Obama Tax Cuts

[walter4]

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/09/the_mccain_tax_increasescontin.html

"Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former Director of the Congressional Budget Office and current chief McCain economic advisor, is an honest man--which means he's something of a liability on the Straight Talk Express. A few months ago, he admitted to my colleague, Michael Scherer, that Barack Obama's economic plan would reduce taxes for most people. And now, in a forthcoming book by Fortune columnist Matt Miller, he makes it clear that the next President is going to have to raise taxes.

"If you do nothing on the spending side, you're going to have to raise taxes whether you're a Republican, a Democrat or a Martian," he tells Miller...and then he immediately makes it clear that the "spending side" part of the argument is nothing more than a political fig-leaf."

 

[jamis359]

Quote from bone:

McCain clearly wants the highest bracket earners to keep more of their income.

McCain clearly wants to preserve the status quo, which is a back door redistribution of income from the middle to the top.

 

[MKTrader]

Yeah, the FEMA trailer crowd just loves Obama, and they'll demand every penny they can get if he's elected.

A bunch of them were in my city durng the Gustav scare. They were on the local TV stations complaining about the free food they received and demanding "spendin' money."

I have little hope either party will cut spending, which is desperately needed, but Obama will definitely send huge sums into sinkholes.

Quote from bone:

From the Tax Policy Center's August 28, 2008 Presidential Candidate Tax Policy Position Summary Report, which is cited as a central tenet in the 'Obama Tax Cut Calculator': "... without substantial cuts in government spending, both plans would sharply increase the national debt."

Obama clearly wants to spend a whole lot more in Federal Programs than McCain does, and McCain clearly wants the highest bracket earners to keep more of their income. In my opinion, it's a matter of wealth redistribution semantics: McCain believes that upper bracket tax payers will re-invest that money back into the economy as capital investments, and Obama believes that upper tax bracket wealth should be redistributed to the low and middle-class income payers, where those funds would be used as supplemental living expenses.

What I find fascinating is that if you put in a low income and multiple dependents into the Obama Tax Calculator, they receive a 'Tax Cut'. So, if a person is on public assistance, or receives income from 'untaxed means' (I'm trying to be polite here), all they have to do is file a return with the IRS and show very little (if any) taxable income to receive a check from the IRS. Remember, Welfare Payments are not taxable and Social Security Payments have an incredibly modest taxable threshold.

So, since Obama wants to increase the amount and eligibility of welfare payments, and also give those citizens a lump sum 'Tax Credit' payment that is far larger than any taxes they pay out is ridiculous. On top of that, Obama wants to really grow the Federal Government. McCain, on the other hand, wants to give top-bracket earners more money back and not specify what they should do with it to help the country's economy - renovate the summer home in the Hamptons perhaps? He should just cut the capital gains tax and leave the brackets alone, or at least only give tax credits for capital investments in American companies.

 

[dafugginman]

it's not always clear, and each person's platform seems to be "evolving" to put it nicely. last i heard, Obama's proposal brings back the marriage tax penalty. so if you're thinking about getting married, keep in mind that if you stay separate you can make under 400k together without getting the top rate, 250k for getting married.

he will probably cut corporate taxes, given they are among the highest in the world, making it more competitive to start a C corp than an LLC for example.

small businesses use pass through entities, like LLCs. so small businesses that are making over 250k are going to get hit pretty bad. philosophically speaking, it doesn't make a lot of sense to treat them like the uber rich. and finally, small businesses employ north of 80% of the work force, yet we're going to increase taxes on them? what is that going to do the employment rate.

the end is that the large corporation gets a tax cut, and the small businessman will get a tax increase. theoretically sounding policies such as large health insurance mandates, easy lawsuits, the costs of increased regulation matter more to a small business person, start up, than a large corporation like MSFT who can easily burden these costs.small businesses always seem to get left out of the equation, despite how vital they are. to the economy.

course, there is also that ominous stat that no one has increased taxes during a recession since hoover, contributed to the great depression.

