The tax policies of Obama and McCain

[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]

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

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...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/Job...rica/taxes.htm

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by 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''.

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.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 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

[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?

[CraigD]

I believe you’ve made a typographical error, Jackson

Originally Posted by jackson33

288350 - UP 29.6%

should read

288350 - UP 39.6%

(source: Tax Brackets (Federal Income Tax Rates) 2000 through 2008) A tax schedule in which higher income brackets have a lower tax rate is regressive, while most tax schedules are progressive.

It’s interesting to note that, in the 95 year history of the US federal income tax, the schedule is at near its least progressive, with the top tax rate at 35% and the bottom at 10%. By this measure, 1991-1992 was the least progressive, at 31% to 15%, the most progressive in 1929 at 24% to 0.375%. When the top tax rate was at its maximum of 94% in 1944-1945, the lowest tax rate was 23%. (source: “History of progressivity in federal income tax” section of wikipedia article “History of progressivity in federal income tax”).

Here’s a full sorting of the source table by highest rate divided by lowest:

      2.0667  1991-1992 3 brackets 15% 31% IRS 
      2.2000  1988-1990 3 brackets 15% 33% IRS 
      2.6067  2001 5 brackets 15% 39.1% IRS 
      2.6400  1993-2000 5 brackets 15% 39.6% IRS 
      3.5000  1987 5 brackets 11% 38.5% IRS 
      3.5000  2003-2008 6 brackets 10% 35% IRS 
      3.8600  2002 6 brackets 10% 38.6% IRS 
      4.0870  1944-1945 - 23% 94% Census 
      4.1441  1952-1953 - 22.2% 92% Census 
      4.1667  1982-1986 12 brackets 12% 50% IRS 
      4.4608  1951 - 20.4% 91% Census 
      4.5500  1946-1947 - 19% 86.45% Census 
      4.5500  1954-1963 - 20% 91% Census 
      4.6316  1942-1943 - 19% 88% Census 
      4.8125  1964 - 16% 77% Census 
      4.8483  1950 - 17.4% 84.36% Census 
      4.9476  1948-1949 - 16.6% 82.13% Census 
      5.0000  1965-1967 - 14% 70% Census 
      5.0000  1971-1981 15 brackets 14% 70% IRS 
      5.1250  1970 - 14% 71.75% Census 
      5.3750  1968 - 14% 75.25% Census 
      5.5000  1969 - 14% 77% Census 
      7.0000  1913-1915 - 1% 7% Census 
      7.5000  1916 - 2% 15% Census 
      8.1000  1941 - 10% 81% Census 
     12.1667  1918 - 6% 73% Census 
     14.0000  1922 - 4% 56% Census 
     15.7500  1932-1933 - 4% 63% Census 
     15.7500  1934-1935 - 4% 63% Census 
     16.6667  1925-1928 - 1.5% 25% Census 
     18.2500  1921 - 4% 73% Census 
     18.2500  1919-1920 - 4% 73% Census 
     18.4318  1940 - 4.4% 81.1% Census 
     18.6667  1923 - 3% 56% Census 
     19.7500  1936-1939 - 4% 79% Census 
     22.2222  1930-1931 - 1.125% 25% Census 
     30.6667  1924 - 1.5% 46% Census 
     33.5000  1917 - 2% 67% Census 
     64.0000  1929 - 0.375% 24% Census

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by 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 don't hate anyone, I think hatred is immoral, I also have no doubt there is plenty of blame to go around for the crisis, you are the one who blames only Liberals and glosses over any Conservative involvement by saying it's not true Conservatives who were involved in this sub prime crisis. I simply asked you to back up your statements about spread the wealth and your insinuation that Liberals are primarily to blame. I don't even hate you Questor, i think there is still time for you to save your soul, come on over the side of light and love, there is still time if you want it.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by questor

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?

By all means, questor, do – but support your claim with credible sources, not your own or other’s unsupported claims.

Originally Posted by questor

Wasn't Acorn a large player here [in manipulating the sub-prime market]?

By any credible source I can find, the answer to this question is simply no. Just the opposite, ACORN has strongly opposed lending “predatory” and other lending practices likely to lead to mortgage loan defaults, while advocating for lower cost resident-owned and rental housing, and increased wages and job security for lower income people, both goals that reduce the likelihood of mortgage defaults.

Originally Posted by questor

… why do you think conservatives were the main participants in manipulating the sub-prime market? … You may be wasting steam over the wrong people.

I believe that anyone suggesting that unsound lending practices are confined to self-described conservatives or liberals, or people who voted for office holders of a particular political party, is likely wasting steam/barking up the wrong tree.

Evidence indicates that the lending practices of the last decade, while disadvantageous to a large number of loan recipients and investors in banks and other financial companies, was very advantageous to a smaller number of people, many of whom were responsible for these practices. It’s a business axiom that some people profit extremely from any crisis, and a reasonable assumption that such people may even act to precipitate such crises. I’ve seen no evidence that such people are distributed between self-described categories such as social liberal, moderate, independent, conservative, etc, significantly differently than the population in general.

Except in the rare cases where such people actually committed criminal acts, they are not guilty of any crime, and neither will nor should be “brought to justice” or punished, other than by making it more difficult for them to profit in the future by the same techniques.