HELP: how can I vote Obama if he's gonna...

[gornyhuy]

Tax the living shit out of me.
$250k and above is RICH and should be taxed more heavily?

Fuck that.

I have trouble stomaching McCain, and Palin gives me violent diarrhea, but how can I elect a socialist that is specifically targeting me and intentionally penalizing successful people and companies that grow the economy and provide jobs?

Any Strong Obama Supporters:
Tell me why I'm wrong. What am I missing about the Obama tax plan.
Help!

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by gornyhuy

Tax the living shit out of me.
$250k and above is RICH and should be taxed more heavily?

Tell me why I'm wrong. What am I missing about the Obama tax plan.
Help!

Wrong because ... you do not make 250K .

[gornyhuy]

Originally Posted by directfiesta

Wrong because ... you do not make 250K .

Keep telling yourself that. You'll feel better eventually.
My question stands.

[gornyhuy]

Seriously, this is one of the most important issues facing small business folks and entrepreneurs and "solo CEOs" which i'd say covers pretty much all the successfull people on this board:


Taxes: Simpler, Fair, Pro-Growth and Competitive
Pro-Growth Tax Policy
Keep Tax Rates Low: Entrepreneurs are at the heart of American innovation, growth and prosperity. Entrepreneurs create the ultimate job security - a new, better opportunity if your current job goes away. Entrepreneurs should not be taxed into submission. John McCain will keep the top tax rate at 35 percent, maintain the 15 percent rates on dividends and capital gains, and phase-out the Alternative Minimum Tax. Small businesses are the heart of job growth; raising taxes on them hurts every worker.

Cut The Corporate Tax Rate From 35 To 25 Percent: A lower corporate tax rate is essential to keeping good jobs in the United States. America was once a low-tax business environment, but as our trade partners lowered their rates, America failed to keep pace. We now have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world, making America a less attractive place for companies to do business. American workers deserve the chance to make fine products here and sell them around the globe.

Allow First-Year Deduction, Or "Expensing", Of Equipment And Technology Investments: American workers need the finest technologies to compete. Expensing of equipment and technology will provide an immediate boost to capital expenditures and reward investments in cutting-edge technologies.

Establish Permanent Tax Credit Equal To 10 Percent Of Wages Spent On R&D: This reform will simplify the tax code, reward activity in the United States, and make us more competitive with other countries. A permanent credit will provide an incentive to innovate and remove uncertainty. At a time when our companies need to be more competitive, we need to provide a permanent incentive to innovate, and remove the uncertainty now hanging over businesses as they make R&D investment decisions.
Innovation Tax Policy
Ban Internet Taxes: John McCain believes we must make a farsighted, robust, and fervent commitment to innovation and new technologies to sustain our global competitiveness, meet our national security challenges, achieve less costly and more effective health care, reduce dangerous dependence on foreign sources of oil, and raise the quality of education in the United States. John McCain has been a leader in keeping the Internet free of taxes. As President, he will seek a permanent ban on taxes that threaten this engine of economic growth and prosperity.

Ban New Cell Phone Taxes: John McCain understands that the same people that would tax e-mail will tax every text message - and even 911 calls. John McCain will prohibit new cellular telephone taxes.

[buzzy]

Originally Posted by gornyhuy

Tax the living shit out of me.
$250k and above is RICH and should be taxed more heavily?

Because you have more money?

Very simple...

Are you suggesting someone who earns $20k a year should pay the same as someone $250k a year?

[Michaelious]

I think the way they look at it that if you are making $250000 a year you can get by easily even if really taxed compared to familys only on a tenth of that who still have to deal with medical expenses. I'm pretty sure most ppl on the board don't need to worry about money as much as say someone on a low income job.

[David!]

Originally Posted by buzzy

Because you have more money?

Very simple...

Are you suggesting someone who earns $20k a year should pay the same as someone $250k a year?

Oh shut up you british commie

[cherrylula]

Originally Posted by gornyhuy

Tax the living shit out of me.
$250k and above is RICH and should be taxed more heavily?

Fuck that.

I have trouble stomaching McCain, and Palin gives me violent diarrhea, but how can I elect a socialist that is specifically targeting me and intentionally penalizing successful people and companies that grow the economy and provide jobs?

Any Strong Obama Supporters:
Tell me why I'm wrong. What am I missing about the Obama tax plan.
Help!

Yeah it seems like the Dems always fuck up, targeting the poor.

hint: most poor folks don't vote

[SexualDragon]

I never understood the higher taxings of of the higher income people.

It's like there is a penataly for success.

20% tax of someones 1 million a year is still more than 20 % of someones 10 thousand/yr

[gornyhuy]

Originally Posted by buzzy

Because you have more money?

Very simple...

Are you suggesting someone who earns $20k a year should pay the same as someone $250k a year?

