Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 6:00 AM ET, 06/11/2008

McCain vs Obama on taxes

By Michael Dobbs


Washington D.C., June 10, 2008.

"Under Senator Obama's tax plan, Americans of every background would see their taxes rise--seniors, parents, small business owners, and just about everyone who has even a modest investment in the market."
--John McCain, National Small Business Summit, Washington D.C. June 10, 2008.

The McCain camp is attempting to persuade Americans that their taxes will increase dramatically with Barack Obama as president. The presumptive Republican nominee has repeatedly said that Obama would enact "the largest tax increase since the Second World War." A surrogate, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, insists that Obama has not proposed "a single tax cut" and wants to "raise every tax in the book."

The Facts

There are significant differences between the two candidaes on tax policy. McCain would like to make the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 permanent, and has proposed a few more of his own. Obama, by contrast, favors allowing the tax cuts to expire as scheduled for Americans earning more than $250,000 a year. He would raise taxes on capital gains and dividends, but has also promised tax breaks for low and middle-income Americans.

McCain's speech to the Small Business Summit yesterday leaves the impression that Obama favors raising taxes on all Americans, across the board. But his words have been carefully parsed. A more literal reading suggests that he could also be talking about some Americans from "every background," not "all Americans." The key issue is how many low and middle-income Americans would be affected by the Obama tax increases.

In order to substantiate its claim that large numbers of ordinary Americans will be worse off under the Democrats, the McCain camp points to an Obama proposal to raise tax rates on dividends and capital gains. Obama advisers argue that any tax increases will be offset by credits for lower-income families. They also point out that most middle and low-income families invest in the market through 401 (k) plans that are exempt from capital gains taxes.

Maya MacGuineas, a budget expert at the New America foundation, says that the McCain camp is trying to create an exaggerated impression of the number of people from low and middle-income groups who will be adversely affected by the Obama tax proposals. "It is legitimate to say that they can find a cleaning person or a waitress somewhere who will be affected, but the numbers should not be overwhelming," she said.

The claim that Obama will "enact" the largest tax increase since World War II is also overblown. The Bush tax cuts will expire automatically at the end of 2010, so it is hardly a question of "enacting" a new tax increase. According to Obama's new economics adviser, Jason Furman, the revenues raised from letting the tax cuts expire will be returned to middle and low-income tax payers in the form of tax credits to pay for health insurance, so the overall effect will be revenue neutral.

McCain spokesman Brian Rogers pointed to an analysis by the non-partisan Annenberg Political Fact Check that found that the gross tax increase would amount to $103.3 billion in 2011, the largest single-year tax increase since World War II. The Annenberg study pointed out, however, that "most economists" prefer to measure tax changes as a percentage of gross national product, in which case it would be the fifth largest increase since 1943.

According to Brookings economist Douglas Elmendorf, the Obama plan will eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans. "It's very clear that taxes for lower income Americans will decline under Obama," he said.

The Pinocchio Test

Carly Fiorina is wrong to claim that Obama has proposed no tax cuts and wants to raise "every tax in the book." John McCain is on more solid ground when he claims that Americans from many different backgrounds could be affected by a rise in capital gains taxes, but he has greatly exaggerated the adverse impact.

(About our rating scale.)

By Michael Dobbs  | June 11, 2008; 6:00 AM ET
Categories:  Candidate Watch  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: McCain forgets his own votes
Next: Was Obama ever a Muslim?

Comments

Perhaps you don't think capital gains tax is a big deal, but it does apply across all backgrounds. Even "lower class" occasionly get hit by capital gains I certainly trust McCain more when it comes to cutting taxes.

Posted by: JakeD | June 10, 2008 11:29 PM | Report abuse

Re: Carly's comments -- I thought after Rev. Wright, no "guilt by association" would be allowed?

Posted by: JakeD | June 10, 2008 11:37 PM | Report abuse

And forget flag pins, that's 13 full size American flags backing up John Sidney McCain.

Posted by: JakeD | June 10, 2008 11:41 PM | Report abuse

Come on, McCain is not being truthful, he merits four Pinnochios. Typical gop strategy, try to mislead and dupe enough Americans, distract them from major economic and social problems. Republicans offer no meaningful solutions for, especially in health care reform. They are highly condescending, thinking Americans are foolish and ignorant enough to accept their propaganda.

Posted by: Independent | June 11, 2008 12:39 AM | Report abuse

JakeD -- sorry, Dude, you just don't seem to get the concept of "guilt by association." When the campaign appoints someone to speak for them on economic issues, (like Ms. Fiorina) their pronouncements merit close scrutiny. When someone tangentially associated with a candidate, like, oh I don't know, a candidate's dumped ex-wife, or pastor, speaks or is spoken about -- THAT is off base.

Posted by: omyobama | June 11, 2008 1:06 AM | Report abuse

NO NEW TAXES- JUST AN EVER-INCREASING GOVERNMENT DEBT. TURN A BLIND EYE TO DISMAL EDUCATION AND INADEQUATE HEALTH CARE BUT FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE DON'T CONSIDER CUTTING THE PENTAGON'S REQUESTS FOR BIG BOY TOYS OR ASKING THE OBSCENELY RICH TO PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE.

Posted by: martin_conder | June 11, 2008 1:08 AM | Report abuse

Sorry, Independent, but the Fact Checker is NOT saying that McCain is being untruthful.

Posted by: JakeD | June 11, 2008 1:11 AM | Report abuse

martin:

So you admit that Barack Hussein Obama wants to raise every tax in the book?

Posted by: JakeD | June 11, 2008 1:17 AM | Report abuse

CUT the friggin spending!!! WE will drown in debt if BHO gets 1/2 of his programs in effect. I am tired of giving the gov't 1/3 of every dollar I earn!
By the way, drill our own oil!!!

Posted by: MAX | June 11, 2008 1:19 AM | Report abuse

JakeD: You live such a pathetic existence. Your life's failures are evident with every word you type. So sad - but I guess that's expected of you.

Posted by: Alex | June 11, 2008 1:38 AM | Report abuse

Carly Fiorina! There's an expert on mismanagement. Tens of millions to run HP into the ground. Get economic advice from someone else please Senator McCain.

Posted by: David Packard | June 11, 2008 1:48 AM | Report abuse

Maybe I'm just young and naive, but given our nation's budget situation, taxes will have to be raised at some point. It is simply greedy for us to delay that raise in taxes for those who come after us. The longer we delay it, the greater taxes will have to be eventually raised.

So Jake D, if you admit that you are greedy, and you are willing to let your descendants deal with our ancestor's problems, then I respect your opinion, but still hope that you will discover altruism some day.

Posted by: Jamie | June 11, 2008 1:59 AM | Report abuse

what i don't understand is if mccain is so much in favor of free markets and stuff why is he in favor of subsidies for oil companies?
The argument is that they need an incentive to refine oil. Well if they are making record profits are they not incentive enough!!

Posted by: ash | June 11, 2008 2:00 AM | Report abuse

MAX:

spending needs to be cut on areas like defense (missile shield!) and building stupid walls on borders which don't serve any purpose. If the country sends people to fight a war, the country ought to take care of them, the stickers on cars "support our troops" don't mean anything unless you give them an opportunity to build a career or provide them health care.
and the country needs to spend more on education and keeping the kids in school otherwise it wont be long before the border fence will stop people from US going to mexico in search of jobs!

Posted by: ash | June 11, 2008 2:07 AM | Report abuse

I look forward to the "town hall" meetings with Obama and McCain. We will see then exactly what each candidate intends to do. Until then, why not talk about other news -- what's happening around the world? Got time to do some in-depth reporting? I would really appreciate learning something new, rather than hearing you speculate about how many pinocchios McCain should get for attempting to distort Obama's tax plans.

Posted by: Fast Talker | June 11, 2008 2:08 AM | Report abuse

Carly F for economic adviser? You gotta be kidding. The disastrous Compaq merger, 10,000 people laid off in response to the most outrageous tax grab ever on foreign income, and oh yes, illegal investigations. What a standard, what a standard bearer...

Posted by: Pinetree | June 11, 2008 2:15 AM | Report abuse

the rich in America have gotten lots of tax breaks since Bush came in to office and we continue to spiral into debt. I don't see how letting the tax cuts expire is going to do any thing but good. they where rich before the tax cuts they will be rich after the cuts expire. Its funny that conservatives are crying over the fact that people who make over 250,000 a year are going to have to pay there fair share like they used to again. I wouldn't mind seeing the riches 1% get taxed 50% actualy. They would still be richer then they deserve and I wont feel too sorry for them because they only brought home 2billion instead of 4billion.

Posted by: Steve | June 11, 2008 2:18 AM | Report abuse

McCain is pulling a slick one and in a way his lying. This one should deserve a 4 pinochios for McCain.

McCains plan is to keep the tax breaks for the rich which makes more than 250,000 dollars and Obama wants to remove those. These tax breaks doesn't include all of America.....but for the Republicans and John McCain, they think that everyone in America makes more than 250,000 dollars.

Obama will remove tax breaks from the rich and basically give the breaks to the poor and middle class. He won't be taxing the poor and middle class as what McCain and his trickle down economics seem to want you all to believe.

McCain is a liar. He doesn't know what his talking about when he says that Obama will tax everyone. The reason why his saying that Obama will tax everyone is because all of McCains friends are all rich and make millions of dollars. So therefore he thinks everyone is rich as well.


Posted by: TheTruth | June 11, 2008 2:25 AM | Report abuse

Supply Side Economics, first employed by Reagan, was meant to be the shot in the arm type economic therapy whereby the ensuing surplus would pay back the deficit after the stimulus took hold. It was never meant to be a status quo sort of thing. Somebody's got to pay back the deficit and to not do so is simply stupid as continued deficits will make our US dollar shrink smaller than the Russian ruble. Both the Reagan & the last Bush Administrations are responsible for these atrocious deficits. And any economist who says both McCain & Obama tax plans are about even are FLAT WRONG. Lessening taxes on the middle & lower class at this juncture will stimulate demand and thus dollar velocity and if implemented with common sense trade and energy policies will undoubtedly make this American economy bloom like never before. Listening to McCain pipe out the old faulty economic formulas makes me cringe. People buy it because they can't look beyond their own checkbook. Reality has come a knockin and its time to answer the door. Who spent all the money thus creating these deficits? George W Bush did! How can we possibly continue doing things the same old way and expect a different outcome? I just hope and pray people use their brain this next election

Posted by: Basil Pelensky | June 11, 2008 2:29 AM | Report abuse

I watched a very brief part of interview on a cable news channel today with Carly. As I recall, she said McCain's fiscal propoaals, if enacted, would result in a balanced budget by 2013. What has McCain specifically advocated reduced in government spending to make up for reducing current big deficits, while keeping tax cuts for rich people? We have gone through this before with Reagan and Bush II. The results were record peacetime budget deficits.

Posted by: Independent | June 11, 2008 2:42 AM | Report abuse

"A surrogate, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, insists that Obama has not proposed "a single tax cut" and wants to "raise every tax in the book.""

The fact checker doesn't normally confine himself to simply the words of the candidate, he will add or subtract points for the statements of the candidates campaign.
If Fiorina is really a surrogate (holds an official position in the campaign)then McCains campaign put that out and it's a bold faced lie.
So I spent a couple of seconds on the Internet looking that question up, and here is what I found...

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_8501446

"Fiorina was named Friday by the Republican National Committee as a leading surrogate for the McCain campaign and as chairman of fundraising for get-out-the-vote efforts"..."McCain relied on Fiorina, letting her answer questions at town halls on economic issues."

She does his economics homework for him, she is in fact an official surrogate. I think she can safely be considered part of his campaign,

Seems like the progressives are owed some noses, Mr Fact Checker, sir.

Posted by: dijetlo | June 11, 2008 2:43 AM | Report abuse

Folks, the truth is that everyone benefited from the so-called Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

I know the truth can hurt.

Unless Congress takes action BEFORE those tax cuts expire we will all have higher taxes. Neither Obama nor McCain can do anything about it.

And FWIW, many low income and middle income earners can and do experience capital gains. Mr. Obama is wrong on that point.

What should concern everyone more is the disaster that both candidates support called cap and trade.

Of course if they are trying to hurt workers in those evil high emissions industries as well as consumers at all levels, then that's a good way to achieve both.

Posted by: None of the Above 08 | June 11, 2008 2:46 AM | Report abuse

The Republicans are raising taxes on future generations due to their deficits and on state and local taxpayers due to the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy drying up federal revenue for schools, parks, and police. Over the past 25 years, deficits have grown faster under Republican presidents than Democratic ones. McSame continues down the same road to ruin.

Posted by: Dave in NC | June 11, 2008 3:07 AM | Report abuse

Let's just borrow more money from China. I'm sure they'll never want to be repaid!

Posted by: Mattie | June 11, 2008 3:13 AM | Report abuse

I, for one, think it is beyond criminal to ask our kids and grandkids to pay for all of this nonsense. Between the war and these tax cuts, when and how are WE going to pay for this? Is it fair for my 3 year old to be taxed heavily when she is of age to pay for our mistakes?

Posted by: USMC | June 11, 2008 3:21 AM | Report abuse

JakeD is an old recovering lawyer from California who has voted Republican since Hoover. He practices the same sort of misdirection doublespeak that "flimflam" John McCain used in this example of this carefully parsed dogpiddle.

When we talk about wanting change ---this is the sort of horsehockey that we have in mind.

Posted by: ScrewABunch of FlagPins | June 11, 2008 3:34 AM | Report abuse

IT IS AMAZING HOW ANYBODY UNDERSTOOD A WORD MCCAIN WAS SAYING ABOUT TAXES TODAY IN WASHINGTON. ON SEVERAL INSTANCES HE COULDN'T READ THE TELEPROMPTER. MCCAIN WAS BOOED BY THE CROWD TWICE AND HE MISPRONOUNCED WORDS THROUGOUT THE SPEECH. MCCAINS SPEECH TODAY WAS A DISASTER AND IF IT WASN'T FOR THE REPORTERS MANY OF US WOULDN'T KNOW WHAT MCCAIN WAS TRYING TO SAY. I THINK ITS ABSURD THAT MCCAIN CONTINUES TO MAKE THESE SILLY MISTAKES AND GAFFES REPEATEDLY AND GO UNNOTICED. MCCAIN IS A WALKING GAFFE AND I'M TIRED OF THE MISTAKES THE FLIP FLOPS MCCAIN IS MAKING ON A DAILY BASIS.

Posted by: JANET | June 11, 2008 3:44 AM | Report abuse

zz8b5ov5vlg http://www.198380.com/318313.html > daw2hmxiena2 [URL=http://www.924087.com/200760.html] p4p9ma73gglw2v5sr [/URL] obzsjerulezr1

Posted by: m9kkksppvs | June 11, 2008 3:57 AM | Report abuse

2iwnfrzok http://www.406915.com/794424.html > a8p5rc8vxfl69y [URL=http://www.229438.com/189314.html] nao32wn5 [/URL] b3uu4z1kuhbk

Posted by: aedk1gvm58 | June 11, 2008 4:01 AM | Report abuse

Capital gains earned in 401(k) accounts are not subject to capital gains taxes, as is poiinted out in this article. Most middle income people earn capital gains in these pension plans. Nor are capital gains earned by direct investment by the taxpayer subject to Social Security taxes. That is, gains earned on stock investments or gains on the sale of a home are not subject to Social Security taxes. John McCain should stop whining.

Posted by: RMA | June 11, 2008 4:16 AM | Report abuse

Here we go again. Two pinocchios for:

1. Carly Fiorina, the disgraced former HP CEO that (incredibly) McCain has chosen as his economic advisor, falsely charges that Obama has proposed no tax cuts. This appears to be a lie (although Fiorina has proven herself to be so incompetent that her statement may merely be a demonstration of her ignorance).

2. Carly Fiorina, who failed so miserably at HP that she was forced out to prevent further damage to the company, and who now is McCain's economic advisor and campaign surrogate, falsely claims that Obama wants to raise "every tax in the book.". This is dishonest hyperbole.

3. John McCain 'greatly exaggerated the adverse impact' of a rise in capital gains taxes. 'Greatly exaggerated' -- as in he lied.

4. John McCain says 'Under Senator Obama's tax plan, Americans of every background would see their taxes rise'. Here we have another bald faced lie. Obama has promised tax breaks for middle and low-income Americans, as Fact Checker acknowledges. Could it be that since multi-millionaires like McCain won't benefit from them, he fails to notice that they exist?

So, Mr. Fact Checker, are you once again claiming that these lies aren't as serious as Obama describing his ancestor liberating a WWII concentration camp and mistakenly naming the wrong camp? You gave Obama three pinocchios for that.

BTW -- Has McCain chosen Carly Fiorina as his economic advisor because he wants to do to the United States what she did to Hewlett Packard? Be afraid! Be very afraid!

Posted by: bobcn | June 11, 2008 4:20 AM | Report abuse

Carly Fiorina did a terrible job at HP ( I have that from HP employees) and was widely considered out of her depth operating at that level in business. Her comments here just reinforce the view of her as flaky and more interested in soundbytes than action.

There's a strong argument to be made that the low rate of taxation, especially capital gains tax, has significantly contributed to the current economic malaise. Professional investors, including banks, look at an investment in terms of risk vs. return. Higher cap gains tax would have reduced the return potential slightly, this making some of the more risky investments (sub prime mortgages etc.) less appealing. Who knows, if the banks weren't in such trouble now the stock markets might be more stable and investors wouldn't be driven to buying commodities, which has been driving the price of oil up so much.

Just a thought I'm having..

Posted by: Ant | June 11, 2008 4:58 AM | Report abuse

I liked McCain at one point - but I feel that he has now allowed himself to be tied too closely to failed Republican policies. It is time to get rid of the Republican party and replace it with a socially conservative but economically progressive party. Then those of us who support marriage and family and have respect for religious Americans will not have to pay the price of fattening the rich in order to express our feelings.

Posted by: Rohit | June 11, 2008 5:07 AM | Report abuse

Hey, Jake D, can you give me an example of how a capital gains tax would affect me?

I'm 36, unemployed, been trying to work my way through school for nearly 20 years now, so i'm still in my sophomore year.

I owe about 18,000 dollars from a student loan of $9,000 I took out in 1999 (that's at 6.5% interest).

I am falling behind in my child support payments, the phone is ringing off the hook, because I am AGAIN not able to pay my SallieMae student loan payments.

I just got turned down for a job holding a stop sign for a construction crew, based on my "driving record" (I got a DUI in 2002), which was a $12/hr job. That hurts.

Anyway, tomorrow, I will be talking to the manager of the movie theatre here... AMC, where they pay $8 /hr and the manager told me it's strictly part time, but, I can pick up other people's shifts and he would allow me to do that "within Reason".

