Tax Plans: Will you benefit?

[Koga No Goshi]

This is from Deloitte, one of the "big 5" of major American accounting firms.

https://i414.photobucket.com/albums/pp223/halogrinder_album/ObamavsMcCanTaxPlans.jpg

[Strike For The South]

I stock shelves in a grocery store or work with tiny mexican children at the Y. Come to think of it due to the fact I just went to college Im unemployed. No politician cares about me:juggle2:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Neither, as I don't live in America. I'd be more inclined to support McCain's plan, however.

[Koga No Goshi]

Neither, as I don't live in America. I'd be more inclined to support McCain's plan, however.

I get the impression you're rich.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I get the impression you're rich.

Middle class. Comfortable, not even close to rich, not even close to poor.

[Koga No Goshi]

Middle class. Comfortable, not even close to rich, not even close to poor.

Everyone defines rich differently. Your description doesn't give me any frame of reference (which is fine, you are of course entitled to your privacy.) But if you aren't rich, and just think cutting rich taxes stimulates the economy and trickledown and all that, I wonder where it is. We've had 8 years for it to start kicking in.

[Hosakawa Tito]

The graph leaves out a sizable part of the upper middle class. Going from a family of 4 making $80,000 to a family of 4 making $430,000 that's quite a big jump. I live in the Vampire...er...Empire State of New York, what the Feds don't take the State or multiple layers of county/city/village/town does. With the coming financial storm on Wall Street guess which State loses the most in income taxes? Yes, dear old New York. I doubt either Federal Tax Plan will help me.

[Koga No Goshi]

The graph leaves out a sizable part of the upper middle class. Going from a family of 4 making $80,000 to a family of 4 making $430,000 that's quite a big jump. I live in the Vampire...er...Empire State of New York, what the Feds don't take the State or multiple layers of county/city/village/town does. With the coming financial storm on Wall Street guess which State loses the most in income taxes? Yes, dear old New York. I doubt either Federal Tax Plan will help me.

ALL the graphs do that, I chose this one because this was the only one I found that specified differences between single/married/with kids, and I know we have a mix of all of that here. (I did notice, as a side note, that the graphs they use on right-wing blog sites only shows pure, overall tax increase percentages without specifying WHO would get those increases, so of course the conclusion is OMG Obama is raising everyone's taxes 36%!!!!! COMMUNISM!)

Example:
http://www.nocommunism.com/Obama_tax_hikes.jpg

But since under McCain there is no change up to 430,000 and Obama's change is , relatively, insignificant at 12,000 increase at 430,000, one would assume if you make like 250 or 300 you'll stay the same or perhaps see a small increase.

[CountArach]

My (very) casual job means I don't earn enough to pay taxes anyway. Besides, I'm Aussie.

[Husar]

Well, I'm unmerican as well but Obama's tax plan looks better to me.

[gaelic cowboy]

I voted Mcain cos that would mean he was in the Whitehouse which is good for Irish business which means jobs for me in Ireland. read on for my explanation

I am not able to vote in this election but as an Irish person I know that ultimately a Republican in the Whitehouse benefits Ireland because its business as usual for the big companies. Ireland is very connected to US so thats means jobs in Ireland for people like me a democrat is not bad as such for business eg Clinton for eight years and Ireland boomed along with US but it does seem that the rhetoric is on protecting jobs. How this would be done I have no idea it may have no effect on Irish companies but it could be detrimental too. Interestingly most leaders of medium to large business in Ireland which obviously include many US companies support Mcain.

[PanzerJaeger]

Neither plan will help my family very much but Obama's will certainly cost us quite a bit. ~:pissed:


And umm.. does this not bother anyone?

http://www.nocommunism.com/Obama_tax_hikes.jpg

I'm wondering what all these people who are so excited about their $600 "middle class tax cut" check are going to do when they're out of work because their employer's business taxes jumped double digits! :shame:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Everyone defines rich differently. Your description doesn't give me any frame of reference (which is fine, you are of course entitled to your privacy.) But if you aren't rich, and just think cutting rich taxes stimulates the economy and trickledown and all that, I wonder where it is. We've had 8 years for it to start kicking in.

