these pension funds to cough up some of their earnings so that he can hand out checks to voters. Too bad the government-educated masses can't see through this, and too bad the media won't point it out to them.

Trip, I can name all sorts of corporate assets that are highly taxed and purchasing our low taxed corporations, roads, highways, and other infrastructure.

I'm sure you can too.

If your assertion was true, a Nokia would cost several times more than a Motorola, for example.

InBev would have not had the wherewithall to purchase Budweiser, etc.,

Giving oil companies corporate welfare (as we are doing now) is not driving down the cost of oil for consumers, it's driving up their profits and salaries.

Originally Posted by 95MGTS

Funny how wealthy is defined as those making $250K a year. Absurd. That amount might go further say in Corinth, Mississippis than San Diego, CA but wealthy? Needs to be futher defined. For those making big money, often it's from investments anyway, the tax earned on interest is small. The very fact that there is an icrease in the tax on the wealthy is absurd. The top percentage of wage earners already pay the most in taxes.



Under McCain's plan, my taxes are reduced by 2 over Obama's...McCain has my vote for that reason and that reason alone.

You earn over 250K as a Navy Pilot?

Originally Posted by Vortex

Yes, let's tax those Evil rich people. The ones who are by any other means middle class but happen to own a business. Try and find a poor person and get a job. They don't seem to be hiring in this slow-down. Would you prefer the "rich" pay a higher tax rate? or more in Taxes?
Where does it say that government is supposed to create jobs? If you want jobs to come back here, get the FairTax enacted. We'll have more jobs than people. Besides, how would you like someone in india with computer problems have to call up and get some good-ole boy from Kentucky walk them thru it?

That's what Bush said about cutting the taxes of the top 0.10%. but the jobs certainly didn't come back, as the Waltons, Gates, etc., invested in China.

I'm sorry, trickle down didn't work in the 80s and it's not working now.

[tripleblack]

Where the money goes varies. In Georgia, we pay a fuel sales tax that goes directly to the DOT (an unusual arrangement). Usually it goes into a General Fund, and comes out as spending allocations. Sometimes more comes out as an allocation for one thing, sometimes more for another.

The 3 to 1 ratio is just an estimate - as I said, I haven't seen the rough draft of the bill (mainly because it exists mostly as a headline right now rather than as actual prepared legislation), but this is pretty typical. Government's overhead percentage on many such things is pretty steep (routing money through the government is NOT cost free), and then there's the likelihood that other priorities will be included, other expenses added on, etc. A "clean" bill is quite rare, as you know, and particularly one that has "pork" written all over it like this one. Obama's buddies in Congress have a LONG history of taking such programs and padding them (in fact, that's where a lot of my ratio comes from).

Maybe it will only be 2:1, making it a pretty "clean" bill, or even worse than 3:1, making it a "christmas tree" laden with pork.

Also to be considered is the fact that such programs impose assorted costs upon the middleman collecting the taxes, and those costs (like all corporate costs) get added on to the prices charged for their goods and services somewhere along the line. This is particularly true when an entire national industry is targeted, so there is NO market force pressure to prevent the prices from being passed along to consumers. For every dollar collected by corporations as taxes, a large amount of overhead is generated - adding to the ratio, of course.

KS, this is all really basic economics. Reality.

If Obama is seeking to emulate Jimmy Carter here, the next step would be price and wage controls, something he has not yet mentioned. This is of course the other side of the zero sum game, where once the effect of prices of this sort of thing is realized by the Boss (aka, the voters), attempts to force the tax extraction to follow the preferred path (ie, coming out of the stockholder's hide, ably discussed by Neal in my post above), an entire new dumptruck load of worms is revealed.

As for the Nokia and Motorola example, it completely goes over my head. What in the dickens do they have to do with punitive oil profit taxes and a plan to share some of them with taxpayers? Budweiser being purchased by a European company?

KS, I think you are losing the thread.

These things have no common ground with my post, none at all...

Originally Posted by kscoyote

Trip, I can name all sorts of corporate assets that are highly taxed and purchasing our low taxed corporations, roads, highways, and other infrastructure.

I'm sure you can too.

If your assertion was true, a Nokia would cost several times more than a Motorola, for example.

InBev would have not had the wherewithall to purchase Budweiser, etc.,

Giving oil companies corporate welfare (as we are doing now) is not driving down the cost of oil for consumers, it's driving up their profits and salaries.

[95MGTS]

Originally Posted by kscoyote

You earn over 250K as a Navy Pilot?

I wish My income plus what my wife makes puts us in the $161-227K range. My future goals....such as airline pilot and captain, would probably put me above that range alone. Gotta plan for the future Granted Obama wouldn't be in office then anyway but there's always setting that precedence.

[JB02GT]

Originally Posted by 95MGTS

Funny how wealthy is defined as those making $250K a year. Absurd.

$250,000 annually or, put another way, a quarter of a million per year. Considering that such a person could spend $75,000 per year ($25k more than my wife and I make, combined - both in jobs that require college degrees - meaning that a third of their income is half again as much as our total) and still put enough in the bank to be a millionaire in just over 5.5 years, I would consider that pretty darn well off, at least. Then, again, there are professional baseball players, etc. who get paid several times that amount for playing a damn game. Either way, I still don't trust - or support - Obama (or McCain, either.)