My rent is $960/month... My wife has a pretty good job, but not THAT good. We are getting deeper and deeper in debt, and my son is coming for one month this summer, from Spain, where my ex lives.

At the same time, my wife's job is sending her overseas on a 3 - 6 month assignment, so, I will not be able to work (who will watch my son?) when she is gone and my son is here.

Anyhow, Not sure where capital gains enters into my "lower class" equation.

I know Obama wont solve my problems, but giving the Republicans 4 more years would be like giving the Nazis another shot, if they promised to play nice, after WWII.

Things seem to be pretty much going to hell, JakeD, at least where I'm standing.

PS - Starbucks/Peet's Coffee pays $8/hour, but the ones within driving distance of me, only hire for 4 hr shifts/day, up to five days a week. That's 20 hours a week (an average of 21 would entitle me to "benefits") for a grand total of... $160 per week... BEFORE taxes.

Roughly I could take home enough money to fill my gas tank three times in a week, IF I got the 20 hours, no guarantee.

I'm pretty close to turning to crime, and I will be targeting the same people that can afford these tax cuts.

I salivate just thinking about revenge time.

I saw a guy drop his girl off for school last week, right down the street from my apartment. He dropped her off at the Episcopalian School in a Rolls Royce.

That's just disgusting.

So, yeah, I'm really worried about that piece of sh1t's capital gains tax. REAL worried.

I'll put it this way... I WISH, AND HOPE AND PRAY, that someday SOON, I will be worried about Capital Gains.

And when I am, I will shut the F**k up and be GRATEFUL for this problem because I will know many have it waaaay worse than I, and I will consider it part of living in a civilized society that the "haves" help the "have nots" and remember not to complain about how expensive it is to give people a decent education or healthcare or financial help so they don't have to live in the street.

But that's just me.

Posted by: McSame is an Old Piece of Sh1t. | June 11, 2008 5:11 AM | Report abuse

Carly Fiorina is a B1tch.

She was unemployed, fired, let go, from Hp, then she writes that BS Book (though it WAS pretty well written, it was full of lies and omissions), and now she wants to help the Republicans to 4 more years.

No THANKS !

Too bad this woman couldn't find another job. She's a LIAR, Thanks to Fact Checker for spotting that.

Keep an eye on her. Everything out of her mouth is a mis Truth.

What a Corporate Wench.

Posted by: Fiorina's Expertise Is? | June 11, 2008 5:18 AM | Report abuse

I'm tired of sending a third of every dollar I have to the government. I'm for the tax cuts Obama proposes. People, don't buy the rhetoric. Look at the actual platforms.

McCain's ok, but his speech was totally bull. You can all it 'misleading' or and 'exageration' if you want. I call it a lie. Look at the facts.

You want lower taxes, vote for Obama.

Posted by: Russ S. | June 11, 2008 5:20 AM | Report abuse

Um, yeah...ONE Question:

Why Didn't my Taxes Get Lowered By Bush?

Answer:

I wasn't Rich.

Republicans Should be used as Fuel for Cars... Burned into sludge and used to grease engine parts.

That's how much they care about others. F 'em.

Posted by: Clean-Burning Republican Fuel... | June 11, 2008 5:26 AM | Report abuse

I'm a small business owner, and as such I find it interesting that not once did you mention Obama's plan to eliminate the cap on Social Security. If that plan is enacted, that alone would cost me roughly $48000 based on my last year's income. Its good to know that my higher taxes would be rebated to lower income families to pay for health insurance because my employees, for whom I currently provide health insurance, will need the cash....

Posted by: Jeff S | June 11, 2008 5:58 AM | Report abuse

Nobody is going to change anybody's mind here. If you don't like Obama, you probably perceive McCain's speech to be balanced and fair. It wasn't. It was as disengenuous as Obama's claim that McCain wants 100 years in Iraq.

Horse piddle.

Democrats, try to get other people to register to vote. Most people are middle or low income, so most people will benefit directly under Obama's plan. If we can just get them to vote we will win.

Posted by: Russ S. | June 11, 2008 6:08 AM | Report abuse

Well, Americans can decide whether it is "tax and spend" or "borrow and spend." It seems that "borrow and spend" is not fixing the infrastructure, is running up the national debt to stratospheric highs, and lining the pockets of the wealthiest among us. If we get what we pay for, then the Republicans are making sure that we are getting nothing except for a bloated debt. The chickens are already coming home.

Posted by: Earl C | June 11, 2008 6:11 AM | Report abuse

Just bother to read a couple of the comments. My reactions:

1. Everyone in America wants free health insurance, but nobody wants to stop eating McDonald's and start hitting the gym...

2. Why am I supposed to worry about some fat slob who couldn't finish college in 18 YEARS; has a child for whom he can't provide; gets a DUI (hmmm, I can afford liquor, but not my child support...); and wants to pray for the day he has to worry about tax increases. My advice - stop praying and making excuses. Get off your fat ass and work!

3.Clean-burning Republican Fuel is an idiot. Everyone's taxes - across the board went down as a result of the Bush Tax Cuts (does anyone remember that they were in response to the lagging, post 9/11 economy?). However, if you were only paying $3k in taxes and that was dropped to $2700, you probably didn't notice. However, if you were paying $144k, as I did, and they dropped to $125k, it was kinda nice. But did you notice? I still paid $122k more than you did, you jackass!!! That's 40x what you paid, and my income was only 5x your's. And, what's more - I'm the one who invested my income in a business to create jobs for morons like you!!! Go read Atlas Shrugged...

Posted by: Jeff S | June 11, 2008 6:15 AM | Report abuse

The Obama campaign is right to disaggregate the whole tax issue.

The first step to getting out of the deficit spending habit is to come to grips with the fact that tax policy is more complex than "tax or no tax".

Once we get beyond the slogans and the spray, then we can have a discussion about who owes what to society. My bet is that most Americans are willing to pay their fair share.

Posted by: JFP | June 11, 2008 6:35 AM | Report abuse

Under Obama, if an older person sells their home and makes a profit (over the tax threshold) that old person's capital gains tax would almost double.

We are not talking about rich people here, we are talking about a regular older person trying to sell their empty nest.

Obama's plan is a massive tax assault on the middle class. Make no mistake about it. Don't be seduced by his pretty words- he wants our money, not just the money of the rich.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | June 11, 2008 6:35 AM | Report abuse

Jeff S writes: 'I find it interesting that not once did you mention Obama's plan to eliminate the cap on Social Security'.

A lot of things weren't mentioned. Maybe that's because the subject of the thread is to check the veracity of the attacks McCain and his campaign have been making towards Obama's tax plans -- attacks that turn out to be lies. Could it also be that the reason 'Obama's plan to eliminate the cap on Social Security' wasn't mentioned was because that's a misleading description of his plan?

What Obama is proposing is to eliminate the $100,000 ceiling upon which the payroll tax is levied, but to create a "donut hole" exempting earnings between $100,000 and $200,000. So, if you make between 0 and $200,000 your payroll taxes won't change. If you make more than that you'll be giving some of your Bush tax cuts back.

By comparison, the McCain plan reduces revenues from the Social Security system (due to private accounts) while somehow promising to not lower the benefits those revenues were going to pay for. It the typical republican 'free lunch' scheme. Why do the repugs think we can just pile up debt forever (or do they just think that eventually it will be someone else's problem)?

Posted by: bobcn | June 11, 2008 7:01 AM | Report abuse

Taxes...Taxes...Taxes...
The scary part is that for 80% of the tax paying public, Capitol Gains, Estate inheritance, and everything other than straight income have little impact on what they pay in Federal Income Tax. You can make 80% of the people happy by simply expanding the brackets and lowering the rate. Let's say you make that net result a reduction of 50%. The difference in tax brought in could be recovered by raising the amount of tax paid by the wealthiest 1% by 4%.
Let's see, you make 80% of the people happy, while upsetting 1%. Seems like a good way to get elected, but somehow most of the politician's buddies are closer to the 1% crowd, so we don't want to get to crazy. Somehow, there a belief that paying taxes is a patriotic duty of every citizen. Putting food on the table, education, good health are just luxuries.
McCain should have a specific non-Bush taxes plan before he starts throwing stones. At least the democrats have identified that the lower and middle class need help. Still, all politicians get a boat load of Pinocchios on taxes.

Posted by: vcsmith | June 11, 2008 7:19 AM | Report abuse

Problem with Obama's proposal, as we have learned in Maryland last year, is that the proposed tax increase gets passed, but then the Legislature refuses to pass the tax break, on the grounds that the deficit would not permit it.

Posted by: Winterdog | June 11, 2008 7:26 AM | Report abuse

First - the donot hole is an option, but not necessarily the policy, as of yet. Second, it appears to me that Obama is advocating both a repeal of the Bush tax cuts AND some tinkering with Social Security. And, as a small business owner that gives me a triple whammy when you include the fact that I would be paying BOTH SIDES of the social security increase. The question is, facing such a situation - Do you think I'm just going to rollover and pay the tax? No, I'm going to search for ways to offset the increase in taxes. I have a few options - I eliminate health care for my workers (I'm in a industry where most companies already do not offer this benefit, so competitive disadvantage is not an issue); or I decrease my investment in new equipment; or I eliminate a position. No matter how you slice it, the options aren't good. Frankly, I work my ass off, routinely putting in 60 hours a week at the office, not counting all the time I spend worrying about it when I'm not in the office. Few of my 25 employees put in more 40 hours, and even fewer of them give their careers a second thought once they leave the building. Why should I sit back and let the government redistribute my wealth?

Posted by: Jeff S | June 11, 2008 7:35 AM | Report abuse

Republicans have a way of distorting truth. The tax reduction with the sunset provision was sold as a temporary stimulus- not a tax cut. The snap-back to the pre-existing tax rates at the time of the sunset is not a tax increase. If you applied this distorted Republican logic to comparable situations you'd see some strange results. For example, if you let a relative use your vacation summmer home as a primary residence, paying for only the utilities, while he was recovering from a bad economic event you'd be shocked if he turned around and claimed that the house was his; or, if he claimed that he had the right to stay there forever, paying for only the utilites; or, that you were unfairly raising his rent once you required him to pay some. Free Riders and thieves.

Posted by: Bill B. | June 11, 2008 7:49 AM | Report abuse

Jamie,
It is already obsurd that I pay 1/3 out of every dollar that I work for to a government that is spending out of control. To raise taxes and pay more is sickening. I work hard everyday and if Obama gets elected, I fear that I will lose even more of what I make so he can redistribute the wealth. That is what his goal is. To redistribute wealth from those who work hard and succeed and give it to those who won't work.

Posted by: Peter | June 11, 2008 7:51 AM | Report abuse

Way back in 2003, a wise man once said that you can't cut taxes and wage a war at the same time. I wondered what happened to that man.

Posted by: Dunbar | June 11, 2008 7:54 AM | Report abuse

To Jeff S,

Reading your description of yourself, you sound like a hero. And clearly the employees you hired are a pack of jerks (don't the Ayn Rand fans call them 'parasites'?).

Maybe we can find some volunteers to pay your share of taxes of taxes for you. Any takers out there? Jeff needs help (unlike the rest of us lazy bums).

Ok, I admit that was pretty snarky. But seriously, how much tax do you think you should be paying? Do you consider the government's debt your debt or someone elses? Do you think paying for the misguided war we're mired is 'redistributing wealth'?

Posted by: bobcn | June 11, 2008 8:05 AM | Report abuse

Guess what, folks? Someone down the line is going to HAVE to raise taxes to pay the debt that we've racked up over the past 8 years. Seeing how fiscally irresponsible Republicans have been since 2000, I think it's a stretch to believe that McCain can put together anything resembling a balanced budget without raising taxes.

Any of you who voted for Bush have no right to complain about increases in taxes - your guy is the one who put us in this position.

And on topic, two P's is a bit low for this distortion of facts.

Posted by: Dave | June 11, 2008 8:33 AM | Report abuse

You can't make everyone happy.

Take Jeff S (see comments below), for example. He's a reasonable guy, a business owner, provides health insurance for his 40 employees, and works 60 hours a week. He paid $126,000 in income tax and earns about five times as much as his employees. I don't blame him for being against Obama's tax increases for the wealthy. He's not wealthy.

Myself, I work about about 45 hours a week and my family lives on about $60,000. We have a car, health insurance, and a pretty good life. We save everything we can for retirement, at the moment about $200 a month.

I know small business owners work very hard. I know they take risks, and I know that day in and day out they have to deal with people trying to take advantage of them. They deserve to earn and keep more than average wage earners do.

So where is the solution?

Well, maybe I'm biased, but I just think if we have to choose between who pays more and who pays less $250,000 is a reasonable line to draw.

Posted by: Russ S. | June 11, 2008 8:41 AM | Report abuse

What Republicans refuse to mention is that the reason they put an expiration date of 2009 on the Bush tax cuts back in 2001 and 2002 was because they wanted to claim they would be able to balance the budget in 2009. Now things have gotten so bad, they won't even be able to balance the budget if the tax cuts expire, and McCain wants to enact new tax cuts to extend them.

Just so everyone understands, these tax cuts aren't cutting any taxes. They are merely deferring taxes to future taxpayers. Why? Because these tax cuts will increase the deficit. The deficit will be financed with US treasury bills and bonds, with maturity dates as long as 30 years into the future. So, your and my kids will have to pay these taxes --- WITH INTEREST!.

So, any tax cut that increases the deficit is in effect, stealing money from future generations. John McCain is just another deadbeat Republican. So much for the "Straight talk express".

Posted by: John | June 11, 2008 8:48 AM | Report abuse

Um, I don't know if you noticed, but we're literally trillions of dollars in debt. At some point, we're going to HAVE to raise taxes, just to pay debt, not to mention rebuild our infrastructure, invest in research and technology to make us competitive, and educate our children so that they stop falling further behind than they already are. That's reality, folks. The alternative is to keep passing the buck to my kids and their kids, something I find reprehensible. Bite the bullet, and unclench your wallet from your fists, and finally be willing to give back to this country.

Posted by: MetryJen | June 11, 2008 8:51 AM | Report abuse

Sorry, guys, but I have to go golfing this morning. Capital gains CAN impact even those lower class people when they are forced to sell assets to pay for child support and/or liquor.

Suffice it to say that there isn't a tax cut out there that Barack Hussein Obama likes -- as someone else pointed out, above, I will believe his "promised" reductions to middle class taxes when I see them, and even then it does not mean he likes it but simply is proposing what is politically expedient -- if anyone wants to debate the tax issue when I get back, please start by familiarizing yourself with my position:

http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes

Posted by: JakeD | June 11, 2008 8:52 AM | Report abuse

As a practicing CPA I would give the McCain camp four Pinocchios for this smear. My 400 tax clients make a average of $125k per year ranging from 25k to 750k. Only about 5 clients would pay significantly more in taxes. The vast majority of my clients will pay about $200 more in taxes per year but will receive more than that back in credits. I think this is a case of the main stream media either showing a conservative bias or overcompensating to the mantra of liberal media. My average client will come in expecting to get zapped and it will not be noticeable. Maybe my clients think I am a genius and that is why they love me. I hate to break it to them ..... no one is planning to raise the taxes on the middle class

Posted by: Bradcpa | June 11, 2008 9:04 AM | Report abuse

Tax cuts DO NOT pay for themselves. The current tax cuts reduced revenue by 2.2% of GDP. Combined with increases in spending of 1.9% of GDP, we are looking at a deficit of 4.1% of GDP. This is why we now owe $10T, which drives down the value of the dollar, which increases the costs of imports valued in $s (can we all say OIL), which increases the cost on nearly everything average Americans consume, while lowering the value of their income.

If you want more of the same -- vote for McCain. Parsing words to obscure the truth may not be lying, but it is no less dishonest. Haven't you all had enough of this?

Posted by: vmi98mom | June 11, 2008 9:07 AM | Report abuse

Dyinglikeflies said:

"Under Obama, if an older person sells their home and makes a profit (over the tax threshold) that old person's capital gains tax would almost double.

We are not talking about rich people here, we are talking about a regular older person trying to sell their empty nest.

Obama's plan is a massive tax assault on the middle class. Make no mistake about it. Don't be seduced by his pretty words- he wants our money, not just the money of the rich."

For a single home-owner, one would have to have gains over $250,000 plus the cost basis of the home. So, if you sell your home for $300,000, and you paid $50,000 for it, you'd be even. If you are married, your exemption doubles. So, in that instance, you'd pay nothing, and still have $300,000. Now, this is on your primary residence only. If you have investment property, then this doesn't apply.

Seems to me if you have enough money to put into property, then you shouldn't have to worry about taxes.

Now, Jeff S said:

1. Everyone in America wants free health insurance, but nobody wants to stop eating McDonald's and start hitting the gym...

2. Why am I supposed to worry about some fat slob who couldn't finish college in 18 YEARS; has a child for whom he can't provide; gets a DUI (hmmm, I can afford liquor, but not my child support...); and wants to pray for the day he has to worry about tax increases. My advice - stop praying and making excuses. Get off your fat ass and work!

3.Clean-burning Republican Fuel is an idiot. Everyone's taxes - across the board went down as a result of the Bush Tax Cuts (does anyone remember that they were in response to the lagging, post 9/11 economy?). However, if you were only paying $3k in taxes and that was dropped to $2700, you probably didn't notice. However, if you were paying $144k, as I did, and they dropped to $125k, it was kinda nice. But did you notice? I still paid $122k more than you did, you jackass!!! That's 40x what you paid, and my income was only 5x your's. And, what's more - I'm the one who invested my income in a business to create jobs for morons like you!!! Go read Atlas Shrugged...
**********************

If'd you'd bother to take off your moral-filter glasses and read - the man you were speaking about is trying to do the right thing. He's trying to get a job, trying to earn enough to live on. I'd like everyone who complains about "I'm paying too much in taxes" to actually live like someone else in a much worse situation for a while.

Also, it sounds like you'd be a real sweet guy to work for - all your employees are "morons".

Posted by: Michelle | June 11, 2008 9:27 AM | Report abuse

But McCain didn't refer to "Americans from every background"...he literally said "all Americans."

McCain used his patented Straight Talk to lie.

But, as usual, another McCain press secretary-wannabee helps him out.

Posted by: fjschmitz | June 11, 2008 9:35 AM | Report abuse

Your (and Jeff's) tax money at work
--or--
'Redistribution of wealth', republican style:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7444083.stm

Posted by: Anonymous | June 11, 2008 9:50 AM | Report abuse

1. If you have a couple, each earning 50,000 per year in Washington (fairly close to the median level, and definitely not rich), wouldn't the increase the social security tax to a ceiling of $250,000 be a tax of over 15% of any moneys they earn over $91,000 per year.
2. If the tax cut that Senator Obama is talking about is a tax credit of $1000 per year, this seems to be a situation of the government giving you your money back so long as you spend it the way that the government wants you to spend it.
3. Money KEPT in 401(k) plans are exempt from capital gains taxes (Capital gains taxes only are imposed when you sell in most cases). For 401(k) plans, income taxes will be paid upon withdrawal. Given that Senator Obama desires to increase taxes on dividends and income to 39% outside a 401(k), Other than driving money to 401(k)s and tax exempt funds, and discouraging selling of stocks, I am not sure how he is making a tax cut from his proposal.