Rich would probably be defined differently in my country than yours as well, but trust me, I am middle class. I would prefer to cut rich taxes because I don't see why it is fair that they should pay a much larger percentage of tax. They're already giving a lot more money, even if they pay the same tax percentage as everyone else.

[CountArach]

Neither plan will help my family very much but Obama's will certainly cost us quite a bit. ~:pissed:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=411693

Although both candidates have at times stressed fiscal responsibility, their specific non-health tax proposals would reduce tax revenues by $3.6 trillion (McCain) and $2.7 trillion (Obama) over the next 10 years, or approximately 10 and 7 percent of the revenues scheduled for collection under current law, respectively. Furthermore, as in the case of President Bush's tax cuts, the true cost of McCain's policies may be masked by phase-ins and sunsets (scheduled expiration dates) that reduce the estimated revenue costs. If his policies were fully phased in and permanent, the ten-year cost would rise to $4.0 trillion, or about 11 percent of total revenues.

[PanzerJaeger]

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=411693

Forgive me as its 8am here and I've been studying all night with no sleep, but what point are you making? Less government revenue isn't necessarily a bad thing if it means more money in the hands of the people.

[seireikhaan]

Forgive me as its 8am here and I've been studying all night with no sleep, but what point are you making? Less government revenue isn't necessarily a bad thing if it means more money in the hands of the people.
Indeed. Who needs to bother about some silly debt!:smash:

[PanzerJaeger]

Indeed. Who needs to bother about some silly debt!:smash:

If spending was cut adequately, the two are not mutually exclusive.

[Louis VI the Fat]

People always identify themselves as being one or two tax brackets above what they really are.

It is this, that makes people vote for tax reductions for those wealthier than themselves. Blissfully oblivous of their objective financial interests.

[CountArach]

Forgive me as its 8am here and I've been studying all night with no sleep, but what point are you making? Less government revenue isn't necessarily a bad thing if it means more money in the hands of the people.
I guess our philosophies in that regard are different. To me more money to the people would be delivered through Government programs in an indirect sense (Ie Universal Healthcare means people don't have to spend money on insurance).

[Husar]

People always identify themselves as being one or two tax brackets above what they really are.

It is this, that makes people vote for tax reductions for those wealthier than themselves. Blissfully oblivous of their objective financial interests.

Pfft, I know I'm a poor slob and that's why I want higher taxes for those who can afford a yacht and a ferrari and since I'm sorta studying in the management direction I might have to pay them higher taxes myself, but guess what, I may not be able to afford a yacht for myself then but I'm sure it won't make me miss out on that PS5 and FarCry 6. :sweatdrop:

[Crazed Rabbit]

People always identify themselves as being one or two tax brackets above what they really are.

It is this, that makes people vote for tax reductions for those wealthier than themselves. Blissfully oblivous of their objective financial interests.

Or they don't have such a narrow minded view and realize that soaking the rich may well hurt the overall economy.

Anyways, from a more detailed chart I remember, I'll benefit more under Obama when I first get a job next year, but I support McCain's plan.

CR

[Fragony]

I may not be able to afford a yacht for myself

That's ok you can borrow mine ~;)

[Xiahou]

Or they don't have such a narrow minded view and realize that soaking the rich may well hurt the overall economy.People made the same predictions about what revenue would be lost to Bush's tax cuts- yet if iirc tax revenue increased substantially after the cuts. It's foolish to think it's so simple as higher taxes=more government revenue and lower taxes=less revenue.


Anyways, from a more detailed chart I remember, I'll benefit more under Obama when I first get a job next year, but I support McCain's plan.That's crazy- you're supposed to vote for whoever is promising you the biggest handouts, period. :dizzy2:
Besides, if McCain's plan means I pay more in taxes, it means I'm more patriotic- Biden says so.

[KukriKhan]

Looking at my extended family (4 adult children, 2 grandsons) it looks like "no change" under McCain, and an net increase (but not huge) in tax under Obama.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

http://alchemytoday.com/obamataxcut/

allows an actual calculation


Your Obama Tax Cut:
$896.21

This is $877.52 more than the $18.69 cut you will get from McCain.

