(Untitled)

[kweeket]

Obama
McCain

If you make
you'd save
you'd save

less than $19,000
$567
$21

$19,000-$37,600
$892
$118

$37,600-$66,400
$1118
$325

$66,400-$111,600
$1264
$994

$111,600-$161,000
$2135
$2584

$161,000-$227,000
$2796
$4437

Top 5% of

Comments

[midnight21]

WOW! that's a huge difference. I'm definitely going with obama here. Republicans are greedy bastards and that is proof.

[frogger414]

Obama just wants to shift the tax burden to the "wealthy" which is slowly becoming more and more people (lowering the bar on what is considered wealthy) and personally that's not equitable. Why should I pay more in taxes because I made good decisions just because others can't/don't want to make good decisions? (My good decisions were putting myself through school while working full time and picking a good career and working hard through the ranks to get where I am today). Don't get me wrong, there should be some social programs in place for those who need help, but making the government larger and more in control of our lives is not the answer and it will have long term consequences.

[knish]

Yes, Republicans do want a smaller government, just small enough to fit in our bedrooms.
-jpz

[frogger414]

Consider me a republican that wants nothing to do with being in people's bedrooms, or dr's offices lol.

[kweeket]

As a borderline wealthy person myself, I know that I can afford to pay more taxes, that in turn give other people the same opportunities I was given. I want kids whose parents can't afford college to be able to get grants so that they can go to school and therefore improve - not just their own lives - but the economy as well. I don't know about you, but even working a couple part-time jobs I still could never had gone to school if not for the federal loans and grants I received. I feel hugely lucky to have been given that opportunity to improve my life.

And regardless of the personal tax issue, it's not true that the Republican party will make government smaller and less in control of our lives. During the administration we've LOST important civil liberties, increased government involvement in personal choices (as knish points out above), and hugely increased the federal deficit. If you want a smaller government, vote libertarian.

[frogger414]

You makes some good points and I completely agree. I would vote libertarian but it'd be a crapshoot because it's either Obama or McCain who will win. I don't like either one of them, but if I had to choose between them, I'd choose McCain, sans the civil liberties platform. I do support gay marriage, abortion, etc and I hope that we can make more progress socially

[kweeket]

I really see where you're coming from with your suspicion of misused social services. Your mom did seem to work the system. It's a tricky business to ensure people who genuinely need help get it while keeping down the number of freeloaders.

And that's sweet that you thought of me while you were working and I was going to school...you were always so supportive of me.

[frogger414]

I don't want to be a hater of those who rely on social service programs because there are people out there that really need them and I fear that there are people who aren't able to get the help that they want and need because of the freeloaders. My mother and brother live off of social security and that pisses me off because they are somehow deemed "disabled" but they are benefiting from a system that they did not contribute to, or at least barely contributed to. I pay so much in FICA taxes and unfortunately we may not see that money again. Hence the reason why my retirement plans won't depend on that income because it may be bankrupt by the time I retire

[kweeket]

Also, notice that it says "top 5%" - its statistically impossible to increase the top 5%. Now if he was "lowering the bar" to include the top 10% of earners...that would be one thing. But I think a tax break for 95% of the country is something Republicans would applaud, if it came from one of their own.

[frogger414]

I watched last weeks debate and he said that for those earning under 250K, their tax bill wouldn't increase. To me, 250k seems like lowering the bar quite a bit, esp. when we are taking into account small businesses. When one has a small business that isn't a C-corp, they have to include the profits in their personal tax return and it could very well equate to over 250k in a lot of situations. Granted, the small business wouldn't be paying corporate tax on their earnings (hence eliminating the double taxation paradox) but it does increase the owners taxable income and shifting said owner into a higher tax bracket.

[kweeket]

That's an interesting point I hadn't considered.

[frogger414]

And to further the discussion, what would one consider to be a small business? I know that the tax code doesn't differentiate in terms of profit. So when I worked at Chihuly, we were an S-corp and the profits flowed through to Dale who was the primary shareholder. Without violating the terms of my confidentiality agreement, I can't say how much he earned in a tax year, but I can say that it'd be obvious that he made a profit of at least 250k (considering how expensive the artwork was, which is a completely different issue lol).

But either way, I cringe when I hear suggestions about how to lower the bar and while the suggestions may have their merits, it seems like 250k is the new millionaire and that annoys me because pretty soon the next suggestion could be lower than that.

[miguelberta]

as far as small business being affected by Obama's tax hikes I suggest:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccains_small-business_bunk.html

factcheck.org is a non partisan non political agenda fact checking website that both parties use to debunk eachother. In this case, according to factcheck, McCain is wrong and Obama's tax hikes would have little effect on small businesses....

[frogger414]

Here's a good example of how the proposed tax plan would affect small businesses:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110ap_joe_the_plumber.html?source=mypi

[miguelberta]

I'm going to try to take a middle of the road approach to the graph posted by Beck and these two replies. I don't really know much about taxes or economics so please feel free to let me know how exactly I am wrong on any of these points

[frogger414]

I appreciate your input and being completely fair on all sides. The points I enjoyed the most are:

Thirdly it is fair to say that McCain's tax plan disproportionally rewards wealthy people and Obama's tax plan disproportionally rewards poor peopole. Neither tax plan does much for the middle class.

What is middle class anyway? I know that I am middle class, but is there a wage range that would help me identify middle class? I should probably know that but I want to get a better idea. But I completely agree. You can't favor the rich or favor the poor; there has to be some middle ground.

Finally we should assume that none of these plans would pass congress in their current form. These are politicians making plans up to win an election; they are not reality based ideas.Why hasn't this been said earlier? I never thought of this point and personally it is a really important point. Ugh. I guess I too am caught up on the hype with the debates, articles, interviews, etc., and while they can talk all they want about what they want to do,