What the impact will be will be people taking money away from places where they will be subject to an increased capital gains tax (stocks) and not sell houses. Hey, we loved 1976-1980 the first time, it is time for a repeat?!

Posted by: Paladin7b | June 11, 2008 9:55 AM | Report abuse

To: Peter | June 11, 2008 7:51 AM

This is definitely correct if you make over $250,000. If you are between $125,000 - $249,999 it is "Tell me more". Less than $124,999 vote for Obama.

Posted by: vcsmith | June 11, 2008 10:01 AM | Report abuse

Jeff:

1) Rolling back the Bush tax cuts will only affect 2% of small business... Tax Policy Center (4/27/07)

From the looks of their analysis, your business would not be affected...

2) Guess you forget to read Obama's tax plan...He seeks to cut the capital gains tax rate to zero (0) for Small businesses and start ups...

this counters your other objection to his economic policy...

You might want to actaully read his economic propoals before you attempt to trash them...

Posted by: YEP | June 11, 2008 10:02 AM | Report abuse

It's funny how Mccain went to small businessess telling them that Obama is bad for them, because this Gas price caused by Bush and GOP did not hurt them or even caused a lot of them to dip into their savingjust to survive this era.

Posted by: Tony | June 11, 2008 10:12 AM | Report abuse

To: Russ S. | June 11, 2008 8:41 AM
He says:
"He paid $126,000 in income tax....He's not wealthy."

He is probably in the top 10% of incomes.

Anyway, the answer is to increase and create tax incentive for business that employ people. And get rid of every incentive that doesn't lead to either employing people or business investments in the 50 states of America. i.e. Foreign investments out the door.

Posted by: vcsmith | June 11, 2008 10:12 AM | Report abuse

What McCain fails to realize is that the war in "Iraq" is the largest tax (increase) in American history. For all you Neocons,supply side, no new tax Repubs, explain too me how you can spend 30 Billion a month on a non ending war and NOT raise taxes? Where is this money supposed to come from? What is being left behind because of this, please explain, I really want to know!

Posted by: AntiGoPer | June 11, 2008 10:21 AM | Report abuse

Why is it just two Pinocchios, once again team McCain outright lies, and it is clear that said lie, benefits them, but for you MR Dobbs, not that big a lie. It is only about issues that effect our country. Nothing like getting a family stories wrong, which you think is the gold standard in mistakes.

As for spending. No one will spend more then McCain. He wants to be in Iraq for 100 years and start a war with Iran. That will be multiple times more expensive then health care for children. Plus Obama's tax plans and spending plans are paid for McCain isn't they are just panders.

Posted by: Julian | June 11, 2008 10:22 AM | Report abuse

First McCain must make Romney his VP right away.. And have him in the future handle all questions about the economy and taxes.
McCain should stick to foreign policy. Second quit worrying about the Bush tax cuts, Democrats control both houses of Congress and their numbers will increase in November. SDo even if McCain win Dems will let them expire. What we have to worry about is if Obama becomes President.
Congress will not stop any of his tax increases... We can't have one party control government, we need a balance in how we handle the economy. Lastly no matter who is in the White House we need to start drilling for our own oil... DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW, PAY LESS!!!!

Posted by: RSS | June 11, 2008 10:26 AM | Report abuse

There are many many more Americans who pay $3,000 per year, than $144,000 per year.

That's Why McSame is Forced to lie through his crooked, yellow teeth.

More of the Same.

PS - I hope your businesses go bankrupt and you all have to work with me at the movie theater. After I kick your pampered as$es, I will outwork you. Easily. As I have been doing every day for the last 22 years.

Rich People are Spoiled Pussiez.

I DARE any of you to look at me wrong. I would crush you.

PPS - What business do you have? Are you hiring unskilled labor?

Posted by: Your Daddy's Rich, Too? WTF? | June 11, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse


Obama naked!...McCain Wins !!:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7444083.stm

Posted by: Your Daddy's Rich, Too? WTF? | June 11, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

How can you cut taxes when the goverment is taking in less money than it's spending? Republicans continue to be a joke and laughable around the world. Idiots. It's simple finance.

Posted by: Patrick | June 11, 2008 10:47 AM | Report abuse

Wouldn't "most economists" point out that the largest war profiting depends on percentage of GDP?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 11, 2008 10:55 AM | Report abuse

There is one hedge fund manager who made $2 billion last year (yes,thats billion with a B) and yet he pays a lower percentage of his income in taxes than I do (his income is onsidered capital gains (carried interest) while mine is just salary). Under Bush the tax system which used to be progressive has become actually regresive and Mc Cain wants to continue Bush's tax policy only more so. Its time to stop believing in fairy tales. If supply side economics can stimulate the economy then pigs can fly

Posted by: Bob | June 11, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Well, since the Bush and his Republican lackey Congress have been spending like sailors on shore leave, we need to have someone who will be more modest with spending and try to get these deficits reduced. I'd much rather have an honest politician who recognizes that we can't spend, spend, spend money we don't have, than one who promises to give away the store ... but only to the richest Americans ... with no thought about where the money is coming from to fund tax cuts for the rich. I trust John McCain with our economy about as much as I trust George Bush. Which is to say that I don't trust John McCain at all! He is just another dishonest politician who can't be trusted to look out for middle-class Americans.

Posted by: Kay Decker | June 11, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

1.Michele- The point is the fat slob made a lot of wrong choices, and now he wants to play victim and use my hard-earned money to pay for his mistakes. Also, I never once wrote anything about my employees being "morons".

2.YEP - It would affect my business. I will not repeat my previous post. Maybe you should read... Also, what the hell does a capital gains tax have to do with a small business unless you sell it?

3.vcsmith - Please don't misquote me. I never said I wasn't wealthy.

4.Your Daddy...You are nothing more than simpleton. Have fun patroling the aisles and sweeping up the stale popcorn...

Posted by: Jeff S | June 11, 2008 11:08 AM | Report abuse

And Kay Decker -

Are you not aware that the Democrats control Congress?

Posted by: Jeff S | June 11, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Can somebody please explain with no spin what Obamas plan is

In the article we have two statements

1. Obama, by contrast, favors allowing the tax cuts to expire as scheduled for Americans earning more than $250,000 a year.

This to me says that the current tax rates would continue for those making less than 250,000

but then at the end of the piece we have this

2. The claim that Obama will "enact" the largest tax increase since World War II is also overblown. The Bush tax cuts will expire automatically at the end of 2010, so it is hardly a question of "enacting" a new tax increase. According to Obama's new economics adviser, Jason Furman, the revenues raised from letting the tax cuts expire will be returned to middle and low-income tax payers in the form of tax credits to pay for health insurance, so the overall effect will be revenue neutral.

This to me says that Obama will let all of the tax cuts expire.

So which one is it?

Posted by: Still looking for the truth | June 11, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

"Paladin7b: If you have a couple, each earning 50,000 per year in Washington (fairly close to the median level, and definitely not rich), wouldn't the increase the social security tax to a ceiling of $250,000 be a tax of over 15% of any moneys they earn over $91,000 per year.(?)"


Uh, no.

Social Security contributions are paid based on AN INDIVIDUAL'S OWN SALARY, not the combined salaries of couples, nor on "any moneys they earn".

SALARY...nothing else; your own SALARY, nobody else's, determines the amount of Social Security you pay.

Obama's Social Security proposal wouldn't affect your mythical Washington couple in the least.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 11, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Jake D:
First of all, the people you call "lower class" don't have assets, so to suggest that under Obama they might have to sell assets they don't have to pay for, as you call them, "liquor and child support" shows what an ignorant poorly educated peasant you really are. What your comment suggests is that people with money are good and useful, and those without money are useless and bad.

I must say, you are really the stupidest person I've ever met, and since you never contribute anything thoughtful, I wish you'd find some other blog to visit.

Posted by: Liz | June 11, 2008 11:18 AM | Report abuse

"what i don't understand is if mccain is so much in favor of free markets and stuff why is he in favor of subsidies for oil companies?
The argument is that they need an incentive to refine oil. Well if they are making record profits are they not incentive enough!!"
Posted by: ash

This is the problem with the capitalism/free trade Republicans favor. Civilization is petroleum based, and the oil companies know this--even tricked governments into subsidizing it, although it is, in effect, a "trust." Republicans cite "competition," but businesses look to dominate their markets and eliminate competition. The only entities that combat this type of predation are government--all citizens--which have to regulate the Attila the Hun style of short-term, slash-and-burn economics.

Posted by: edwcorey | June 11, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Personally, I favor the Republicans idea of no taxes. This will give us permanet 100% employment and permanet prosperity.

We can operate the government on printing money for all its needs.

Posted by: Maddogg | June 11, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

under McCain, "effective" taxes will rise for the middle class just as they have under Bush. For example, it is reasonable to think of the price increases in gasoline and food as taxes placed on the American people by Bush's fiscal policies. Likewise, as government services decline citizens must pay more to enter our parks or drive our highways. Poorly kept roads cause drivers to pay more for maintenance. All these things are "effective" taxes. So while Republicans lower taxes on capital gains and large corporations, the middle class takes it in the shorts once again! Do you really expect any difference under McCain? He wasn't even born in the United States and was completely brainwashed during his five years of captivity. He could be the real Hanoi Candidate!!

Posted by: the doc | June 11, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Jeff S. I understand what you're saying, but the truth is that the vast majority of small businesses in the US are going to be hurt more by the current recession and drop-off in sales. The recession caused by irresponsible fiscal policy. I've already posted why this is the case. What you're complaining about is the amount of profit that ends up in your pocket. I regularly work 60 hour weeks and I don't even own the business or get a share in the profit. Maybe your business performance would improve if you stopped thinking the worst of your staff and motivated them to take ownership of their work.

Posted by: Ant | June 11, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

how can you increase taxes on capital gains...if.......you have NO capital gains.. Pitty the poor unemployed affected by the Republican fueled bad economy...

Posted by: ron shapley | June 11, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Jeff S -- Are you not aware that the Republicans controlled Congress through most of Bill Clinton's AND George Bush's presidencies (1994 through 2006, with the exception of the Senate in 2001 and 2002)? And since the Republicans have rubber-stamped every spending bill that George Bush has asked for, with no regard for how such reckless spending will affect Americans now and in the future, no Republican in office today can lay a credible claim to handling economic affairs well.

Posted by: Kay Decker | June 11, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Jeff S.
So self-righteous. Your posts make me slightly nauseous. How are we to pay back the debt that has grown exponentially over the last years? If not by increasing taxes, how? Do you think people will voluntarily open their wallets and say, "Here, let me help pay down the debt."? Do you think China's not going to come a-knocking for the money they loan us? Instead of putting people down to lift yourself up, why not come up with a constructive solution?

Posted by: M | June 11, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

You need to read the capital gains code. A couple making making $65,000 and under now pay "NO" capital gains.

+++++++++
Perhaps you don't think capital gains tax is a big deal, but it does apply across all backgrounds. Even "lower class" occasionly get hit by capital gains I certainly trust McCain more when it comes to cutting taxes.

Posted by: JakeD | June 10, 2008 11:29 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | June 11, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

increasing capital gains taxes is a burden to every person who is withdrawing money from there 401K plans

Posted by: Eddie R | June 11, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Don't forget, the republicans thought up the tax cut expiration to understate the long term economic impact.... all Obama is doing is holding them to their own policy. Also, before McCain was a candidate, he opposed the tax cuts; now he's all of a sudden 'got religion'(?).

Posted by: Paul V | June 11, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

I have a better idea. Next filing season, we all pay our federal taxes to our home states. That's right. Just let the federal government starve and let the Federal Reserve collapse. The federal government owes those already-wealthy international bankers $10 trillion. We taxpayers didn't create all that debt, so why should we have to pay it off? If we pay our federal taxes to our home states, we'll have all the money we need to keep our own wheels turning.

The federal government won't be able to do anything about it because they don't have any money. Our state governments will have no choice but to go along with it because it'll be the last money they'll ever get if they don't.

Face it, folks, it's up to us. The only way to straighten out all the crooked politicians is to cut off the money. Don't listen to someone who is completely out of touch with reality, wake them up to it! Now's the time. We sink or swim together. Otherwise, we can just keep bending over for more of you-know-what. Any takers?

Posted by: Heather C | June 11, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

To the Doc: You made such an intelligent post ... and then you went Republican on us! I would much rather fight these battles from a higher ground, as opposed to sliming in the mud with Republicans. The real fight here is what is best for America? The answer is that Barack Obama and the Democratic Party will bring much needed relief to America and make us strong once again ... unlike Republicans, who will just continue to whine, cry, piss and moan about every non-germane issue that does this country no good and waste this country's time and resources trying to bring down another Democratic president. So let's keep in mind what's most important: America and making it better for every American, not just the rich.

John McCain was born in America. He served his country honorably in Vietnam. Unfortunately, he sold his soul to the devil over the past 8 years just to get the Republican nomination, and has not acted honorably in protecting America.

Posted by: Kay Decker | June 11, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

There is a correlation between the war and the economy. It is written so all throughout history.

At this period of time, I don't see how these points aren't linked together. We can start minimizing the amounts we are borrowing, and shifting funds for the cause.

We're already paying increased prices for food and gas. I just don't want to be screwed like I felt under Bush. To make further emphasis:

"The Facts

There are significant differences between the two candidaes on tax policy. McCain would like to make the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 permanent, and has proposed a few more of his own."

Lets read on Bush tax cut of 2001 shall we? The article is titled, "Bush Tax Cuts Favor Wealthy." I'm telling you right now, that I don't like it. The first paragraph reads:

"President Bush's tax cuts since 2001 have shifted more of the tax burden from the nation's rich to middle-class families, according to a study released Friday by the Congressional Budget Office."

There has to be a solution or consenus somewhere. This makes NO sense to me whatsoever. McCain distances himself from Bush, but he's in on similar if not the same stances of Bush.

Posted by: Obama2008 | June 11, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Obama2008 | June 11, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

No wonder McCain wants to make these policies permanent.

Posted by: Obama2008 | June 11, 2008 12:19 PM | Report abuse

It's an old conservative game.
If you get most of your income from wages and a little from investments, they point out that a tax increase on investmnents will hurt you. So you should vote with the millinoairs who get most of the benefits from their tax cuts.
By itself, taxing dividends at nearly the same level as wages wouuld hurt the worker with a few bucks in the market. Nobody, however, is proposing this by itself. Obama is proposing allowing the breaks for millionairs to expire. He's also proposing that a little of the money that this has taken from the governemtn be put into tax breaks for people of average income.

Posted by: Frank Palmer | June 11, 2008 12:19 PM | Report abuse

He already admitted it - he is no genius in economics. A preemptive strike against the IRS or bombing all tax payers will not help.

Posted by: ratl | June 11, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Nobody likes the idea of raising taxes but everybody knew that CUTTING taxes in a time of war was fiscal suicide and, now, with a collapsing dollar value being driven by soaring national debt, we have to pay the piper.
I don't like the idea of a capital gains tax increase. I think it should only be temporary, while we chip away at goverment spending (read: Iraq, defense, unnecessary subsidies and certain entitlements) and balance the budget.

Posted by: swalker3 | June 11, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

You guys have me flummoxed. I paid over 42% of my income in federal, state and local taxes and that doesn't include the FICA taxes that I paid on behalf of my employees . Yet, that is not enough. I'm somehow self-righteous and slimy for wanting to keep a little more that 57%. Fair enough. I'll pay more to do "my fair share" for my country. What are the rest of you going to do? Are you going to quit smoking and drinking and start exercising? Are you going to start investing in yourself to improve your lot in life with continuing education? Are you going to save just a little bit of your take-home pay so you're not a complete drain on the state when you retire?

ITS THIS SIMPLE - I TOOK A RISK AND BUILT A BUSINESS THAT PAYS ME WELL. YOU DID NOT!!!! YET, YOU THINK YOU ARE SOMEHOW ENTITLED TO SHARE IN MY SUCCESS.

FU.

Posted by: Jeff S | June 11, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

And, Kay?

Since the Republicans had control of the Congress during most of the Clinton years, and Clinton left office with a budget surplus, how does that back you claim that its the Republicans who are drunk at government trough?

Oh, I know. Bill gets the credit, right?

JackAss.

Posted by: Jeff S | June 11, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Every one pays taxes and the poorer you are the larger percentage you pay. Income tax and capital gains tax increase may be a moot point to those of us earning under $250,000, but there's a sales tax down to toilet paper, your car as well as a gas tax, almost anything you buy. If you have a home you pay city tax, road and bridge tax (tell me why those brides keep falling and I can't drive 10 miles without avoiding a pot hole), state and county tax, local school taxes, community college tax and new in Austin Texas a Hospital tax; don't think that just because home prices fall by 20% or more that your present taxes will drop. No one is going to give you a free ride on your real taxes or even a break. For the guy who is getting an $8.00 an hour job part time just remember the immortal words of Bush to the woman who told him she had to work three jobs to make ends meet and he replied she was lucky to live in a country where she could get three jobs. Real help is not on they way for any of us. Oh, and don't expect to get your student loan cancelled if we decide to fund $4,000 for college for all or even that portion of what you owe. But while you are living in the street/shelter and your kids are on their own with no supervision think of the real taxes you did pay that are helping bail out the savings and loan once more.

Posted by: txajohnson | June 11, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who accepts Carly "I personally ruined HP/Compaq" Fiorina's support and financial advice, is CLEARLY bought and paid for by someone who has no business buying and paying for ANYTHING.

And Jeff S, YES, Clinton gets the credit. Remember when the government shut down for 10 days, because Clinton refused to sign an unbalanced budget passed by Congress? The standoff between him and Congress? CLINTON forced the GOP Congress to pass a balanced budget, against their wishes! The GOP wanted NOTHING to do with a balanced budget, CLINTON held them to it!

Try and re-write history all you like, JackA$$

Posted by: Fred Evil | June 11, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

401Ks are not "exempt" from capital gains taxes. Instead, withdrawals are taxed at the HIGHER income tax rate. Being "exempt" means you don't have to pay, not that you have to pay more...

Posted by: Steve | June 11, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

In basic personal finance, there are only three ways to save money: 1)increase your income, 2)reduce your spending, 3)increase your income while reducing your spending. Now extrapolate this to the federal government, don't the same three options apply? In no finance or economic manual do you reduce your income while increasing your spending. While we might disagree with Obama on the areas where tax increases are needed, surely no sane person would suggest the current practice of spend what you do not have can continue indefinitely?