Jesus Christ.

NO - I'm suggesting that on a PERCENTAGE BASIS all tax payers should be treated essentially the same, or at least essentially the same within a tiered structure.

Do people making $300K somehow use MORE of government services than someone making $80k? Do they use more of the libraries? more defense? more highways? more public schools?

Of course not, so why should they be singled out and asked to pay a significantly higher percentage of their income, simply because they are more successful than others?

[notoldschool]

Please look at each of their tax plans before complaining. If idiot republicans voted for a real republican you wouldnt have to worry about it but too many idiots vote by who panders more to their silly religion. They say democrats are dumb. LOL

[J. Falcon]

How can you vote for another republican after they have totally fucked up the country?

[gornyhuy]

Originally Posted by notoldschool

Please look at each of their tax plans before complaining. If idiot republicans voted for a real republican you wouldnt have to worry about it but too many idiots vote by who panders more to their silly religion. They say democrats are dumb. LOL

Ummmm dude. Pass me that dooby.

[Odin]

Originally Posted by gornyhuy

Jesus Christ.

NO - I'm suggesting that on a PERCENTAGE BASIS all tax payers should be treated essentially the same, or at least essentially the same within a tiered structure.

Do people making $300K somehow use MORE of government services than someone making $80k? Do they use more of the libraries? more defense? more highways? more public schools?

Of course not, so why should they be singled out and asked to pay a significantly higher percentage of their income, simply because they are more successful than others?

What are the exact increases he is targeting? To me if you're earning 250k plus than higher taxes should be expected. The problem I have, and it has changed over the last 5 years in Australia after a conservative Government and a substantial period of economic growth, but our highest tax bracket 5 years back used to kick in at 50k+ and you'd pay 50 cents out of every dollar for what you earnt over 50k. As far as I am concerned THAT is punishment for working hard, or achieving mediocre success.

I do think though, if you are earning 250k, (and I am willing to bet that he isn't going anywhere near 50 cents in the dollar, correct me if I am wrong though) you have a responsibility to contribute more to the society that has allowed you that success. I know it still feels rough, but consider it charity, humanity, whatever, truth be told if you are earning that much, in this day and age, in America, you are living better than 99.99% of people who walked this planet before you, so that is your reward for working hard.

[2012]

Originally Posted by gornyhuy

Tax the living shit out of me.
$250k and above is RICH and should be taxed more heavily?

Fuck that.

I have trouble stomaching McCain, and Palin gives me violent diarrhea, but how can I elect a socialist that is specifically targeting me and intentionally penalizing successful people and companies that grow the economy and provide jobs?

Any Strong Obama Supporters:
Tell me why I'm wrong. What am I missing about the Obama tax plan.
Help!

It seems you should have that "giving" community spirit. You already have it all... The middle class needs a helping hand. We've been robbed of our american dream. It's time to start working hard for change in this country. etc. etc. etc... I have a dream ... thank you... god bless america ... 9/11

[gornyhuy]

Originally Posted by Chief

(and I am willing to bet that he isn't going anywhere near 50 cents in the dollar, correct me if I am wrong though)

If you consider self-employment tax and/or corporate double taxation then yes its damn near 50%.

you have a responsibility to contribute more to the society that has allowed you that success.

Yes, if I make 5x more than average, then the already-higher tax bracket percentage multiplied by the larger amount of income = 5x (or more) taxes paid than average.

I know it still feels rough, but consider it charity, humanity, whatever,

So now it is the government's job to determine how much and to whom my charitable contributions should go?

truth be told if you are earning that much, in this day and age, in America, you are living better than 99.99% of people who walked this planet before you, so that is your reward for working hard.

This is misguided thinking. Why is it okay to discriminate against people based on success, but not based on race or religion?

[brassmonkey]

name a democrat that taxed the hell out of people republicans give tax breaks to rich people

[gornyhuy]

Originally Posted by brassmonkey

name a democrat that taxed the hell out of people republicans give tax breaks to rich people

Really insightful, detailed, and specific. Thanks for taking the time to post.
Ass.

[BobG]

Originally Posted by gornyhuy

how can I elect a socialist that is specifically targeting me and intentionally penalizing successful people and companies that grow the economy and provide jobs?

the current plan that McCain will continue (republican party economic policies) has helped companies grow the economy and provide jobs? Link? See, that's the Republican's sales pitch. They're masters of saying whatever the fuck they want whether it's true or not and making it stick by pairing it with guns, religion, sentimentalism, fear... The problem is, it is not true. it doesn't work. The last 8 years of "help companies grow the economy and provide jobs" in addition to other obvious bad decisions has not worked.

Under Obama, over $250k you'll pay about $5k more than what you're paying now. Weight that vs. voting in the party that over the past 8 years has ass fucked the constitution, and driven the economy and our reputation around the world into the ground.