 

[thesharpone]

Quote from gnome:

Osama likely to achieve his ultimate goal... to destroy the US. Not that he and his minions are going to defeat us in combat, but rather "one attack and we destroy ourselves [financially]"..

New rules would give FBI more freedom in US operations

September 13, 2008

"Agents would be allowed to conduct physical surveillance in a public location, recruit and deploy informants, and conduct interviews without identifying themselves."


they get more power by the day and the average person gets weaker, but you know what your neighbor would say about this; well this is not about me, it's about the terrorists, we are fighting the terrorists, just goes to show the level of stupidity, what terrorists, it's the terrorists passing these laws, and you and your even stupider children are the target, but I could care less, I hate the average person, they deserve worse

 

[matgallis]

Quote from jamis359:

McCain clearly wants to preserve the status quo, which is a back door redistribution of income from the middle to the top.

You can only distribute income from lower to upper classes by lower income classes spending money. It's a choice.

Taxes are a post-income liability, this money isn't directly given to upperclass, as upper-class tax liability is also a direct liability from their efforts.

If they make less, they contribute less. There's no "free" money for upperclass, just more benefit to keep reinvesting into American payroll and American Jobs. Suit yourself if you don't want a bi-weekly payroll.

The upper classes are able to collect through the poor spending and saving habits of the lower class. It's not hard to survive in America with basic essentials, like housing, food, water. What makes it difficult is the lower-class is a pipe-dream of being rich without sacrifice or work. They meet this pipe-dream through over-consumption and poor priorities. I saw it everyday during my college years.

This is one quality difference between those who have, and those who don't. The upperclass understands this, where the lowerclass is too ignorant to comprehend.

 

[jonbig04]

Quote from matgallis:

. The upperclass understands this, where the lowerclass is too ignorant to comprehend.

you do realize that in the context of obamas tax cuts, the upper class i the top 5%, the lower is all the rest....

 

[Coolio]

HA! My family usually does not have to pay any taxes due to our modest income, kids, huge mortgage and wifey in college and I'm still getting $1,400 more.

My tax bill will go from the normal $0 to -$1400.

That's a pretty good deal. I should work less and try to get even more.

 

[droskill]

Quote from Broco:


America has the second-highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world, with a federal rate of 35 percent--rising to 40 percent on average with income taxes. The average corporate tax rate in the European Union countries is 24 percent. Even India and China have lower corporate tax rates. Ireland adopted a 12.5 percent corporate tax rate 20 years ago. Since then per capita income has soared from the second-lowest in the EU to the second-highest.

This is a bunch of misleading statistics - you're quoting the statutory tax rate which can be as high as 40%. However, just about no corporations pay that rate due to deductions and depreciation. The average rate for a corporation, if they pay taxes at all, is around 6%.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/08/the-greek-menac.html

You're also quoting an average tax rate, for your comparison, that includes both developed and undeveloped countries. The US tax rate is, at the statutory level, average for developed nations.

 

[trader_arb]

Quote from droskill:

This is a bunch of misleading statistics - you're quoting the statutory tax rate which can be as high as 40%. However, just about no corporations pay that rate due to deductions and depreciation. The average rate for a corporation, if they pay taxes at all, is around 6%.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/08/the-greek-menac.html

You're also quoting an average tax rate, for your comparison, that includes both developed and undeveloped countries. The US tax rate is, at the statutory level, average for developed nations.

You'll notice the blog title is 'economist view' as in OPINION. Judging by his webpage he is a hardcore liberal so i would dismiss anything he writes as biased.

US corporate tax rate (effective) are relatively high, and therefore large US corporations have outsourced services and manufacturing to more tax-friendly countries. Ireland has a tax rate for manufacturing of 10%, and this is where many transfer pricing issues are happening (Why would US companies outsource to a higher effective tax country), so your article is misleading...

The other statistic you have to take into account is companies that aren't profitable (like GM has deferred tax assets for decades to come because they have no taxable income) and corporations that are pass-through entities that pass income to shareholders.