Posted by: The Franchise | June 11, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

JakeD - Exactly what assets are these lower class folks selling? The dominant means to get extra cash has been through debt, either credit cards or cash-out refinancing. So sad...

Perhaps you're suffering from a little sunstroke out on the links.

BB

Posted by: Fairlington Blade | June 11, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Steve wrote, "401Ks are not "exempt" from capital gains taxes. Instead, withdrawals are taxed at the HIGHER income tax rate. Being "exempt" means you don't have to pay, not that you have to pay more..."


Steve, yes, 401(K) withdrawals are taxed at the income tax rate, which is generally higher than the capital gains rate. But you missed the whole point of 401(K) accounts. The tax rate applied is the income tax rate at the time of withdrawal. Since 401(K) monies were designed to be withdrawn at retirement, the assumption is that most retired people have a lower income than when they were working. As a result, they would likely be in a lower income tax bracket. So the retiree gets the benefit of paying a lower percentage of income taxes at withdrawal than he would have paid at the time the income was earned (i.e., funding retirement with pre-tax dollars instead of post-tax dollars).

Posted by: The Franchise | June 11, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

To: Jeff S | June 11, 2008 11:08 AM

My comment is to "Russ S." referencing his comments.
Please accept my apology.
If you follow my posts, hopefully, there is a pattern of facts, concerns, observations, and beliefs.
One of my biggest contentions is that the tax code should give more (a lot more) support to those businesses/companies who employ people.

Posted by: vcsmith | June 11, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, guys, but I have to go golfing this morning. JakeD'

***************
Good, maybe a break from your endless posting trying to prop old man McSame up. Don't forget your glass of SHTFUP juice container - drink deeply...

Posted by: JakeD has left the building, finally.. | June 11, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

To the Doc: You made such an intelligent post ... and then you went Republican on us! I would much rather fight these battles from a higher ground, as opposed to sliming in the mud with Republicans. The real fight here is what is best for America? The answer is that Barack Obama and the Democratic Party will bring much needed relief to America and make us strong once again ...

----------------------------------------
Would this include:

Statutory marginal tax rates rising, ranging from a 13 percent increase for the highest income households to a 50 percent increase faced by lower-income households.

A reimposition of the marriage penalty and a child credit cut by $500 per child.

An increase in the long-term capital gains tax rate by one-third (to 20 percent from 15 percent) and the top tax rate on dividends will nearly triple (to 39.6 percent from 15 percent). (47 percent of all tax returns reporting capital gains were from households with incomes below $50,000, and 79 percent came from households with incomes below $100,000.)

The Alternative Minimum Tax reaching into the middle class, ensnaring 25 million tax filers in its web.(people who earn more than 45000 per year).(Somehow, Senator Obama has not discussed repealing this).


Posted by: Anonymous | June 11, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

vcsmith - thanks for clearing that up.. My apologies for jumping to conclusions.

Kay - Read the following - from Democrat Central
http://www.democraticcentral.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1154

and tell me who the JackASS is, JackASS.

Posted by: Jeff S | June 11, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

As we discussed earlier today.

Posted by: sandra.price@ustrust.com | June 11, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Thank you Jeff S!

I love the "fair share" whining. The top 1% of earners carry 39.3% of the tax burden. Overall the top 20% of earners carry 80% of the tax burden. And guess what,,,, that top 20% of earners was the only portion of the American public to have their percentage of the tax burden raised after the Bush tax cuts. Every category in the bottom 80% of earners saw its share of the tax burden fall with Bush's tax cuts. Has anyone who so blithely excepts the bs line that the Bush cuts only helped the wealthy ever bothered to actually investigate where those cuts went?

I am certainly not rich with an income well below 50k, but I do not intend to leave it there. Already though I pay an uncomfortable sum. 25% of my income goes to federal income taxes, 3% to state income taxes, 14.2% to pay for SS and Medicare, another 8.5% for property taxes, and who knows how much in sales taxes, hunting and fishing licenses, vehicle registration, etc... Let's see, that is 48.7%+ of my income. Granted that the 14.2% is pre-paying for a benefit that I will supposedly get in the future if I live long enough, but that "investment" carries a truly lousy rate of return even if benefits remain as "rich" as they are now and I live to 100.

So I feel like I am already giving enough by saying goodbye to half of my income. The vast majority of that money is just redistributed to other people as I make too much to benefit from much more than infrastructure, police, fire, and defense. I would feel a little bit better if I thought that I would eventually take advantage of the public school system, but where I live it is so inferior to the private options that I hope that will never happen.

So if we are going to raise taxes for further giveaways lets go ahead and raise taxes on everybody. The successful already pay much more than their way.


http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/323.html

Posted by: John-Michael | June 11, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

i need a clarification by an economist first: if one eliminates the tax cut of 2001 and 2003 does that equal a tax increase, or just a return to the status quo of 2001 when we had a Five trillion dollar surplus?

Posted by: jake l | June 11, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

oops,, I apparently cannot add. That is 50.7%+ to taxes.

Posted by: John-Michael | June 11, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

My candidate is much better than your candidate. Take my withering criticism and snarky remarks like the man your mother is, Members of the Opposing Political Party!

Posted by: Fuji | June 11, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Jeff S. (or as you prefer to sign your posts, "Jack Ass") -- Do yourself a favor, and don't sign your posts "Jack Ass." I appreciate that you are aware of your own failings, but I still don't want to see you curse at yourself.

As for what the Republicans get credit for while Bill Clinton (or Bush) was in office, they get credit for some shoddy little marketing effort known as "The Contract With America," which wasn't worth the piece of paper it was written on. The Republicans get credit for doing nothing but spending all of their time, energy and resources on trying to get Bill Clinton out of office (which never happened). Republicans prefer to spend all of their time sniping at Democrats, as opposed to doing anything worthwhile for this country. So, no, Republicans don't get credit for balancing a budget. They don't get credit for welfare reform. The only thing that Republicans get credit for is sitting there on their lazy arses bringing the federal government to a standstill because they're a bunch of whiny-assed crybaby pantywastes that don't do anything good for this country. Why do you think they keep getting run out of Washington on a rail? So long to bad rubbish, Newt/Tom/Trent/Denny, etc., etc., etc.!

Posted by: Kay Decker | June 11, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Jeff S wrote (before he descended into insults, personal attacks, and profanity): 'Since the Republicans had control of the Congress during most of the Clinton years, and Clinton left office with a budget surplus, how does that back you claim that its the Republicans who are drunk at government trough?'.

Like this. A little history:

Clinton and the Democrats passed their budget in 1993 without a single republican vote. It cut taxes for fifteen million low-income families, made tax cuts available to 90% of small businesses, and raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of taxpayers. It also turned around the deficit spending Clinton inherited from the republicans. When Clinton left office the government was running a surplus and beginning to pay down the national debt.

The republicans like to try to take credit for the balanced budget, but it was Clinton and the Democrats that implemented the budget that made it happen. While the republicans like to try to steal credit for the balanced budget, they don't like to be reminded of the dire economic predictions they made in 1993 about the Democrat's budget -- none of which came true.

When Bush took office the republicans controlled all branches of government. They promptly abandoned the Democratic budget principles in favor of modern republican budget principles -- tax cuts favoring the wealthy, increased government spending favoring cronies and politically connected contractors, and unrestrained deficits. Deficit spending returned immediately. Even without including the cost of the 9/11 attacks, the Afghanistan war (against Al Qaeda), and the Iraq war (against sanity) the budget would be in deficit.

Also remember: The reason the Bush tax cuts expire is because Bush and the republicans CHOSE for them to expire. That's the way they wrote the bill. They had to. There was no other way they could hide the huge debt their budget causes (revealed in budget predictions done before the vote) without having the tax cuts expire and the rates revert to the levels under Clinton. And, of course, once they got their budget passed and there was no longer a need to hide the red ink they immediately began pushing to make the tax cuts permanent.

Posted by: bobcn | June 11, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Hey, by the way, the Democrats are in charge now. Aren't we so excited about how they are running things now? things are going so great now, I can't wait for more Democratic policies.

Posted by: former democrat | June 11, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Fact is, the tax policy center (non-partisan) says that McCain's tax plan gives tax advantage proportionally the more money you make. Obama's plan does just the opposite, but offers a tax break to everyone who makes less than 300,000 dollars a year. In fact, you'd have to make 600,000 or more a year to have any significant rise.

Look, this isn't rocket science. Obama has a responsible plan that will help those who really need it, while McCain will bankrupt the country by giving unnecessary tax breaks to millionaires.

Posted by: CDC | June 11, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

former democrat writes: 'Hey, by the way, the Democrats are in charge now.'

Really?

Last time I checked Bush was still in the White House. And the republicans have been filibustering bills in the senate at twice the rate of any other time in the nation's history.

However, you got this right: 'I can't wait for more Democratic policies.'.
Most of the country agrees with you.

Posted by: bobcn | June 11, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Jeff S. (a/k/a JackAss) -- I'm going to have to go with my first answer and say that you are still the JackAss. Is that schlock from Democrat Central supposed to mean something to an intelligent electorate? It reads more like a badly written letter to Penthouse Forum. Honestly, if that is the sort of "factual background" that you rely upon, then your posts make perfect sense -- uneducated, uninformed, thoughtless, meaningless. In fact, I suspect that you may have written that drivel. You do realize, don't you, why Newt was run out of Washington? Because he so utterly failed in his mission to deliver anything meaningful to America or its citizens. After Bill Clinton's showdown with Newt's Republican Congress left the GOP so bloodied and bruised, Newt went scampering back to Georgia with his tail between his legs. And the pathetic performance of Republicans explains why they can't hold a majority in Congress for more than a minute at a time!

But I don't want to be too hard on any Republican. I actually owe Republicans a great deal of thanks. If it wasn't for Republicans and their asinine behavior, we wouldn't be looking at an overwhelming majority of Democratic voters in this country right now and for the foreseeable future. So, my thanks to every incompetent, worthless, pathetic, do-nothing, inept, unintellingent Republican politician out there!

Posted by: Kay Decker | June 11, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

To BobCN: Excellent post! You do a great job of explaining exactly why the Clinton Administration's policies fared so much better than the Bush Administration's policies. Bravo!

Posted by: Kay Decker | June 11, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Kay Decker wrote: 'So, my thanks to every incompetent, worthless, pathetic, do-nothing, inept, unintelligent Republican politician out there!'.

I wouldn't enjoy the republican failure too much. Sure, it's good for partisans that want to see a long run of Democratic majorities in the future, but they've done severe damage to the country that I love. Cleaning up their mess is going to be a long painful process.

Posted by: bobcn | June 11, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Oops! By 'they've done severe damage...' I meant the republicans, not the partisans.

Posted by: bobcn | June 11, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

To BobCN: Yes, you are right. It will take decades to bring this country right again. But I have hope that some of the worst lessons that we have learned during these long, hard 8 years of Bush's administration will actually make us better in the long run. (I hope!) Trying to make this country right again is what is spurring such a huge turnout in the Democratic primary.

Posted by: Kay Decker | June 11, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

McCain is showing that he isn't quite the maverick he wants people to think, and his honesty is questionable at best. He's just another puppet of the wealthy special interests that control so many of our elected Republican officials.
Our government will have to increase revenue at some point, and making those who have the most pay the most is the fairest way to do it. I opposed Bush's tax cuts in the first place, and letting them expire is the right thing to do. During the Bush years our nation moved closer and closer to a have and have-not society, much like a third world country, and our middle class shrank alarmingly. Obama's tax plan is the only one being offered that gives us a chance to maintain a strong middle class, and help lower income people move up the economic ladder.

Posted by: Michael | June 11, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

If Republicans didn't want the taxes to go back up, they shouldn't have built sunset provisions into their tax cuts. They did hold the House and the White House in 2001 and they held the Senate, House and White House in 2003, when the second Bush tax cuts were passed.

This whole thing can be traced to Republican unwillingness to stand up for what they supposedly believe in.

Posted by: nitpicker | June 11, 2008 3:07 PM | Report abuse

McSame is a FOOL who parrots what the Lieberman crowd feeds him. As for Fiorina, well, she is the one who almost put HP out of business after driving Lucent to the ground.


Posted by: Anonymous | June 11, 2008 3:07 PM | Report abuse

John-Michael, you would actually pay less taxes under a plan like Obama's, yet you complain about how much the rich have to carry the burden?

Either you're lying about your income or you really don't know which side your bread is buttered on.

Has anyone out there ever noticed that they talk about how the rich will spend money and stimulate the economy? How about working class? They will spend their money even faster than the rich, but somehow cutting their taxes won't help the economy?

Posted by: Franklin | June 11, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

nitpicker wrote: 'If Republicans didn't want the taxes to go back up, they shouldn't have built sunset provisions into their tax cuts.'

I've always suspected that a secondary reason why the republicans chose to make the tax cuts temporary was so that they could run on cutting taxes over and over again with each election cycle. It was about politics and what's good for the party (not what's good for the country).

Posted by: bobcn | June 11, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

I don't know if such "fact check" is in anyway meaningful. Obama said he did "a few hours of paper work" for Tony Rezko on national TV, and it turned out to be totally opposite. Politicians lie, anyone don't know about this?

As to Tax, both candidates are wrong. In this so called 'fact check' the "lie" of McCain et al. is simply the reader's interpretation. This kind of "lie" is truth in politicians' ears.

What's wrong with the tax code is not it does not tax enough on the wealthy, it is the loopholes that let the wealthy to evade tax completely. That's where the work should be done. Unfortunately none of the major party candidates is willing to do anythings serious about this. So let's just forget about the tax issue in this election.

Posted by: GodFather | June 11, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

John-Michael:

Did you bother to read the article of a STUDY on Bush's tax cut that McCain is interested in making permanent? We ARE following the money.

Read here on Bush's 2001 tax cut:

"Study: Bush Tax Cuts Favor Wealthy"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/13/politics/main635936.shtml

No thanks McCain. Please find another strategy.


Posted by: Obama2008 | June 11, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

OK get this straight, everybody who has a functioning brain: letting Bush's tax cuts expire as scheduled at the end of 2010 does NOT amount to RAISING taxes! The temporary stimulus was NOT going to be a permanent entitlement program for the wealthy. We have ENOUGH entitlement plans for them!

Posted by: Gary W | June 11, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

you know, i read jeff s' comments from 6 am this morning where he complains about having to spend an additional $48,000 due to the elimination of the cap on social security. what he doesn't tell you is that number is based on an approximate of $400,000 of net income. come on, if you want to complain about paying more in taxes, then at least have the balls to say you are not a lower or middle class income american. i'm beginning to think that the perks of having more wealth just teaches those people to manipulate to get what they want.

Posted by: steve lox | June 11, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

To John-Michael | June 11, 2008 2:02 PM

First, please get a new accountant. If you are doing your own taxes, get help.

Second, what's your point. It seems that you are just rambling.

Third, you have your stats mixed up. the top 1% of households have 39.7% of the country's financial wealth.

Forth, your stated income is easily in the bottom 20%. But who cares about you, lets give the top 1% another break!

Posted by: vcsmith | June 11, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Obama will increase taxes on incomes of $250,000 per year. He will increase the 15% tax on capital gains and dividends to probably 20%. This is an increase of just $50.00 annually on $1000 of dividends/capital gains and I challenge anyone to show me they cant afford to participate in paying down the national debt. Remember: taxes pay for the rights to have a constitution that helps the nation stay on the right track economically, legally and educationally.

Posted by: Claude | June 11, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

To: Kay Decker | June 11, 2008 2:30 PM

YIPPY KI YAY, you ride 'em cowboy!

Posted by: vcsmith | June 11, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

I would offer to pay Jeff S.'s share of taxes, but he keeps referring to himself as a Jack Ass ... and I'm afraid that he would spend all that extra money he's saving on those icky taxes on lottery tickets and beer. Sorry, Jeff S., but I'm doing this for your own good!

Your concerned friend,
Kay

Posted by: Kay Decker | June 11, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Obama 2008

If you'll care to notice the report you provided only takes into account figures from 2001 and does not include the accelerated 2003 cuts that expanded the new 10% bracket among many other things. My numbers come from 2004 when the accelerated cuts had had a full tax year to show their effects.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 11, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Obama didn't actually lie, it was more of an unspoken truth which happens a lot in politics.

Posted by: Mary D. | June 11, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

I'd like to ask. It's fun to pick on the rich sure, but they'll always find a way to shelter their money. Even if it means leaving the country, So when the rich leave or shelter their money to avoid paying the taxes who gets stuck with the bill again?

Posted by: ANH | June 11, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Carly Fiorina! There's an expert on mismanagement. Tens of millions to run HP into the ground. Get economic advice from someone else please Senator McCain.
Posted by: David Packard

Only wish it were the real David Packard. Fiona was SOOO savvy that she took HP, a company KNOWN for its high quality test gear, put that name on Compaq, spun it off, and renamed the REAL HP "Agilent".

This highly compensated bizwiz, threw away billions in good will and never knew it. Never learned HP's "Management By Walking Around" mentality, never got their quality culture, and mostly screwed up its stock. She was a typical bizwiz CEO, though, because she ran both companies to try to force each companies stock to unheard of levels so she and her friends could make quick killings selling over priced stock. Sort of like GM, GE, and most of the rest of American Big Business.

Of course she will claim Barack is a big taxer. As long as she has to pay ANY taxes on her stock options, she won't be happy.

After all, the whole point of stock options is to make an incredible capital gains by buying stock at well below value, and sell it at well above value. If you intend to sell your soul for quick profits, the Government, apparently, is supposed to at least let you enjoy it in this world.

Posted by: ceflynline@msn.com | June 11, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

I don't believe anything that Obama says in his prepared speeches in which he panders to the demographic of the audience. I believe what he says in private like at the closed door fundraiser in San Fran where he said people who live in small towns are bitter and cling to guns and faith. Like when he sits and listens to hate filled speeches by his pastor and says nothing. Like when he does not ondemn in the strongest terms the lampooning of Hillary by the priest he calls his friend, yet only dismisses him from his campaign prosition. Like when he is willing to talk to dictators and thugs with no preconditions but will not go to Iraq to talk to General Patraeus. Like when he does not condemn his friend, the terrorist Bill Ayers, Iran's Aqmidinijad,
Castro and Venezuela President Chavez. Show me where he has made a speech condemning these despots.

Much is made of the "guilt by associaion' charge being unfair. However, it is not guilt by association that I see in Obama, it is his friendships with these people. What bothers me is that he fits the saying " birds of a feather flock together." I believe that you can define someone by the friendships he/she keeps.

Posted by: Joe migliorise | June 11, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

"And forget flag pins, that's 13 full size American flags backing up John Sidney McCain.