:beam:

I guess the site is accurate...$18 seems kinda ridiculous though...

[seireikhaan]

If spending was cut adequately, the two are not mutually exclusive.
Awww, how cute, you think any of the slobs in washington will actually cut spending in a meaningful way. That's adorable of you.

[Strike For The South]

Awww, how cute, you think any of the slobs in washington will actually cut spending in a meaningful way. That's adorable of you.

and you think they will spend more money on the debt. I dont know which one of you I want to take home and squeeze.

[Crazed Rabbit]

http://alchemytoday.com/obamataxcut/

allows an actual calculation

I guess the site is accurate...$18 seems kinda ridiculous though...

I don't trust them - they only give you results if Obama is 'better' for you. Partisans. /skepticism

CR

[Koga No Goshi]

If spending was cut adequately, the two are not mutually exclusive.

Exactly how far back in the world rankings do you want our public education to get?

And personally, I'd rather not have to fork up the money myself when there's a pothole in the street in front of my house, or a tree falls over in the middle of the street.

[Koga No Goshi]

People always identify themselves as being one or two tax brackets above what they really are.

It is this, that makes people vote for tax reductions for those wealthier than themselves. Blissfully oblivous of their objective financial interests.

Agreed, I find it had to believe we have 3 people so far who make over 430k.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

http://alchemytoday.com/obamataxcut/


Non-partisan? Right. :rolleyes:

[Husar]

Or they don't have such a narrow minded view and realize that soaking the rich may well hurt the overall economy.

How? Unless you mean corporate taxes which I either missed or haven't seen in this thread here yet, I do not see how taking more of rich men's private money will hurt a company? You think they will be kick and scream and behave like little babies and ruin a lot of companies to annoy everybody? :inquisitive:


That's ok you can borrow mine ~;)

Thanks, how nice of you. :beam:

[Koga No Goshi]

How? Unless you mean corporate taxes which I either missed or haven't seen in this thread here yet, I do not see how taking more of rich men's private money will hurt a company? You think they will be kick and scream and behave like little babies and ruin a lot of companies to annoy everybody? :inquisitive:



Thanks, how nice of you. :beam:

There are still people who believe the crap that trickle down works. Even though we've had 8 years for it to work and it resulted in what looks like a quickslide into recession. Trickle down is also incredibly outdated in the sense that it's from the 70's and 80's and the idea that cutting taxes on the rich means they'd reinvest it in opening companies and creating jobs and passing the money down to ordinary Americans. How exactly has that been working out when they just open the factories in China or the call centers in India now? It doesn't. Nor are my Nike's cheaper because they're made in China, they're still over a hundred bucks.

[seireikhaan]

and you think they will spend more money on the debt. I dont know which one of you I want to take home and squeeze.
~:grouphug:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I don't trust them - they only give you results if Obama is 'better' for you. Partisans. /skepticism

CR

That's funny, when McCain's tax cut is bigger they hide it in the fine print :laugh4:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

That's funny, when McCain's tax cut is bigger they hide it in the fine print :laugh4:

They always make sure to tell you that the calculation is not perfect - if the Obama cut is smaller than the McCain cut. :rolleyes:

[Koga No Goshi]

They always make sure to tell you that the calculation is not perfect - if the Obama cut is smaller than the McCain cut. :rolleyes:

Look it's not like the thing is neck and neck. If you have more money than you reasonably need to call yourself well off, you get a big cut under McCain. If you are anywhere under that you are unchanged or get a cut under Obama, usually a bigger cut than you would get under McCain.

Bending over backwards to defend a crap policy that is more of the McSame cut rich taxes, do nothing for the working class I realize requires you to make out a lot of nuance to this thing when there isn't any. Only people who make Big Money (tm) face any sort of tax increase. And again I ask the people who are under the 250-400k mark and think that "taxing the rich will hurt companies/jobs",where is your big raise and bonus in the last 8 years under 8 years of Reaganomics?

[PanzerJaeger]

Exactly how far back in the world rankings do you want our public education to get?