It's not to say that Obama is absolutely going to magically save everything but at least he will come with a plan, something different, an attempt to fix it. I'm more willing to put $5k on a plan to "fix shit" in hopes that that will bring more money to more people who might spend it on my services, than I am to save $5k to continue as we're going.

McCain (repubs '08) is like the "instant gratification" vote. "I want my $5k and Obama can't have it, fuck the middle class, fuck the economy, fuck national security, fuck diplomacy, fuck science, fuck the dollar, fuck the constitution, fuck a viable VP, fuck trying to fix things, fuck the truth, I want my $5k and that's it."

[farkedup]

Look into the MANY 0 taxation countries. Costa Rica, and a dozen islands close by... roll back your lifestyle and don't "live large" in the US... Buy an "average" house and drive a loaded V6 accord and party like a rockstar on vacation a couple months a year ;)

FUCK the american government... All you can do is send your money overseas ;) live "average" here in the US since you'll only pay taxes on what you spend in this country...

[gornyhuy]

Originally Posted by BobG

the current plan that McCain will continue (republican party economic policies) has helped companies grow the economy and provide jobs? Link? See, that's the Republican's sales pitch. They're masters of saying whatever the fuck they want whether it's true or not and making it stick by pairing it with guns, religion, sentimentalism, fear... The problem is, it is not true. it doesn't work. The last 8 years of "help companies grow the economy and provide jobs" in addition to other obvious bad decisions has not worked.

Under Obama, over $250k you'll pay about $5k more than what you're paying now. Weight that vs. voting in the party that over the past 8 years has ass fucked the constitution, and driven the economy and our reputation around the world into the ground.

It's not to say that Obama is absolutely going to magically save everything but at least he will come with a plan, something different, an attempt to fix it. I'm more willing to put $5k on a plan to "fix shit" in hopes that that will bring more money to more people who might spend it on my services, than I am to save $5k to continue as we're going.

McCain (repubs '08) is like the "instant gratification" vote. "I want my $5k and Obama can't have it, fuck the middle class, fuck the economy, fuck national security, fuck diplomacy, fuck science, fuck the dollar, fuck the constitution, fuck a viable VP, fuck trying to fix things, fuck the truth, I want my $5k and that's it."

Okay, now I'm listening! Why do you say its only going to be $5k? Is that well documented? Its kind of a slippery slope, but what are the actual numbers? I don't think they've been spelled out really. Any documents/independent analysis to back that up?

[stickyfingerz]

Originally Posted by buzzy

Because you have more money?

Very simple...

Are you suggesting someone who earns $20k a year should pay the same as someone $250k a year?

16 year olds from the U.K. probably don't know a lot about taxes on adults in the U.S.

[marketsmart]

Originally Posted by gornyhuy

Okay, now I'm listening! Why do you say its only going to be $5k? Is that well documented? Its kind of a slippery slope, but what are the actual numbers? I don't think they've been spelled out really. Any documents/independent analysis to back that up?

so you make $250k and yet you dont know how to minimize your taxes...

do yourself a favor..

1) go educate yourself about taxes and corporate structure..

after you learn enough to hold an educated conversation..

2) go speak with a tax specialist..

here's a tip for you...

L.L.C. and no, thats not lawrence conners...

[TheDoc]

At $250k a year, personal level, then you should be smart enough to move your money around, invest, use corps, ect to lower your overall tax bracket while keeping your current life style. Even if you may way over $250k a year - you can still pay so much less tax in other areas that having to pay a small amount more in one other isn't going to break anyones bank.

[BobG]

Originally Posted by gornyhuy

Okay, now I'm listening! Why do you say its only going to be $5k? Is that well documented? Its kind of a slippery slope, but what are the actual numbers? I don't think they've been spelled out really. Any documents/independent analysis to back that up?

My bad. From $227K-$603K, under Obama you'll pay $12 bucks more than you're paying now.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news..._tpc/index.htm

[notoldschool]

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

16 year olds from the U.K. probably don't know a lot about taxes on adults in the U.S.

niether do 30 years olds in this country who make 30,000.00 a year. Leave this conversation to the big folks.

[David!]

Originally Posted by notoldschool

niether do 30 years olds in this country who make 30,000.00 a year. Leave this conversation to the big folks.

You are a piece of camel dong

[notoldschool]

Originally Posted by PussyMan

You are a piece of camel dong

Why is that? For telling someone who speaks to foreigners like they are trash? I find him an embarrasement to our kind. He needs some manners and i might stop riding him.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by Chief

What are the exact increases he is targeting? To me if you're earning 250k plus than higher taxes should be expected.

More taxes, sure. Higher percentage, why?

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by marketsmart

so you make $250k and yet you dont know how to minimize your taxes...

do yourself a favor..