Posted by: JakeD | June 10, 2008 11:41 PM "

Every one of them improperly displayed.... Check the official manual!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 11, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Carly Fiorina once against proves why she was fired by HP. She can't add and she lies through her teeth. And don't forget McCains $3.6 trillion tax increase he plans by taxes currently exempt employer funded healthcare. He wants to screw the bottom 80% of the country.

Posted by: Howie G | June 11, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

FIRst, according to the IRS 2005 Statistics of Income, around 20% (26.1 mil) of all filers claim a "net capital gain," which amounted to $625.7 bil. Of this amount those w/ AGI of $200K or more (2.8 mil or 2% of the taxpaying public) accounted for $515.6 bil (82.4%) of reported capital gains. By returning to the pre-Bush capital gain rate, one could eliminate the capital gain tax for those w/ AGI

Posted by: Stuart | June 11, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

vcsmith

First, I do my own taxes. The standard deduction is better than itemizing so I took my $5,350 deduction there. I also invested $5,600 into my SEP. Let's just call that $11,000 off of my $44,000 income. $33,000 x 0.28 (state and federal income taxes) = $9,240.

I was wrong about FICA. It is 15.3%. So take $44,000 x .153 and you get $6,732.

My property taxes were approx. $3,200

Add that up and you get approx. $19,100

Now that is 43% of my total income, but 52.5% of my income after investment ($5,600 Sep $2,000 Roth).

Second

I was not rambling but decrying the tendency of people to say the rich do not pay enough. I pay that much of my income and they pay 10% more in income taxes.

I am not particularly concerned with either candidate's tax platform. What I am concerned about is government spending. I want to see farm subsidies among many others cut substantially. I also do not want large expansions of entitlement programs. I don't want them cut per say, but they are big enough. I have very little faith in Obama to act favorably and only a little more faith in McCain in those matters anyway.

Posted by: John-Michael | June 11, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

None of the Above 08 Wrote:
Folks, the truth is that everyone benefited from the so-called Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

????????????????/

Funny, I can't see that I have benefited from the BUSH tax cuts.

I am worse off now than I was almost 8 years ago!

I'll take Obama for more taxes and less lies!

Posted by: Foofighter! | June 11, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Only 2 pinnochios? Absurd. McCain has loudly and repeatedly stated that Obama will raise taxes on, he implies, all Americans, when in fact, the tax repeals will not effect 95% of Americans (kind of like those evil "Estate Taxes" that very few Americans have to worry about.)

In Obama's plan in fact, Those making under $70,000 will get a tax credit toward their FICA taxes, and Senior Citizens with incomes under $50,000 will pay NO income taxes. Obama has not committed to raising Capital Gains taxes, 2 days ago he said that he will be looking closely at the State of the Economy before raising such taxes.

On the other Hand, McGeezer's economic "plan" once again favors the wealthy and Big Corps...and it is estimated that continuing the Bush tax cuts will further burden this Country with more untenable debt...some 300 Billion Dollars (consider that earmarks, which McCain says so proudly he will get rid of, are only a paltry 9 Billion a year.) And, let me point out, McCain's economic plan leaves out funding for the Iraq War...which he said today..when asked about how long we'd be there..."it doesn't matter." Wrong, Mr McCain..it matters very much to me and millions of other Americans.

Posted by: Hold_That_Tiger | June 11, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

As usual, letting the "temporary" tax cuts expire is now called raising taxes. Bush's goons (repub. congress) knew this very well when the temporary tax cuts were instituted to stimulate the economy. Once Obama's stated tax plans are tempered by the reality of passing such bills in congress, we will hopefully end up with a policy that helps the lowest incomes a bit more, and gets desperately needed revenue from those who make the most.

Americans are so infatuated with wealth, that it scarcely matters to many people if oil companies, top execs, and other who receive "passive income" make obscene amounts of money while the national debt skyrockets. A compromise is needed. By letting the tax cuts expire, compromising on capital gains, and stopping the "bleeding" of billions into Iraq, we might get back on the road to a better economy. Tax rates were higher in those halcyon boom years of the 90's, and no one much complained. Talking the old line that low taxes will stimulate the economy is no more a cure all than massively increasing taxes would be.

Posted by: Ed | June 11, 2008 6:32 PM | Report abuse

This kind of campaigning does not work. Telling lies in this day and age doesn't work. Hillary found that out. It will be so easy to just follow Mccain around and point out his lies and distortions he will be a joke by November. He is a joke now, you can't find a Republican of any note that is out there campaigning for him. He and Bush are poison and no one want the stink to rub off. Mccain is a throw away candidate for 2008 and they know it.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 11, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Ed:

Since Dems routinely claim that any budget-line increase less than COLA is a "cut", isn't it just karma to call this a "raise" in taxes?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 11, 2008 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Clearly 4 pinocchilos. Capital gains realized from the sale of a primary residence up to $250,000 for a single owner and $500,000 for married owners are exempt. This is quintessential middle and upper middle class territory. I'd like to hear McCain's explanation how he can switch positions on such a critical tax issue to make W's outrageous tax cuts permanent. The middle class can't afford another Republican looking out for our well-being. I'm sorry I voted for W the first time around.

Posted by: bryan of frederick | June 11, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse

If the Democratic nominee is anybody but Obama, i.e. Biden, Dobb, Clinton or Richardson (okay, not Kucinich), I would be disinterested in electing McCain. Unfortunately, the Dems nominated the least qualified candidate in Obama, so even McCain looks good. At any rate... about taxes, will the US market become more efficient with less taxes? Yes. Does the government need money to function? Yes. Given the economic problems the US has now, why would anybody choose in increase taxes? The tax relief was enacted to stimulate growth. Less taxes makes the US more competitive for investments, which translate to more and better jobs. Why would Obama rollback or even think of raising taxes is beyond me, and truthfully, it will hurt everybody. Furthermore, providing tax credits for lower income is a disincentive to earn more. Why do this?

BTW, Obama mentioned that he is keen on providing more stimulus checks. I can't understand the overall economic benefit of this. By sending out checks rather than just not collecting it in the first place, the government will just add to the overall economic inefficiency.

Time and again Obama has not shown any plan to revive the US economy. All Obama has done is to associate McCain with Bush, which is again all rhetoric. Given the questions/doubts about his qualifications, Obama should begin to provide evidence of forethought to any plan he provides. After that, he could concentrate on questions/doubts about his judgment and character.

Posted by: CP Cook | June 11, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Isn't it funny how all the people who cry/complain about taxes being raised never answer the big question:

How the hell are we going to pay off this gigantic debt we have? With tax cuts? Gimme a break you idiots!

Also, I am pretty sure that every single one of the people who support increasing taxes on people making >$250K would be more than happy to have to deal with this increase. I know I would! From where I stand, it's the wealthy who are nothing but a bunch of stinking parasites by taking every penny they can while watching their country go broke and then blame the poor for the situation. I can just hear them now:
"I want it all and I want it now!"

P.S. I know that not every "rich" person thinks like this and to those people I apologize.

Posted by: debot54 | June 11, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

I would suggest for the next president and Congress to simplify our tax codes. There is an overall benefit in terms of collection efficiency due to simplicity. While at it, the government should look at the government subsidies probably rationalize if we need these too. I heard that alpaca farmers still get tax breaks. Is this really reasonable?

The government should also align tax incentives to the goals it is trying to achieve. I don't believe that the government should disincentivize workers from trying to earn more by slapping them with higher taxes. Likewise, the government should not provide more incentives for people to remain under government subsidies.

I think an Obama government will foster a culture of entitlement which this country does not need anymore. Grudgingly... please vote McCain.

Posted by: CP Cook | June 11, 2008 7:09 PM | Report abuse

To debot54... I can't resist. You stated "How the hell are we going to pay off this gigantic debt we have? With tax cuts? Gimme a break you idiots!" The idea with tax cuts is to make the US more competitive, whereby encouraging more businesses, which ultimately more and better jobs. With more business and more/better jobs, more taxes are collected nevermind that the tax rate is lower.

BTW, why should somebody earning $160K pay 33% in federal tax while those earning $100K pay only 28%? Wouldn't a uniform rate for everybody be fairer? Do you really think that those earning $160K get more from the government than those earning $100K or $50K?

I would prefer is the government does not tinker with our taxes too much. It might be better to simplify it rather than complicate it with different incentives/loopholes.

Posted by: CP Cook | June 11, 2008 7:17 PM | Report abuse

CP Cook says::

""Given the economic problems the US has now, why would anybody choose in increase taxes? The tax relief was enacted to stimulate growth. Less taxes makes the US more competitive for investments, which translate to more and better jobs. ""

On the face of it, that sounds fine, and in fact it is the republican mantra. Low taxes do not always translate into high paying jobs though, look at our current economy. What kind of growth is stimulated by giving tax "relief" to upper income brackets? Paying a cabana boy, (probably under the table), to take care of the new pool ? I would agree it puts money into the pockets of service employees and owners of vacation spots, luxury car dealers, whole foods, you get my drift. Unfortunately, since the "relief" was enacted, the economy has gone up and down, and now WAY down. Our infrastructure is crumbling, our schools have suffered, and health care is non existent for about 50 million people.

What about the 90's, before the Tax relief- we seemed to be able to handle those taxes and thrive. So it isn't cut and dried. Obama is suggesting ways to help the lower income brackets and to provide revenue for some of the problems we face, which are real and will have devastating effects in the future (like education).

I agree with fiscal conservatives, cut the pork, cut the stupid entitlements, but use tax revenues to address pressing problems that average Americans face, and to get the debt under control. I would not favor raising taxes on small business, but that is why we need bipartisan compromise to get something that is a compromise. Falling back on the old Regan trickle down economics will not cut it. You might even have to clean your own pool and wait a year for the next BMW- so be it!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 11, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

To CP Cook:
Actually I would like to see income tax eliminated completely and go with consumption tax. And to keep this from hurting the average person, give a refund back to those who make less than, let's say $40K (let the experts figure out the right number). This way the rich can keep every penny they earn and would only pay taxes if they decide to spend their money. I've always felt that taxing people for working hard and earning money is the wrong way to go.

Posted by: debot54 | June 11, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

To CP Cook:

BTW, I still haven't heard the answer to the question about how are we going to pay off the debt. Lots of complaining about how much taxes are paid but no answer to the big question. So how about it? I'm willing to pay more (to pay off the debt) - how about you? Or should we just leave it for our kids and grandkids?

Posted by: debot54 | June 11, 2008 7:31 PM | Report abuse

You did not put in your name... about still tax stimulus.

I am talking about making those who earn $160K a year pay 10% while those who earn $50K pay 33%, so there is really no relief here for the "wealthy". Furthermore, you said, "health care is non existent for about 50 million people". I could be wrong, but it seems to me that having health insurance is a function of unemployment rate. I have no problem with universal health care. Unfortunately, Obama's plan is neither here nor there, and I think it will make matters worse. I like Clinton's plan the most, but I would rather have McCain's plan rather than Obama's.

Anyway... it is wrong to correlate the tax stimulus by Bush to the bad economy we have now. Have you considered which economies grew the most in the past 5 years? You have India, China (including HK) and others. Investors went there because they get better return for their investments. I don't like Bush, but I must admit that things would have been worse if not for the tax stimulus he had. (This does not make up for this other mistakes including distributing the surplus.)

I am not to argue to tax the rich less, but just simplify to tax codes to make it more equitable. One way to do this is to remove the tax credits/deductions/loopholes.


Posted by: CP Cook | June 11, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

CP Cook, makes more good points:

"" Wouldn't a uniform rate for everybody be fairer? Do you really think that those earning $160K get more from the government than those earning $100K or $50K?

I would prefer is the government does not tinker with our taxes too much. It might be better to simplify it rather than complicate it with different incentives/loopholes.""

I am no history expert, but I believe that the current progressive tax code is in place to make it more fair. As to why someone (a family) earning , say $60K should have a lower tax burden, it comes down to a sense of fairness again. A "60K" family will be lucky to own a small home, lucky to be out of debt, lucky to have decent health and dental care, and VERY lucky to have a child in a University. Workers in many occupations work very hard for relatively little pay, sometimes with college degrees, and many of those jobs directly benefit society. Having twice that income changes your home, your car, etc., but not much else.

As we go up the scale, more and more "disposable" income is available, yet it is hard to say that those people lucky enough to have inherited wealth or who make large incomes on the "backs" of others or by passive investments somehow benefit society more than a school teacher or a sanitation worker, or a bank teller. A "flat tax" sounds "fair" until you actually look at people's lives who work hard for not much money. If we want a stable and settled society, we will not allow a very small % of people to make huge incomes and not give back more to the "bottom". That is not a welfare state, it is a state that makes life more bearable for those making the least money, yet still allows vast accumulation of wealth, even at a 40% bracket!

Posted by: Ed | June 11, 2008 7:42 PM | Report abuse

To debot54... How are we going to pay our debt?

The idea is that should tax stimulus work to revive the economy, the government will earn more (again earn more tax revenue even if the tax rate is the same or lower). The government should use this money to pay the debt, and resist the temptation to spend (Democrats have a tendency to do this) or distribute this money (like what Bush did).

Posted by: CP Cook | June 11, 2008 7:44 PM | Report abuse

John McCain continues to push his tax cuts, but doesn't say a word about our ongoing need to "borrow" money to finance this stupid war. Only an idiot, when faced extraordinary demands on expenses, would go to his boss and ask to have his income reduced. My grandkids can't afford John McCain.

Posted by: Jerry | June 11, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

As I understand the capital gains system, a majority of people affected by an increase in the tax due on capital gains are financially stable and well able to pay a higher tax on a one time profit from which they benefit.

Those with lesser incomes generally are only affected by capital gains when they sell their home and realize a profit over the original purchase price, plus the cost of improvements. As well, that effect is negated if the 'profit' is reinvested. So, I sell my home at a net profit (capital gain) of $50000, but I reinvest that in a new home and thus pay no capital gains. The trick is to reinvest before taxes come due; there are a variety of ways to do that.

It is the the wealthy who see substantial capital gains in the course of a year, and I'm sorry they can well afford to pay a higher tax on those profits.

Posted by: KDP | June 11, 2008 8:00 PM | Report abuse

I would still argue that the Bush tax relief has done little but send the debt skyrocketing, during an expensive time of invasion and occupation of weakened middle eastern regimes (oops , I mean a time of WAR).

In principle, low taxes can mean economic growth, but it is clearly not that simple. The government provides essential services and regulations, and tax revenues are needed for those things. China and India have booming economies, yet they have done so by providing services at very cheap rates (and currency manipulation). I won't pretend to be an expert, but I suspect it has little to do with the tax structure of either country. Cheap, often exploited labor is the key.

As for as Obama's somewhat vague plans, he does have a more complete set of policy positions on his web site, but I agree he needs to be more specific. As for Clinton, she was able to sound very precise and organized in her plans, but her weakness (as it always has been) is that her specific plans have to be made into actual legislation by both houses of congress, and she tends to "fight" when she doesn't get things EXACTLY her own way. Obama is supposed to show a more detailed economic plan in the next couple weeks- I think we could at least see what he comes up with. McCain has the most vague ideas of all, except that he keeps pounding on taxes (the subject of the article), and I for one think he is blithely unconcerned about the economy beyond his tax statements!

Posted by: Ed | June 11, 2008 8:03 PM | Report abuse

To Ed... I understand your point, but allow to provide a different insight.

Consider 2 people, one earning $40K vs. another person earning $160K. The $40K earner is a grade school teacher, while the $160K earner is a banker. Why is the teacher earning less than the banker? I think supply and demand is working here. Since the teacher's job is so rewarding, many want it regardless of pay. Maybe another reason is that it is easier to become a teacher than a banker so teachers are paid less. If less people are incentivized to become teachers, teachers' pay will eventually increase. What I am trying to explain here is that how one makes a living is a result of one's choice. Same goes for children. If there is no incentives provided for children/dependents (not that the current deductions are huge, but just to exchange ideas), people will prepare more before having any children. Maybe this will make more people responsible parents, which is not a bad idea.

Now, back to fairness. Would it be fair for the banker to pay more taxes so that the teacher can pay less? Well, since the teacher's work is more rewarding, then maybe not. Is it fair for people with no dependents/children to pay more taxes so that those who do have kids pay less? Given that kids are supposedly their bundles of joy, then maybe not. It seems to me that the more tax credits the government provides to children/dependents, the more incentives it provides to people to become single parents.

Having said all these... sometimes it is not the person's choice that dictates one's job. So, I want the government to provide the infrastructure to help those who want to help themselves e.g. education.

Posted by: CP Cook | June 11, 2008 8:05 PM | Report abuse

Ed has is right. It's all about disposable income. If I make $40K a year and pay 15% on taxes, I am left with $34K disposable income. On the other hand, someone who makes $500K and pays 50% on taxes is left with $250K. Which is 6 times more disposable income than the person making $40K. They may have given 1/2 their money away but I sure like their situation a lot more than the person making $40K. How many of you rich folks out there would like to trade positions? Just think, you would only have to pay a 15% tax rate and get to keep a lot "more" of your money! Any takers?

Posted by: debot54 | June 11, 2008 8:14 PM | Report abuse

To Ed... We agree that Iraq was a mistake. Unfortunately, that is a sunk cost.

I don't buy the exploited labor argument. I lived in a third world country, and saw how those "exploited" laborers were better off because of the jobs created. When some Americans began "exposing the plight" of these "exploited" laborers, the company closed, and all of a sudden the "exploited" laborers had no work. One unintended consequence in trying to improve their condition was the loss of job. Another was to make the goods sold in the US more expensive. What am I getting at here? I think the best way to improve working conditions is to reduce unemployment.

Posted by: CP Cook | June 11, 2008 8:24 PM | Report abuse

To debot54... if you are making $40K, why not work/study harder to make $500K?

Posted by: CP Cook | June 11, 2008 8:26 PM | Report abuse

People who usually have no problem and the one's who don't have anything taxable. I make over 50 thousand and have a 401 plus state retirement; however I also invest in the stock market and do not with my cap gains or dividends taxed. A better solution would be to lower cap gains and dividends even lower to promote more business and job,

Posted by: Hillary Dem for Mac | June 11, 2008 8:56 PM | Report abuse

By the way, CP, thanks for a thoughtful discussion without profanity or insults on issues we might see differently.

I am a democrat, but a fiscally conservative one. I also believe that a balance is needed between a completely free market and a regulated market and economy. Laws and regulations (and taxes) are needed to provide a common infrastructure, education system, and health care for all citizens. We don't need to revisit the kind of exploitation and monopolies the country enjoyed in the gilded age. Human beings have proven over the ages that they will happily exploit others for profit- the greed for material wealth seems to be part of our make up. Ironically, taxes and regulation are needed to prevent "the masses" from rising up and redistributing the wealth themselves, which is another disastrous outcome.