...because throwing money at public education has worked so well! ~:rolleyes:

We have a huge education budget compared to other nations that score much higher than our average, so the real question is how much money do you want to waste? Funding isn't the problem, management is.

Until that can be sorted out, which will involve breaking the Teacher's Unions, wouldn't you rather have more of your own money so you can afford to send your children to private schools, instead of giving it to the government to waste on failing programs and non-accountable teachers? I'm just thankful I never had to go through public schooling... :shame:

[Koga No Goshi]

...because throwing money at public education has worked so well! ~:rolleyes:

We have a huge education budget compared to other nations that score much higher than our average, so the real question is how much money do you want to waste? Funding isn't the problem, management is.

Until that can be sorted out, which will involve breaking the Teacher's Unions, wouldn't you rather have more of your own money so you can afford to send your children to private schools, instead of giving it to the government to waste on failing programs and non-accountable teachers? I'm just thankful I never had to go through public schooling... :shame:

Funny that the school system being public is not the problem when it comes to UK, Japan, France, Germany....

Are you saying there's just something inherently inferior about Americans that we're incapable of putting together an equal, high standard quality public education system? :)

And, exactly how many disasters will we need to see before some of you abandon the "private market would fix everything" fantasy?

[Strike For The South]

Schooling is a state matter. I also see schooling as one of the few things a government should have power over.

[Crazed Rabbit]

How? Unless you mean corporate taxes which I either missed or haven't seen in this thread here yet, I do not see how taking more of rich men's private money will hurt a company? You think they will be kick and scream and behave like little babies and ruin a lot of companies to annoy everybody? :inquisitive:


I'm talking about the economy. Do you think rich people just put all their money in banks and never use it?


There are still people who believe the crap that trickle down works.

You mean the basic economic theory that less taxes result in more opportunity for people and a stronger economy?


Trickle down is also incredibly outdated in the sense that it's from the 70's and 80's and the idea that cutting taxes on the rich means they'd reinvest it in opening companies and creating jobs and passing the money down to ordinary Americans. How exactly has that been working out when they just open the factories in China or the call centers in India now? It doesn't. Nor are my Nike's cheaper because they're made in China, they're still over a hundred bucks.

What a silly argument; being old is a bad thing? Marx's theories are a lot older than that.

And you know why American companies open factories in other countries?

Because of our oppressively high tax rate!

Are you surprised companies don't want to stick around when they are taxed more than in almost any other western nation? Does it not seem simply punitive to you that the high taxes and regulations you support drive companies away, and then you want to further increase taxes on those that stay?

CR

[Koga No Goshi]

I'm talking about the economy. Do you think rich people just put all their money in banks and never use it?


You mean the basic economic theory that less taxes result in more opportunity for people and a stronger economy?



What a silly argument; being old is a bad thing? Marx's theories are a lot older than that.

And you know why American companies open factories in other countries?

Because of our oppressively high tax rate!

Are you surprised companies don't want to stick around when they are taxed more than in almost any other western nation? Does it not seem simply punitive to you that the high taxes and regulations you support drive companies away, and then you want to further increase taxes on those that stay?

CR

Hey, those same companies that go and make their loafers in China still want to capitalize off the fact that we're a huge consumer market by charging us $100 for a pair of shoes they spent $1.20 to make! I see what u did dere, let's not enter the land of make believe that we're talking about innocent victim starving CEO's here. There are a multitude of reasons corporations go overseas: not having to follow environmental regulations, labor laws, CHILD labor laws, overtime laws, safety regulations, harmful chemical cleanup, lower wages and tax laws. I'd say that in this case we're talking tax laws are probably bottom of the list as far as the ways they save money by moving overseas; let's not pretend that going from paying $10/hour to $0.50 per day per worker isn't a huge savings or being able to shamble together a cheap factory without following all of the normal safety and quality standards that would be required in more developed parts of the world.

Again, if you want to stick to the ideology, show me where trickle down has worked in a way that benefitted our society overall enough to justify the mass export of jobs and the stagnated loss of real income by the middle class which has been sustained and ongoing since the 70's. (Source: CIA World Factbook.) You can say "in theory" "in theory" "in theory" over and over, but we have more or less had this policy since the 80's (you could argue it was interrupted somewhat during Clinton but it was re-embraced with a vengeance under Bush) and I fail to see the big benefits to our society in terms of employment and quality of life that trickle down promises.