It is a tricky thing, but this year the pendulum is swinging towards the left, like it or not. I doubt it will swing very far. I don't think Obama is so stupid as to realize that a balance is needed to prevent a return to old policies still hung on democrats. As a politician he has staked out the position that will give him the best chance to win, but I believe he will be balanced and thoughtful about the economy. One of his chief economic advisors, Austan Goolsbee, is a U of Chicago professor who has wide respect from economists of all stripes. Even George Will has some nice things to say about Goolsbee!

Posted by: Ed | June 11, 2008 8:57 PM | Report abuse

"cut the stupid entitlements"
=======================

And what would the "stupid" entitlements be? The biggest "entitlements" are the ones we pay into, Social Security and Medicare, since these programs are resonsible for keeping millions of elderly Americans, and the disabled, housed and fed, I think that it would be a bit difficult to cut anything out...(however Bush managed to get the most wasteful entitlement passed during his administration: the prescription drug plan that left collective bargaining off the table.)

We need to do what other Industrialized Nations do and cap Healthcare costs.

If you are talking about Welfare, I suggest you think again; most people on Welfare are single women taking care of children; there is a 5 year lifetime limit on welfare benefits; the average monthly check is $400-600 (you try living on that...)

Posted by: Hold_That_Tiger | June 11, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse

I guess I am calling things like farm subsidies "stupid entitlements", which was inaccurate. I would add to that all subsidies for oil companies, and numerous other deductions that litter the tax code.. I am in favor of allowing more drilling, in certain places, but paying companies to do it with oil at $130 a barrel is ridiculous. How about I get subsidized to mine for gold!

I would certainly not take any of the pittance paid to poor elderly, poor children, or other impoverished people!

Posted by: Ed | June 11, 2008 9:16 PM | Report abuse

Ladys ---If elected John McCain will overturn Roe vs Wade.
*He voted
*against child care
*against Vet benifits
*for tax cut for the rich and big business
*Make the supreme court a republican rubber stamp
*He said Bringing Troops Home From Iraq "Not Too Important.
Check out what he voted for at http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53270

Posted by: GHM | June 11, 2008 10:30 PM | Report abuse

Hey JakieD--

Good to see you back on the payroll and great job getting to the front of the comment line again.
I'm glad that you "trust" Mr. McCain to cut taxes. I also trust that he will pursue the the Republican borrow and spend habits that are driving our economy into the ground. The good news for you Jake is that now you can probably produce more than the three lone economists you dredged up in support of Hillary's pandering gas tax cut proposals. Anyway, you are one of the more "polite" operatives on here and always enjoy your posts (however misguided)

cheers,
thorn

Posted by: thorn | June 11, 2008 10:37 PM | Report abuse

What a surprise, the fact wrecker takes some time out of his busy schedule to justify McCain's lies. Good thing that got out of the way, now you can get back to your important work: dismissing the concerns of minorities.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 11, 2008 10:50 PM | Report abuse

Here's some articles by The Fact Checker, lets see if anyone else sees a connection here:
1."Young Black Males Headed for Extinction?"- 4 Pinocchios
2."Barack Obama vs Lou Dobbs" - 4 Pinocchios
3."Where in the world is Auschwitz?" - 4 Pinocchios (Later decreased to 3)
4."The Tuskegee Experiment, Part II" - 3 Pinocchios

I see a pattern here. All these articles involve issues of race. All these articles receive high ratings. All these articles involve meticulous parsing of the speaker's wording to create an impression of falsehood. All these articles involve disregarding the concerns of an entire race of people.

What do think of those FACTS, Fact Checker?

Posted by: Racist? | June 11, 2008 10:52 PM | Report abuse

I like how when McCain says something obviously wrong, fact checker gives McCain 2 Pinocchios, because he just got confused in his old age. (ie "McCain forgets his own votes")

But if McCain phrases something to be deliberately to be deceptive he gets 2 Pinocchios because he worded it so carefully.

I guess that, as far as Dobbs is concerned, there is no way McCain can tell a lie.

Posted by: Dobbs=Hypocrite | June 11, 2008 10:55 PM | Report abuse

All of this is because George W. Bush wanted to defend his fathers honor. Take us to war with Iraq which is littered with trash, and dead dog's. Not to mention, no sewer system. Will Mc. Cain change this no ... Will Obama change this no ... its to f'in late and military members have to deal with this Political bs while people are getting blown up ... enough ...

Posted by: smith | June 11, 2008 11:17 PM | Report abuse

The Fact Checker has never accused Barack Hussein Obama of "lying" either.

Posted by: JakeD | June 11, 2008 11:20 PM | Report abuse

P.S. to thorn -- nice to see you too -- I'm not even voting for McCain though.

Posted by: JakeD | June 11, 2008 11:29 PM | Report abuse

(and thanks for stealing my sobriquet)
All this talk about taxes is laughable. We pay the lowest taxes in the Western world and get little from the government as a result. On the other hand, the Danish receive cradle to grave benefits, a free college education and free health care and pay some of the highest taxes in the world. And guess what? A recent study suggests that they are the happiest people in the world. When you are free to choose what you want to do with your life because you don't have to worry about paying for the basics, it actually makes folks pretty darn happy. It's also nice to know that, even though the taxes are sky high, look what you get in return!

Posted by: FactChecker1 | June 11, 2008 11:53 PM | Report abuse

I would have wanted Hillary to be president, but now, I think McCain is the best choice. Among the issues against McCain is Iraq. I think this is a non-issue given the almost certain bigger majorities of Dems in Congress. Iraq is only there as long as Congress funds it. If the Dems will have the political will, the troops will be home sooner than later. (BTW, I am under the impression that Obama has consistently voted to fund the war, but I could be wrong.)

About Roe vs. Wade, again this will only be overturned with the concurrence of Congress. Roe vs. Wade was on in courts because the pro-choice people did not have the votes (either in Congress or in popular votes). I don't think the anti-abortion people have the votes either, so this will be status quo for a while. If people worry about the composition of the Supreme Court, please note that both Alito and Roberts were confirmed with Democratic votes, so one can't blame the Reps for these. (Just an aside, I consider myself a Democrat, although I would be for McCain this November because I think he will be the best candidate for the country and economy.)

Posted by: CP Cook | June 12, 2008 12:24 AM | Report abuse

Liz:

Read the thread again. I was not the one who brought up "lower class" or "child support and liquor".

BB:

The most common asset probably is a primary residence where the family moves into a rental after the sale.

Posted by: JakeD | June 12, 2008 12:57 AM | Report abuse

CP Cook:

Good point about Congress -- the President cannot "overturn" Roe v. Wade even if he wanted to -- I would be happy leaving the issue up to each State.

Posted by: JakeD | June 12, 2008 1:16 AM | Report abuse

Since when is making $250,000 per year considered rich. I dont see people with that income blowing money on their 3 sports car of yacht. If obama wants to raise taxes on the rich, redefine the term.

Posted by: Emo | June 12, 2008 2:03 AM | Report abuse

When will America reject lying Republicans? (soon, I hope)

These statements show that the McCain campaign is simply lying about Obama's proposals.

But I guess with advisors like Carly Fiorina, who ran Hewlett-Packard aground, and Phil Gramm, who as a US Senator helped run the US economy into the ground, McCain has to lie to hide the fact that his campaign is being advised by idiots.

I don't want McCain, Gramm, or Fiorina anywhere near the White House.

NO MCCAIN IN '08!

Vote Obama

Posted by: Nick K. | June 12, 2008 4:19 AM | Report abuse

When will America reject lying Republicans? (soon, I hope)

These statements show that the McCain campaign is simply lying about Obama's proposals.

But I guess with advisors like Carly Fiorina, who ran Hewlett-Packard aground, and Phil Gramm, who as a US Senator helped run the US economy into the ground, McCain has to lie to hide the fact that his campaign is being advised by idiots.

I don't want McCain, Gramm, or Fiorina anywhere near the White House.

NO MCCAIN IN '08!

Vote Obama

Posted by: Nick K. | June 12, 2008 4:20 AM | Report abuse

When will America reject lying Republicans? (soon, I hope)

These statements show that the McCain campaign is simply lying about Obama's proposals.

But I guess with advisors like Carly Fiorina, who ran Hewlett-Packard aground, and Phil Gramm, who as a US Senator helped run the US economy into the ground, McCain has to lie to hide the fact that his campaign is being advised by idiots.

I don't want McCain, Gramm, or Fiorina anywhere near the White House.

NO MCCAIN IN '08!

Vote Obama

Posted by: College Dad | June 12, 2008 4:24 AM | Report abuse

The spend and borrow Republicans have destroyed our economy with their circular policy. War debt>devalued dollar>higher oil prices>negative balance of trade>$$$ to the oil Sheiks>$$$ to placate Wahabis>>>>$$$ to Al-Quaida!!!! >>>War with Al-Quaida in wrong place (Iraq) to placate and divert attention form the Saudis>Back to square one!!!!!

It's the war stupid!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Neo1153 | June 12, 2008 6:38 AM | Report abuse

first of all when obama becomes president he will put a stop to the huge windfall record breaking history making tax cuts for the wealthy.2nd,the tax cuts the wealthy got was stolen from the american peoples surplus in social security trust funds of 5.8 trillion,the rich and powerfull had cheney and bush and the republicans steal that money in order to give them 2.5 trillion dollar tax cuts.3rd,where did alot of that war supplemental money go,because so far more than 600 billion in supplementals will be spent on this war in iraq by the end of this year.then spent over 2.5 trillion dollars on the pentagon budgets the past 7yrs,plus gave the rich more tax cuts in certain bills passed in congress the past 5yrs.medicaire an medicaid are over 40 trillion in debt,usa debt 9.4 trillion in debt,social security and pension trust funds are over 5 trillion in debt.taxes are high on gas,oil,heat,electricity,housing,land and property,vehicles,healthcare,food and minimum wage has remained stagnant.this is all happening under cheney and bushs watch,and the rest of the republicans.we are 60 trillion in debt and penny pinched from every direction by bush and cheney to make the richer richer and the poor poorer as time goes on.

Posted by: apeaslee | June 12, 2008 6:44 AM | Report abuse

To: John-Michael | June 11, 2008 5:59 PM

Go to the 2007 Federal Tax Rate Schedules
Link Below:
http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=164272,00.html
------------------------------------------
This conversation is about federal taxes, not "State Taxes" or "Property Taxes" which are controlled by the State. Also, FICA at 15.3% is for self employed. You needed to be clearer. Hey, I'm with you, you are being taxed to a slow death. The bottom line question is what is going to be done to ease your situation and as I see it, with what is currently on the table, it will not be voting for McCain.
As for reduced spending, a big nut is Iraq and Obama is cutting while McCain will be spending. In the area of earmarks and entitlements McCain should be good.
Good luck and be well.

Posted by: vcsmith | June 12, 2008 7:14 AM | Report abuse

To CP Cook. I don't agree with everything that you say, but your argument is reasoned and made me consider my own view.

The whole debate on progressive taxation will clearly go on and on, but my view is that tax systems should be based on the veil of ignorance. As a wise man once said (on the West Wing I think) "take someone who has no idea about what they are going to be in life and ask them to design a tax system".

I lived and worked in Germany for a couple of years and at first I was shocked at the amount of tax I paid. Once income tax and all the social contributions had been taken, I was left with about 55% of my gross salary every month. However, with time I realised that it wasn't too bad, because I was actually getting decent value from my tax payments. Great healthcare, trains that run on time, lots of police on the street and all the other cliches. I guess one of the reasons that a lot of people begrudge paying taxes is that they feel they don't get good value back.

Who can say if nationalised health care would be better than the private system at the moment. If you look at the UK, their system is ok at a basic level, but lots of people supplement the national health with their own private schemes, because waiting times for operation are quite long.

I guess this pontification is leading me in the direction of thinking that if you want to have low taxes, you've got to get rid of the federal government, the national military and of course the pork barrel buffet. Let everyone choose their own service provider for everything. I'm not sure that would leave you with more money in your pocket at the end of the month though.

Posted by: Ant | June 12, 2008 7:27 AM | Report abuse

Ant:

Good points, but please consider if we LIMIT the federal government to the powers actually granted under the Constitution, we wouldn't even need an income tax. Even that racist kook, Ron Paul, has that right.

Posted by: JakeD | June 12, 2008 8:05 AM | Report abuse

To Kay Decker and Jeff S, I am taken by your point counterpoint arguments on the economy and taxes. It demonstrates how divisive the country is on the issues. For Jeff, who has experienced and lived through his issues as a business owner, you have my respect. For Kay, your points are presented based on the current record (both Democrats and Republicans share the blame) and the assumption that our economy will improve with a Democratic president. I am an Independent and hope for leadership on either side of the aisle that steps up to the plate and clearly addresses how the economy can improve given our current policies. Make no mistake, Congress is as important as the presidency in leading the nation forward. And this Congress has been an abject failure. Ethanol's failed promise, farm subsidies at a time when farmers are fairing better than average, cap and trade climate control act, and lack of an energy policy are all giving me the jitters. Regardless of who is president, we are in for some hard times with this Congress.

Posted by: Pete S | June 12, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Kick the bums out!!!

http://www.cindyforcongress.org

Posted by: JakeD | June 12, 2008 10:48 AM | Report abuse

Fiorina was an obscenely overpaid CEO who ran her own company into the ground. She deserves no more than to be completely ignored.

Posted by: CT | June 12, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Fine, CT -- ignore Fiorina, but nothing McCain said above was untrue -- under Barack Hussein Obama's tax plan, Americans of every background would in fact see their taxes rise.

Posted by: JakeD | June 12, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

What I'd like to say to the bleeding hearts out there is, as soon as you wind up on the low end of the so called "rich" tax bracket then come back and talk about it. Anyone could have done what my husband and I each did, 20+ years in the military and then luckily blessed to then get hired into the government, but to be called "rich", what a flippin joke!!! You try to live in an economy such as Northern VA on that income and then come talk to me about where the "rich" line is drawn in this country (and the $250,000 is "per household" btw and not per individual...that's another amount...at least the last time I checked). I ask you, why should I be punished for working my backside off to pay for people who can't seem to stop making bad choices for themselves...over and over again??!! It's not that hard to work that hard, but it is shameful to not be considered part of the "working class Americans" in this country. Some of you people have your head completely in the sand if you think for one second that living in a high cost area and making just over $250,000 per household should in any way, shape, or form be considered "rich." Socialism is not what this country should be about - working hard is - not expecting to live on hard working people's handouts all your life! The "rich" will pay for everything...Unbelievable! $250,000 is not the line to be drawn if you're just going to go across the board. Of course it also makes me ill to think of voting for McCain (dazed and confused)...the whole thing is keeping me awake at night...but some of us will wind up having to vote with our wallets in the end, that's as close to home as it gets.

Posted by: So Called Rich | June 12, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Too many people are confusing raising taxes with raising revenue. Lowering taxes resulted in increasing revenue to the government with Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush by stimulating economic growth. Raising taxes reduces income to the government because it stifles economic growth. Do people want to increase net revenue or punish high achievers? Sounds like wealth envy to me.

Posted by: acdog | June 12, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Anonymous | June 12, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

What I'd like to say to the bleeding hearts out there is, as soon as you wind up on the low end of the so called "rich" tax bracket then come back and talk about it. Anyone could have done what my husband and I each did, 20+ years in the military and then luckily blessed to then get hired into the government, but to be called "rich", what a flippin joke!!! You try to live in an economy such as Northern VA on that income and then come talk to me about where the "rich" line is drawn in this country (and the $250,000 is "per household" btw and not per individual...that's another amount...at least the last time I checked). I ask you, why should I be punished for working my backside off to pay for people who can't seem to stop making bad choices for themselves...over and over again??!! It's not that hard to work that hard, but it is shameful to not be considered part of the "working class Americans" in this country. Some of you people have your head completely in the sand if you think for one second that living in a high cost area and making just over $250,000 per household should in any way, shape, or form be considered "rich." Socialism is not what this country should be about - working hard is - not expecting to live on hard working people's handouts all your life! The "rich" will pay for everything...Unbelievable! $250,000 is not the line to be drawn if you're just going to go across the board. Of course it also makes me ill to think of voting for McCain (dazed and confused)...the whole thing is keeping me awake at night...but some of us will wind up having to vote with our wallets in the end, that's as close to home as it gets.

Posted by: So Called Rich | June 12, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

I'm with McCain and the GOP on this one. Its obviously possible to cut taxes drastically every year while also increasing spending drastically and fighting 2 wars. What's the problem? All we have to do is print more money and borrow more from China. I don't have any kids, so what do I care if we're in a bind in 30 years -- I'll be dead. I'll let you suckers worry about the impending financial time bomb! Anyway, what do you expect from a guy who's concept of money is, "hey honey, can I have another million?" McCain has never had to worry about money, especially once he dumped his first wife for a hot young sugar momma. McCain = the male Anna Nicole Smith.

Posted by: Vincent F | June 12, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

LOL!!! So, I guess Anna Nicole Smith spent 5 1/2 years in a POW camp too?

Posted by: JakeD | June 12, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

CUT the friggin spending!!! WE will drown in debt if BHO gets 1/2 of his programs in effect. I am tired of giving the gov't 1/3 of every dollar I earn!
By the way, drill our own oil!!!

Posted by: MAX | June 11, 2008 1:19 AM

We're already in drowning in debt thanks to President Bush. You're giving the government 1/3 of your dollar right now to pay for an illegal war half the world away which Obama happened to vote AGAINST. Cut the spending you say? How about NOT spending BILLIONS of dollars in Iraq in the first place? How about NOT letting business and industry go completely unchecked? How about NOT providing obscene tax cuts to those that clearly don't need them?

And believing that drilling the ANWR will fix fuel prices is the same short sighted problem solving methodology that got us into this mess in the first place. The Bush Administration's bankrupted morality and gross mismanagement of our country have resulted in a devalued dollar, rising inflation, and a tanked economy. Blame high fuel prices on that. Drilling in a nature preserve is not the answer.

Posted by: R | June 12, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

CP Cook wrote:

"The idea is that should tax stimulus work to revive the economy, the government will earn more (again earn more tax revenue even if the tax rate is the same or lower). The government should use this money to pay the debt, and resist the temptation to spend (Democrats have a tendency to do this) or distribute this money (like what Bush did)."

CP...do you share an office with JakeD over at the Heritage Foundation? (Perhaps just golfing buddies). How can the government use the extra money to pay off the debt, when the Republicans are busy flushing it down the Iraqi pipeline. Borrow and spend is the Republican mantra. Tax and spend is preferable. I agree with Ant above who describes the Eurpoean model wherein taxes are high, but folks don't have to dread medical expenses or sacrifice saving to pay for their kids' college education. It really all depends on where you want your tax dollar spent. Vote for McCain, you get more of the same.

Posted by: thorn | June 12, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

to vcsmith

I used the full FICA amount because while I am only directly charged half of that, the other half is still part of what I cost my employer. Whether the government charges me 7.65% and my employer 7.65% or charges me the full 15.3% makes little difference. Payroll taxes just like health insurance and other benefits are part of your compensation. When the government taxes my employer, that tax is part of my compensation that I never get to see.