Trickle down, very much like the "classic" Joe water cooler criticism of Socialism, has a fundamental flaw. It assumes that the rich and corporate entities saving big money have any vested interest in using it in a "patriotic" or "civic duty" oriented way, instead of a greedy way. If I can save tax money, STILL charge $100 bucks for my $1.20 shoes, and then go put the money in Cayman Islands bank accounts, move my corporate headquarters to Dubai, and start some telemarketing phone banks in India, and that will make the most money, ---- see the problem here?

[PanzerJaeger]

Funny that the school system being public is not the problem when it comes to UK, Japan, France, Germany....

Are you saying there's just something inherently inferior about Americans that we're incapable of putting together an equal, high standard quality public education system? :)

Yes... for the same reasons Americans cannot build cars to the standards of other nations at the same price points.




And, exactly how many disasters will we need to see before some of you abandon the "private market would fix everything" fantasy?

Which sector offers better schooling: private or public?

[Koga No Goshi]

Yes... for the same reasons Americans cannot build cars to the standards of other nations at the same price points.





Which sector offers better schooling: private or public?

Private, but only because we as a nation are not committed to the cause of equal, high quality standards of education. Plenty of affluent neighborhoods are not dotted with private schools, because the public school systems are so good. Why? Because of a feudal system of local property taxes paying for schools in many states, where all the cities that have money break off from bigger school districts so that their money goes into their school district and no one else's. This tends to create huge swaths of underfunded schools in bigger school districts mostly made up of lower income communities. As with most things in our society, it winds up being a case of those who have get more, those who need get less. The UK and all the good public school system countries have standards and all schools are funded from the same pots, generally speaking. It's funny how once the kids of affluent parents have to attend the same school system as everybody else's, suddenly they don't mind paying tax so much to ensure a good school system.

Your solution: create a few more private, elite, expensive prep schools, let the rich and upper middle class (those who can afford it) go there, and screw everyone else. I might add that this is basically already the situation today. Oh and while we're at it, let's make tax vouchers for the people whose kids are in private schools, so that the public schools are even more underfunded than they already are. I'm amazed at how, after what we've seen, people think that mass privatization would work out any better than a public system. There's NO evidence of that, and plenty of evidence that mass privatization would just result in more waste, and more graft and corruption. Social Security, for as much as everyone likes to whine and act like it's the worst-run thing since selling ice in Alaska, spends only 3 cents on the dollar towards administrative/"bureaucratic" costs. How many private companies do you know that can say the same? Heck, how many private big pension and asset holders are doing a good job weathering the current deregulation crisis, while we're at it?

It's a problem of CLASS in American society; the fact that we like to pretend like there isn't class, and so many people are content to delude themselves that they're in a higher class than they actually are, and the fact that what your class status is has a huge impact on your future opportunities in our society the way it is structured, from which schools you will attend to how nice a college you're able to afford. It is not a problem with public programs, or "socialism." It's a problem with greedy selfish attitudes that "Well I can get my kid into the good school district, so screw everyone else. I don't want to pay taxes, even if it would benefit the country in the long run."

Call it a lack of patriotism if you like. It's certainly a lack of civic duty and virtue. And this model of selfish greed and "I got mine", while defended ideologically by conservative thinkers, has failed to produce the utopia of meritocracy and opportunity and prosperity over the last 30 or so years, as our middle class has steadily dwindled, jobs have left the country and we have lost our competitive edge in part because of our failing education system.

But, yeah. Privatize and it will all go away. Mmhmm.

[m52nickerson]

Yes... for the same reasons Americans cannot build cars to the standards of other nations at the same price points. Yet, Hondas, and Nissans are built here in the US.

Which sector offers better schooling: private or public?[/QUOTE]

Private schools because they have more money. Panzer I would like to see were other countries with better education systems then ours spend less money per student. Yes, per student because not many counties have as population we have.