I was totally against the war in Iraq for several reasons. While I hate the myriad costs that it has imposed on us and humanity in general, I see the pullout that Barack has committed to as tremendously irresponsible. I would love to have that money be spent elsewhere, but now we have to make the best of a bunch of truly awful decisions. The fact that Obama has refused to admit to the very likely dark sides of his proposal leads me to conclude that either he has made up his mind and is not interested in an honest discussion, or he is blissfully and willfully ignorant. Neither quality does much to enthuse me.

Posted by: John-Michael | June 12, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

R:

Barack Hussein Obama did not vote against the Iraq war -- he wasn't even a U.S. Senator at the time -- perhaps you were thinking of Ronald Ernest Paul?

Posted by: JakeD | June 12, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

The wealthy will always try to protect themselves. At the heart of a politician's job is the (in)ability to convince potential voters that your fight is their own. Unfortunately both candidates and members of the "disinterested" media make money than 8 out of 10 of us ever will. This is hardly a tax increase, so much as this election is a referendum on whether the Bush tax cuts(2001, 2003) have had a beneficial, detrimental or negligible impact on the U.S. economy, and more generally your individual lot. I think it's plain to see that this Republican Party, as embodied by George W. Bush and now, John McCain, think that these tax cuts have created a better economic environment for you these past 7.5 years. But Ronald Reagan comes to mind: Are you really better off now than you were when Bill Clinton left office? I'll take the '90s over this insulting economy any and every day of the week. Hopefully the American people are wise enough to see through the Republicans last desperate pleas to hold on to power, so that they can ignore or hold you down another 4-8 years. My guess is that enough of the American electorate realizes that Hohn McCain, George W. Bush and the Republicans aren't short on ideas, it's that their ideas were never good. Barack Obama wants to raise Barack Obama's, George W. Bush's, and John McCain's taxes, not yours.


New York City Secession 2010

Posted by: legan00@ccny.cuny.edu | June 12, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Jeff S:

You need to revisit Business Taxes 101!

Owning a small business, you should know that capital gains taxes are applied to the "realized profits" on the sale of "certain assests" purchased at a lower price.

Therefore, you dont have to sell your business to benefit from Obama's propoal.

I am guessing your little business model doesn't include investment in stocks, bonds, mutual funds, or property...all of which would not be subject to capital gains taxes under Obama's proposal.

You are WRONG again...Study up and maybe your business could be more successful

By the way, the dems have only been in power 6 months!!! And, your repub friends in the senate are filibusting everything...

Posted by: Yep | June 12, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Tax cuts mean we don't have any money to pay for things like schools and roads and police officers. Sure, you can run out and get the new Wii with your $300, but I bet you'll be mad when someone breaks into your house and steals it because there aren't enough police in your town to stop them.

Add that to the billions we're spending on Iraq and you have a country crumbling from the inside. For goodness sake, the PA Turnpike is for sale 'cause PA doesn't have the money to keep it halfway decent!

Look, I didn't qualify for the "stimulus" check 'cause I make too much. Gas prices suck greatly, but I live close to public transportation. Compared to most, I have it fairly good. I don't have a problem paying more taxes if it keeps the road by my house from turning into a pot-holed gravel pit and I know I can drive to NYC without having the Turnpike brought to me by my friends at Dubai Investing, Int'l.

Posted by: It's not that difficult | June 12, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Mc cain backers are sooo dumb. None of you fools will benefit from the tax breaks he proposes unless you own a multi-million dollar company.

Idiots!!!

Posted by: Len | June 12, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

The comforts of the European system are great, but you also have to take into account the decreased level of quality. If you get cancer, have a heart condition, need a hip replacement,etc..., you want to be in the US medical system. If you have the means you also want to be in the US university system. The state schools in the US are still solid to excellent and are fairly affordable for in-state residents.

Posted by: John-Michael | June 12, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Yep:

Nancy Pelosi became Speaker in January of 2007 -- that's more than six months ago -- also, were you upset when the Democrats in the Senate minority used the filibuster?

Posted by: JakeD | June 12, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

McCain said "every background" not many as you state in last paragraph... wash. post creditability continues to fall.

Posted by: wash. post is lieing | June 12, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

Who is telling the truth? Obama.

Obama is asserting what he will do.

McLame is making a wild and unsubstantiated claim about Obama, and a lame talking point one at that.

Come on, the "Democrats raise taxes" talking point is weak. Particularly when our federal debt is approaching TEN TRILLION DOLLARS and we need to start paying our way after 8 years of Chimpy running up our credit card.

Chimpy spends taxpayer money like he's drunk in a bar. Oh wait, he IS drunk in a bar.

Posted by: Tom3 | June 12, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

"Republicans Should be used as Fuel for Cars... Burned into sludge and used to grease engine parts."

Now, now...our side doesn't make people into soap. That's what their side does.

Besides, Repukes would be too toxic to make into soap or diesel fuel or cheap lubricating oil. The EPA wouldn't allow it.

Posted by: Tom3 | June 12, 2008 7:07 PM | Report abuse

SOME OF YOU PEOPLE MUST BE FROM THE GOOD OLD BOY SCHOOL OF

OLD RACIST JACK ASSES WHO WILL DO ANYTHING TO HOLD BACK OTHER CULTURES SO YOU CAN CONTINUE TO FOOLISHLY BELIEVE THAT AMERICA IS ONLY FOR YOU AND YOUR KIND !!! GET A GRIP ... WHEN YOU LEAVE HERE YOU CAN'T TAKE NOTHING WITH YOU ... ALL THIS BELONGS TO GOD AND I KNOW HE CANNOT BE HAPPY WITH YOUR SOULS SO WE KNOW WHERE YOUR JOURNEY AFTER THIS LIFE LEADS YOU !!! I PITY YOU FOOLS!!!! MCCAIN AT THE TOP OF THE LIST ... RIGHT UP THERE WITH BUSH!!!!

Posted by: Brenda | June 12, 2008 7:29 PM | Report abuse

There are going to be millions of baby boomers retiring, and their incomes will come from investments and or pensions. If Obama raises the capital gains tax, the status of millions of boomers now considered middle class will eventually be downgraded to poor.

Obama just says he will not raise taxes on families making less than $250k. This does not apply to millions who live on dividends and interest from years of saving for their retirement.

Both McCain and Obama have to qualify their positions soon.

Posted by: BJ | June 12, 2008 8:29 PM | Report abuse

"Love your neighbor as yourself."

Posted by: JakeD | June 12, 2008 9:06 PM | Report abuse

That last post was to Brenda.

Posted by: JakeD | June 12, 2008 9:44 PM | Report abuse

Under Obama's socialist plans, everyone's taxes will increase except for those who will receive the redistribution of the wealth of the more fruitful workers. Doesn't the trend toward socialism bother anyone else?

Posted by: Darlene | June 12, 2008 10:54 PM | Report abuse

When it comes to taxes, both sides need to get specific and avoid using terms like middle and lower class. What is middle and lower class? Instead specify the dollar limits, i.e., if you make $30,000, and under, are married you will pay no taxes; $30K-$100K, married, 2 dependents, etc, you will pay xx%; $100K-$250K, yy% and over #250K youy will pay zz%. This way WE ALL know who it affects and how. A simple table should do the trick.

Posted by: Richard | June 13, 2008 12:05 AM | Report abuse

Questions:

1. When has a tax increase on any social class caused a boost to the economy?

2. Who the heck is Obama to even consider taking money from anyone? Re-distribution of wealth....look it up.

3. Since when is making money a bad thing. Isn't that what makes this the greatest country? CAPITALISM......MARKETS......Who is the government to step in. We went to war an gained our independence partly due to taxes on a STAMP!!!!!!!!!! thats right a postage stamp and TEA!!!!!! thats right .....cold iced tea. (or hot in those days). Now, when uncle sam reaches in for his 33%, we just sit here and take it for "the good of society". SOCIALISM DOESN'T WORK!!!!!!

Bush may not be great, but OBAMA IS NOT THE ANSWER, neither is McCain. And guess what, neither party is going to "grow up" unless the people in this country wake up and get envolved. Freedom, Justice, and Liberty for all, thats the answer. Everytime you try to justify any tax hike, you give a piece of that away. period.

Posted by: SICKOFSPIN | June 13, 2008 12:32 AM | Report abuse

statement:
SOME OF YOU PEOPLE MUST BE FROM THE GOOD OLD BOY SCHOOL OF OLD RACIST JACK ASSES WHO WILL DO ANYTHING TO HOLD BACK OTHER CULTURES SO YOU CAN CONTINUE TO FOOLISHLY BELIEVE THAT AMERICA IS ONLY FOR YOU AND YOUR KIND !!!

answer:
Isn't this whole staement racist? Are you stereotyping me?!?!?! Why, are you participating in drawing up social division. I though you marxists were for the good of everyone.

I SAY: GET A JOB, THE ONLY ONE HOLDING YOU BACK IS YOU. YOUR WORST ENEMY WILL ALWAYS BE YOURSELF!!!!!!

Posted by: sickofspin | June 13, 2008 12:39 AM | Report abuse

Here you see the real Republican Party. They pretend to support the war, oppose abortion and gay marriage; but in the end, it's all about their money. You can't blame them too harshly. If you had massive sums of wealth, you'd likely support this President. But unfortunately the middle class has been lapped 80 times by the wealthy, and now it's beginning to undermine the entire economy. The reason why Barack Obama has not been abhorred by Wall Street is because they recognize the need to level things off. And to all these people who keep calling this socialism, fine! Be sure to report your mail man, your fire fighters, your cops, your teachers, your troops. They are all financed by the state. There comes a time when the wealthy must concede, if they want the middle class to retain the purchasing power necessary to buy the wealthy America's goods and services. This is why Obama will will. The pendulum must swing, my friends. If we were to continue George Bush's fiscal and tax policies, which John McCain has grudgingly done to get his party's nomination, we will look like Mexico in 5-6 years. That is not meant as a sleight toward Mexicans, but I don't want to live in Mexico. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, that crazy socialist, once countered critics of the New Deal by saying: "I'm the best friend the capitalists ever had." The alternative is a hostile public with little or no conumer confidence. Bad for business. But to the people earning less than $250k, you're livelihood is not in danger. Were the '90s an awful time? No! You're just afraid your parents might have been wrong and blanket opposition to taxes might not be sound economic policy. It's okay, your pride is in tact. But I'll bet you my tax cut that Barack Obama will win, because big business needs him to win. They need consumers to be confident again. And to all these anti-socialists on here: the ardent conservative/libertarian Ayn Rand once mocked the so-called conservative National Review and neoconservatism in general, by charging that they have no political philosophy, they're simply against communism. This is why they all sound so frustrated on this blog. Their party has lacked a sound philosophy of governance since the mid-'70s, and their cohorts are having trouble coming to terms with the fact that their product is deficient. Take this defeat as a lesson: REMODEL! Hell, even Tom Delay says the same!


New York City Secession 2010


Posted by: legan00@ccny.cuny.edu | June 13, 2008 1:11 AM | Report abuse

What else is McINSANE going to say? He is simply wanting to double down on Bush's NIGHTMARE Economic Plan. He is losing in EVERY poll and has no hope. Of course he is going to lie and send out surrogates to lie for him. It is sad. However, after reading the comments of some of the bloggers on here I see that he must be appealing to those that did not finish high-school demographic.

Posted by: ldsrapha | June 13, 2008 2:49 AM | Report abuse

All these insults and generalizations should stop. If either man wanted to fix the economic troubles of the U.S.A. Ben Stein should be the VP nominee.

Posted by: NeutralMan | June 13, 2008 4:28 AM | Report abuse

Lets be real here people. Everyone of us bloggers in here, including myself are narrow minded elitist(that's a little harsh, i know). But can we quit with the overgeneralizations and name calling. No one hear cares to listen to what each other has to say. We are all to busy coming up with our next smart arse comment. I commend those of you reading this blog that choose not to write. Truth probably is, there is no good way to go about taxing people, we cant please everyone. What people are failing to grasp is the cost of living that varies across our great country. An income of $250,000 in indianapolis can provide one with a nice lifestyle. Where as in Boston, have fun living in a 700 sq foot place. I am all for taxing the rich, but what is rich. $250,000 per year is not rich, it's a part of the middle class.

Posted by: Ian | June 13, 2008 4:40 AM | Report abuse

Ian, speak for yourself. Ben Stein for VP? That's intriguing.

Posted by: Donnie | June 13, 2008 5:17 AM | Report abuse

To: John-Michael | June 12, 2008 4:06 PM

The Iraq situation is a mess. There are now more armed contractors on the ground in Iraq than US armed forces. Each of those mercenaries is getting paid a lot more than marine or army noncoms. There has got to be an exit strategy. We should never have gone in, we do not understand the culture, there is nothing that can be done without a stable government, and that's not going to happen anytime soon.
An orderly withdraw seems to be the most attractive option.

Posted by: vcsmith | June 13, 2008 7:22 AM | Report abuse

The Tax Policy Center has released a report comparing the Obama and McCain tax plans. A sampling:

"If enacted, the Obama and McCain tax plans would have radically different effects on the distribution of tax burdens in the United States. The Obama tax plan would make the tax system significantly more progressive by providing large tax breaks to those at the bottom of the income scale and raising taxes significantly on upper-income earners. The McCain tax plan would make the tax system more regressive, even compared with a system in which the 2001-06 tax cuts are made permanent. It would do so by providing relatively little tax relief to those at the bottom of the income scale while providing huge tax cuts to households at the very top of the income distribution."

Posted by: vcsmith | June 13, 2008 8:04 AM | Report abuse

That's assuming Obama's tax "breaks" even get enacted. The quickest tax break being proposed (federal gasoline) is OPPOSED by him.

Posted by: JakeD | June 13, 2008 8:53 AM | Report abuse

To "So Called Rich" & some others who have commented - who I can easily see making the comment "Let them eat cake" - I don't get you. I'm hearing people talking about taxes and how they will be hurt by the Congress or a McCain or Obama presidency and most of you are making many times more than I am or ever have. You're fond of stating that those of us who are poor are poor because we are lazy and don't work hard enough or because we make the wrong choices. To be sure, some are lazy and some have made the wrong choices, but so have some who are rich. Of course, with money, the effects and visibility of those mistakes are often somewhat lessened. That aside, I'm tired of hearing that the poor are lazy. We often work the hardest jobs for the least pay. I started working directly out of high school. My parents were poor and could not afford college for me or my siblings and we were not aware of some of the college resources out there for low-income families. My parents taught us that you never did work halfway, but gave it your all and I've always worked my hardest and taken pride in any and every job I've had. My parents also worked hard from "cain't see to cain't see" as my mom phrased it. They went from working in the grape vinyards and picking fruit to salvaging scrap metal by using a small hand blow torch to take down an entire cotten gin. I was lucky enough to get a very decent high school education and have not had to do some of the hard labor work my parents did, but again, I worked hard at my jobs - I've put in more than 60 hours at times. I don't abuse lunch breaks and hardly ever take 15 minute breaks. I survived a short difficult marriage, before, unfortunately having to leave to raise my then two year old daughter on my own. I do not drink, take drugs, go out clubbing or engage in any of the other activities associated with us "so called poor lazy people." I've worked, kept my home, and raised my daughter to a very thoughtful and responsible adult of 21 years old who will obtain her bachelors degree in a little over a year (thankfully, I became aware of the Pell Grant for her education - which has been very well used).

I don't think I've done so badly as one of the poor. Yet, I also don't think many of those of you making 40K, 50K, 250K and up get it. I've rarely made over $1000 dollars per month. Yes, most of the time I get a bit of money back during the tax season, but this doesn't make up for the fact that I'm living on poverty wages to begin with and I still have other federal and health insurance funds taken from my paycheck that make it difficult to get by. Do any of you realize how many of us there are out here who live on practically nothing? There's rarely any such thing as "disposable" income, let enough for new cars, homes, or even the necessary clothes for the year. You're enjoying siting the guy who got a DUI and is paying child support (by the way, how is paying child support a negative?), but there are many of us who have not made any particularly bad choices and are working just as hard and most probably harder than the "So Called Rich." What I'm seeing is this pandering to the middle class by the Democrats (with a bit of lip service about the truly poor) and pandering to the very wealthy by the republicans, while the masses of the actual working poor becomes larger. Keep electing people who lie to us and keep giving the impression that you are of the "let them eat cake" school of thought and this country will end up somewhere you don't want it to be - think French revolution. You can only kick people who are down so long, before they start kicking back. Are you convinced history can't bring us down that road again? Are you feeling that lucky and that sheltered? The French aristocracy did and look where it got them.

One more thought for those of you who have "worked hard to build your own business" and who imply that you're somehow better and more hard-working than those you employ to help you run that business, here's a scenario:

-All of your workers get tired of dealing with you

-They go on strike

-No one, I mean NO ONE, crosses the picket line.

-Where do you stand now? Maybe it doesn't matter since those people aren't as worthy as you anyway and you were really doing most of the work yourself during those 60 hour work weeks... So who needs them - right?!

Oh, and the French revolution thing, that 's not being bitter, that's just me listening to the ever-growing conversations of that type around town. It's amazing how quick things can go from bad to catastrophic and we didn't even see it coming - well okay that's what we'll tell ourselves anyway.

Posted by: AsItIs | June 13, 2008 8:57 AM | Report abuse

Just quit spending our damn money and there will be no need to raise taxes you damn ass@oles! Sick of Big government!

Posted by: pj | June 13, 2008 10:01 AM | Report abuse

"That's assuming Obama's tax "breaks" even get enacted. The quickest tax break being proposed (federal gasoline) is OPPOSED by him"
=========
As well he should. A short break on the Federal Gas tax is like using a band-aid to cover a gun shot wound, further, it will drain millions of dollars from the Highway Fund, AND cost thousands of construction jobs over the Summer. It is a bad idea and Obama is right to point it out. jake, while I understand that you post as an advocate for old McWar, I am surprized that you bring up one of his truly weak ideas (especially since Clinton couldn't make it fly) as an example of his difference from Obama...I see the "gas tax Holiday" as a bribe pure and simple and I credit my fellow Americans being able to see it as the imprudent gesture it truly is.

Posted by: Hold_The_Tiger | June 13, 2008 10:08 AM | Report abuse

The government wants to tell us what is to much money! But yet they can spend it all day long, billions of it! Just like they are set for the rest of their life's, are we? Hell no! NO MORE BIG GOVERNMENT, WE NEED TO GET THEM THE HELL OUT OF THERE AND START ALL OVER! WE ELECTED THEM, WE CAN UN-ELECT THEM!
Obama is just another ass@ole that wants to take away more of our rights! He wants the 2nd amendment taken away, did you know that?
Where does it end! Tax us to death and take more of our rights away! I would love to take home my gross pay!

Posted by: Sick of government! | June 13, 2008 10:09 AM | Report abuse

To think we came to this country, so we would not have to pay taxes, what a joke!!!!!!!!!
We need another Boston tea party!

Posted by: Tax to death | June 13, 2008 10:11 AM | Report abuse

"Obama is just another ass@ole that wants to take away more of our rights! He wants the 2nd amendment taken away, did you know that?
Where does it end! Tax us to death and take more of our rights away! I would love to take home my gross pay!"
===============
"I support the Individual Right, guarenteed by the 2nd Amendment, to own a Gun"---Barack Obama.

You do know Mr Sick that your taxes pay for infrastructure and other Government services? How do you think that this Country operates and gets things done? Even your friend McBush can't promise you your "gross pay." And surely you will take advantage of Social Security and Medicare when you retire...or will you refuse them? (Please note that the Government typically pays out more in SS and Medicare benefits than they take in from Individuals.)

If you make $70,000 or less, you will actually pay LESS in taxes under a President Obama...for one thing, he plans a tax credit toward FICA taxes (frankly as someone who is self-employed, it is about time that small business people get a break on payroll taxes.)

And to make it clear: the top 2% of Americans will see an approx 6% increase in their income taxes after Bush's tax break exspires...the levels will revert to Clinton era percentages. Considering that most upper tax bracket incomes grew by 9% last year while the rest of us flatlinned, I think that it is a small sacrifice to ask of those who are doing very well in this Country to pay a little more to get our economy back up to par.

Obama has NOT committed to raising Capital Gains taxes....this is the tax base the grows when lowered...not the Income Tax base; I've looked at those metrics on Conservative websites that supposedly "prove" that lowering Income taxes ups the tax revenues; talk about "Voodoo Economics," LOL. Recently Obama has said only that he will consider raising the rate from the current 15% to 20% depending on the State of the Economy when he becomes President.

Posted by: Hold_That_Tiger | June 13, 2008 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Btw, we all whine about taxes now, but consider that the top tax rate in 1913 was 90%; in 1954 it was 50%, and now, as someone posted upthread, we pay one of the lowest tax rates in the Industrialized world.

Posted by: Hold_That_Tiger | June 13, 2008 10:34 AM | Report abuse

McCain claims that Obama will raise taxes on "All Americans." For anyone interested in the TRUTH about Obama's tax proposal:

"So there will be a very clear choice in this election. John McCain will dust off the old political playbook that George Bush used in the last two elections, and the disastrous tax policies that have failed the American people. I am running to lead this country in a new direction.

We both favor tax cuts. The difference is that Senator McCain wants to continue a Bush tax code that rewards wealth; I want to reform our tax code so that it rewards work. That's why the typical middle-class family will get three times more from my tax cut than the one John McCain has proposed, while nearly a quarter of his tax cuts go to households making over $2.8 million every year. That's right - $2.8 million. That's where John McCain wants to focus his tax relief in this struggling economy.

You know, I often say that John McCain is running to serve out George Bush's third term, but when it comes to taxes that's not being fair to George Bush. Because the fact is, Senator McCain is now calling for a new round of tax giveaways that are twice as expensive as the original Bush plan and nearly twice as regressive, and he has no concrete plan to pay for it. He'd spend nearly $2 trillion over a decade in tax breaks for corporations, including $1.2 billion for Exxon Mobil. Think about that. While you're paying four dollars at the pump and your children's future is being mortgaged under a mountain of debt, Senator McCain wants to give billions of dollars in tax breaks to Big Oil, and opposes a windfall profits tax on oil companies like Exxon to help families struggling with high energy costs.

It's time to turn the page. I will stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas, and put a tax cut into the pockets of working people, and struggling homeowners, and seniors. And we'll simplify our tax code so that folks don't have to work the system to get a fair deal.


First, we will provide real tax relief for the middle class by cutting taxes for 150 million Americans. We'll reward work through a "Making Work Pay" tax credit of $500 for American workers - and $1,000 for working families ..to offset the payroll tax that you're already paying. This will give the middle class a break with rising costs while giving our economy a boost. And because this credit would be greater than their income tax bill, this would eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans. This will give the middle class a break with rising costs while giving our economy a boost. And because this credit would be greater than their income tax bill, this would eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans.

The second part of my plan eases the burden on struggling homeowners through a universal homeowner's tax credit. This will immediately benefit 10 million homeowners who don't itemize - including Ryan and Jenny - who will get a break of 10 percent off their mortgage interest rate. For most middle class families, this will add about $500 each year. And this credit will extend a hand to many of the millions of families stuck in the subprime crisis by giving them some breathing room to refinance or sell their homes.

I'll eliminate income taxes for all seniors making less than $50,000. This will eliminate income taxes for 7 million Americans, at a savings rate of roughly $1,400 each year. Seniors in this country should retire with the dignity and security they have earned.

Finally, it's time to cut through the complexity in our tax code. Deductions and exemptions are built into the system, but ordinary people don't have the time to figure them out without paying for a tax preparer. When I'm President, we'll put in place a system where 40 million Americans with a job and a bank account who take the standard deduction can do their taxes in less than five minutes. Meanwhile, under John McCain, you could have to fill out three tax forms all using different tax rules just to pay your taxes. Under my plan, there's no more worry. No more wasted time and expense. Your pre-prepared return will come to you in the mail. This will save Americans more than $2 billion in tax preparer fees and more than 200 million hours of work.

To pay for this, we'll restore a sense of fairness. That means standing up to the special interest carve outs, closing those corporate loopholes and tax breaks, and letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans expire. It's time for folks like me who make over $250,000 to pay our fair share. I am not afraid to have this debate about taxes and fairness - but let's be clear about what we're debating. If you are a family making less than $250,000, my plan will not raise your taxes - not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes. In fact chances are you will get a tax cut, and one that is larger than what Senator McCain is proposing. It's time to grow our economy by renewing our stake in our common prosperity."==Senator Barack Obama

Posted by: Hold_That_Tiger | June 13, 2008 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Hold that Tiger-Good lord wise up! Obama will indeed raise taxes on EVERYONE, where the hell have you been! Do not put down McCain for original ideas, unlike Obama, his has already been tried, CARTER!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 13, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Senator Barry Obamanation! Go lie in some other country!

Posted by: NO OBAMA | June 13, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

For all you dumb F@ck's out there, the Rich give us Jobs!!!!!!! That right, lets tax them more maybe they will take their companies over seas!!!!!! America how dumb have you gotten?!

Posted by: Dave | June 13, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

We cannot continue too keep spending the way we are as a country and eventually not have some kind of consequences. He is not talking about raising everyone's taxes. Just people who make the most money who got the biggest tax cuts under the Bush administration. Which left the people who made the least amount of money to pay for everything. They forced us too foot the bill. So it is time they pay their share.

Posted by: bridgette | June 13, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

"Hold that Tiger-Good lord wise up! Obama will indeed raise taxes on EVERYONE, where the hell have you been! "
=============
How long have you had your reading problem? Obama will not raise taxes "on everyone," he will let the tax cuts that the rich have enjoyed expire, which will return their tax rate to the level it was when Clinton was in office.

"For all you dumb F@ck's out there, the Rich give us Jobs!!!!!!! "
============
Where are those jobs? The jobless rate has gone up to 5.5% the highest rate in 30 years, and the richest Americans are paying the lowest tax rate they have paid in over 20 years, so when will the rich give start giving us more jobs?

Posted by: Hold_That_Tiger | June 13, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Dave wrote: "For all you dumb F@ck's out there, the Rich give us Jobs!!!!!!!"

It's really sad to see that Dave has such little self-respect.

Dave -- the 'Rich' didn't 'give' you anything. The people that hired you and pay you (whether they're 'Rich' or not) chose to employ you because your efforts provide them with income. If not, they'd fire you. You owe them as much deference and loyalty as the deference and loyalty they return to you.

Dave also wrote: "That right, lets tax them more maybe they will take their companies over seas!!!!!!"

Dave -- in case you haven't noticed, many companies took their reduced corporate tax rates and moved jobs overseas anyway. They then turned around and argued for 'free trade' policies that benefit them -- but not you.

Dave -- who's going to pay the debt the republicans have rung up over the last 7 years? Who's going to pay for the misguided war in Iraq? Since the soldiers are unlikely to work for free, do you intend to pick up more of the tab yourself? If not, who's going to pay for it? Is it unreasonable to expect people who benefit more from our society to pay more for what they receive?

Lastly Dave -- The profanity and insults don't help your argument. People loose respect for you when you behave that way.

Posted by: bobcn | June 16, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

"I certainly trust McCain more when it comes to cutting taxes."

How about reducing the deficit? It's one thing to hand out free money, everyone's in favor of that . . . but not if you're charging it to my credit card.

Republicans have a horrible record of cutting taxes while running up spending, thus vastly increasing the deficit. The rapidly declining value of the dollar today is vivid testament to their fiduciary dishonesty.

Posted by: drossless | June 16, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

As I read all this articles from all these sources it's easy to get confused. What I see in looking at your table is that 25% of the tax decrease goes to the top 2%. I think that is totally unfair.

Obamas plan offers a little more to the middle class, lower income and those on Social Security which is a good thing but I don't feel it's enough.

Those of us in those categories have received little or no increases in our pay for many years now. My father got a 2% increase in his Social Security but his Medicare and prescription drug plan went up 2.5% so he had a net loss of income of .5%.

With gas, food housing having substantial increases it's gotten much tougher to keep our heads above water.

As I remember when the Reagan trickle down policy was first implemented it worked in the short term but we have seen over the years it doesn't working the long term.

Those who where supposed to help the economy grow didn't. They took there money and put it in off shore accounts or overseas investments. They shipped jobs overseas and where compensated by the government to do it.

The system sucks, we need to try something else, and that's why I will vote for Obama

Posted by: Munchkin | June 17, 2008 9:50 AM | Report abuse

McCain Budget Would Create Largest Deficit In 25 Years

Think Progress | May 16, 2008 12:12 PM
________________________________________

Sen. John McCain promises that, as president, he would "cut taxes and balance the budget." But his current economic plan would create deficits as deep as 5.7% of GDP by the end of a two term presidency -- the highest federal budget deficit in 25 years -- and would accumulate the biggest debt since the second World War, according to a new analysis by the Center for American Progress Action Fund. McCain's current fiscal plan would recklessly exacerbate the fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush Administration further by gutting revenues far below the average level of the past 25 years.
For the past 25 years, deficits have never been more severe than 5% of GDP, with surpluses as high as 2.4% of GDP in the year 2000. Under McCain, yearly deficits would increase sharply, beginning with $505 billion in FY2009 (3.4% of GDP) and skyrocket to $1.2 trillion (5.7% of GDP) by FY2017. In 2018 these deficits would reach 6% of GDP, tied with the largest deficits since WW2 in 1983. Current Bush policies would keep the deficit in 2017 to $660 billion (3.1% of GDP).

Posted by: Munchkin | June 17, 2008 10:00 AM | Report abuse

Tax cuts for the lower classes, Tax hikes for the rich? Two decades of that and everyone will be on the same level financially - how much you earn, how hard you work, how much you spend, how smart you invest - will it matter? Who decides where this tax money goes? Does it sound a little like communism?

Tax reform isn't necessary. Tax education and loophole correction need to be fixed. The economic "stimulus check" habit is not necessary. (Why do we need an allowance in this country?). "Free trade" needs a major reform, if not a elimination...why?...it was a bandaid to lower consumer and business cost. The result (now that the band-aid is coming off) is job loss, lower quality products, corrupt and inept Federal quality control, domestic business bankruptcy, and the need to hike our taxes, because there isn't adequate money being made from the trading of goods and services.

Why do we need to take more money from the "rich person" to pay off our government's unnecessary spending? Whatever happened to working hard at what you can enjoy doing? Eventually, if the lower/middle class citizen gets enough tax relief and "stimulus" - they too will save enough to become "rich". This is a free capitalistic style country...meaning we can work as much as we want to buy whatever we want.

The people who enjoy their jobs spent time, energy, and money (financial assistance, goverment programs, loans) to eventually make decent money. It doesn't always "take money to make money". Once a "rich person" has the money...they spend alot of that money - re-investing it into the economy by buying the expensive toys, growing a business, or saving/investing for their own and their families futures. It's everyone's dream to be secure...but what is financial security anyway?

What's wrong with being a "rich" person? The tax loopholes that allow a "rich" person to shuffle funds enough to not have to pay as much tax as necessary...lowering corporate taxes? Good idea for the small corporations, but where do you think the uber rich guy's money is stored at? In that nice little loophole. How much tax will corporate owners have to pay when they sell the corporation?

Ah well, maybe we should all stop typing these sob stories, go out and educate ourselves and actually work toward making this country and ourselves profitable and marketable again.

Posted by: jargoning | June 18, 2008 2:49 AM | Report abuse

Sorry, guys, but I have to go golfing this morning. Capital gains CAN impact even those lower class people when they are forced to sell assets to pay for child support and/or liquor.Posted by: JakeD | June 11, 2008 8:52 AM

ROFL. If this is the best reason McCain apologists can come up with about how capital gains taxes will affect "lower class" people, Obama has the election in his pocket!

JakeD, for your information, most "lower class" people are not DRUNK or NEED to pay CHILD SUPPORT. Like a typical Republican hack, you profile anyone who earns less than ....$30K as either drunk or a deadbeat parent. BTW, in case you haven't already made it clear, what is your definition of "lower class".

And these idiots call Obama an "Elitist"???

Posted by: Anonymous | June 20, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

I am neither Republican nor an idiot. Although the official poverty line is drawn far shorter than $30,000, I have no problem conceding that is lower class, especially for families and within most of the U.S. -- I was not the one who brought up child support and drinking though -- there were certainly some people last year with AGI less than $30,000 who paid capital gains tax for whatever purpose they sold their assets. Any more questions?

Posted by: JakeD | June 23, 2008 6:20 AM | Report abuse

JakeD: You completely missed the point of the article, didn't you? McCain is being deliberately deceptive. He is making dumb people like you think that everyone will be worse off from Obama's tax plan, when in fact the opposite is true. He used carefully chosen misleading words to make people think one thing without committing to a deliberate lie since those who are smart enough to read his words can figure out that he covered himself. Making people believe a lie without explicitly saying the lie has LONG been a tactic of Republican politicians, especially G.W. Bush. I'm disappointed that McCain had to stoop to the level of the Bush administration. I thought he was better than a typical Republican, but more and more I am finding out he is not.

Posted by: William | June 24, 2008 11:02 PM | Report abuse

William:

Sorry I missed your post. Are you saying that Obama's latest position on retroactive immunity for telephone companies, public financing, and the death penalty are what you endorse?

Also, I was not aware that people who graduated at the top of their class from Stanford Law could properly be classified as "dumb". Thanks for the information.

Posted by: JakeD | June 26, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

The last available statistics show that in 2005 The top 1% of income earners paid 33.7% of Federal Income Taxes the top 5% of income earners paid 53.8% and the top 50% paid 94% of Federal Income Taxes. I certainly am not in the top 50%. I use the roads, schools and most other facilities paid for by tax money and I do not expect a free ride. Being in the lower 50% that is responsible for only 6% of the taxes is a pretty good deal. If Obama wants change he should do more than mess with tax brackets----how about a flat tax or consumption tax?? If the American Public would wake up and really pay attention to the billions of dollars our Senators and Congressmen (on both sides of the isle)vote on "Pork Barrel" spending, we not only would reduce taxes for all income levels, our deficit would disappear, our dollar would remain strong and all would be good. Instead of voting on spending that is in the publics best interest, our elected officials find ways to take care of special interests (one of which is the linings of their own pockets) I challenge each of you to study the spending of your own state Senators and Congressmen and then vote them in or out, not based upon which party you belong to but on what is best for the country. I suggest that a large majority of incumbents would soon be out of office.

Posted by: Eric | June 26, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse

Both candidates and parties are full of BS and both are enemies of the middle class.
Obama will do more for the poor, but not too much. He does not want to break their dependence on the Democrat party. If they get too successful they might vote Republican- GASP-hence the need to import the dregs from the third world to keep the "victims" coming.
The Republicans like the cheap labor- that's why many of them support Third World immigration (legal and illegal) and also outsourcing of middle class jobs to overseas locations.
Who loses? Obviously the lower and middle classes. Who wins? The rich and the illegal immigrant advocate extremists. The Rich and the far left are the only winners.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2008 3:04 AM | Report abuse

Both candidates and parties are full of BS and both are enemies of the middle class.
Obama will do more for the poor, but not too much. He does not want to break their dependence on the Democrat party. If they get too successful they might vote Republican- GASP-hence the need to import the dregs from the third world to keep the "victims" coming.
The Republicans like the cheap labor- that's why many of them support Third World immigration (legal and illegal) and also outsourcing of middle class jobs to overseas locations.
Who loses? Obviously the lower and middle classes. Who wins? The rich and the illegal immigrant advocate extremists. The Rich and the far left are the only winners.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2008 3:04 AM | Report abuse

Both candidates and parties are full of BS and both are enemies of the middle class.
Obama will do more for the poor, but not too much. He does not want to break their dependence on the Democrat party. If they get too successful they might vote Republican- GASP-hence the need to import the dregs from the third world to keep the "victims" coming.
The Republicans like the cheap labor- that's why many of them support Third World immigration (legal and illegal) and also outsourcing of middle class jobs to overseas locations.
Who loses? Obviously the lower and middle classes. Who wins? The rich and the illegal immigrant advocate extremists. The Rich and the far left are the only winners.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2008 3:04 AM | Report abuse

Both candidates and parties are full of BS and both are enemies of the middle class.
Obama will do more for the poor, but not too much. He does not want to break their dependence on the Democrat party. If they get too successful they might vote- GASP! Republican- hence the need to import the dregs (among others) from the third world to keep the "victims" coming.
The Republicans like the cheap labor- that's why many of them support Third World immigration (legal and illegal) and also outsourcing of middle class jobs to overseas locations.
Who loses? Obviously the lower and middle classes. Who wins? The rich and the illegal immigrant advocate extremists. The Rich and the far left are the only winners.

Posted by: Bruce | June 27, 2008 3:07 AM | Report abuse

rz86qghqtjuo5g7 http://www.691995.com/683298.html > jo99uwa9a3gfgij [URL=http://www.658086.com/1009784.html] trng4f7bekp3m2 [/URL] 1nui1k8z001

Posted by: kr6y01etjw | August 16, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Obama wil LOWER capital gains on small business to ZERO. OBAMA will REDUCE capital gains to below the 1/3 below the rate of Reagan even for the RICHEST 2% of americans.

The middle class and poor will have almost no capital gains tax and will not increase it.

Posted by: Pulsar | August 17, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company