1) go educate yourself about taxes and corporate structure..

after you learn enough to hold an educated conversation..

2) go speak with a tax specialist..

here's a tip for you...

L.L.C. and no, thats not lawrence conners...

Arrrrr.... says the Marketsmart man!

[Sly]

Somebody please clear this one up for me... I read somewhere that a single person making $30,000 a year is essentially going to be paying double in taxes. Double. Somebody like that can hardly afford to pay double in taxes.

Anytime I see anything about taxes rising for anybody, all I can think of is more squandering of money and more bureaucracy.

Higher taxes create more cushy government jobs, help the extreme poor (read: those that abuse the system and never intend on getting off), and make living harder for the average citizen. We need to cut bloated expenses before raising budgets, that is the first step in becoming financially efficient.

[BFT3K]

Are you stupid? Republicans always play the "no new taxes" card. You would think that after years of getting fucked up the ass the American people would wake the fuck up.

What if George Bush ran for office, stating that if he gets elected he would impose a 300% tax on gas - would anyone have voted him in? Of course not, but because it wasn't a "tax" he can say that taxes remain low.

If you calculate the rise of inflation under Bush, the drop in value of the US dollar under Bush, the higher costs of everyday shit, like milk and heat under Bush, etc, etc. it is the lower and middle class that are getting royally fucked!

Assuming it now costs an extra $100 to $200 per week, per person, to exist here in the US than it did before Bush, then who is hit hardest by these changes? Are the rich effected by these cost of living increases? Of course not - it is the lower and middle class!

If Bush promised you that your cost of living would go up, while your quality of life would decrease, would you have voted him in? Think about the big picture.

But thank God he didn't raise your taxes! What a joke!

Wake up!

[Sly]

Originally Posted by marketsmart

so you make $250k and yet you dont know how to minimize your taxes...

do yourself a favor..

1) go educate yourself about taxes and corporate structure..

after you learn enough to hold an educated conversation..

2) go speak with a tax specialist..

here's a tip for you...

L.L.C. and no, thats not lawrence conners...

This is true... I'm sure most people will get more corporations set up and find every loophole possible. More taxes is not going to lead to more money, it will just lead to more creative "pocketing" for those with money. The little guys will still get screwed though.

[BobG]

Originally Posted by BFT3K

Are you stupid? Republicans always play the "no new taxes" card. You would think that after years of getting fucked up the ass the American people would wake the fuck up.

What if George Bush ran for office, stating that if he gets elected he would impose a 300% tax on gas - would anyone have voted him in? Of course not, but because it wasn't a "tax" he can say that taxes remain low.

If you calculate the rise of inflation under Bush, the drop in value of the US dollar under Bush, the higher costs of everyday shit, like milk and heat under Bush, etc, etc. it is the lower and middle class that are getting royally fucked!

Assuming it now costs an extra $100 to $200 per week, per person, to exist here in the US than it did before Bush, then who is hit hardest by these changes? Are the rich effected by these cost of living increases? Of course not - it is the lower and middle class!

If Bush promised you that your cost of living would go up, while your quality of life would decrease, would you have voted him in? Think about the big picture.

But thank God he didn't raise your taxes! What a joke!

Wake up!

Beautiful.

[tiger]

Ever heard that saying you get what you pay for?

Ever considered that the economy might improve under his leadership and you may actually make more money to balance out the fact that your taxes might go up?

[Sly]

Man, George Bush must be an economic super villain. Not only did he kill the American economy (which started happening in early 2000), he also killed the global economy. Amazing.

[tony286]

My friends no matter who is president your taxes are going up. Someone has to pay for the war.
A side note the largest tax increases in the history of our country during peacetime were during Reagan.

[nation-x]

Originally Posted by baddog

More taxes, sure. Higher percentage, why?

The only tax that Obama will raise is the Capital Gains tax... I don't consider repealing (or letting expire) Bush's stupid ass Trickle Down tax cuts as a tax increase...

Here are some facts:

Under the Republicans, corporations have seen HUGE increases in profits and reduced tax liability. A recent study (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08957.pdf) put out by the Government Accountability Office estimates that during their study period 28% of LARGE corporations (estimated as companies with assets exceeding $250 million) didn't even pay income tax and that overall... more then 60% of corporations paid no tax across all income brackets.

Why is this important? Well, the Bush administration, led by Treasury Secretary Paulson and conservatives led by John McCain are mounting a major campaign to cut the corporate tax rate even more, arguing that we are crippled competitively by having a US rate higher than any industrial nation other than Japan. "America has the second highest business [tax]rate in the entire world," says John McCain. "Is it any wonder that jobs are moving overseas? We're taxing them out of the country." But the GAO study confirms what we already knew: whatever the nominal tax rate, US corporations pay an effective rate among the lowest in the industrial world.

Yet the core of McCain economic agenda consists of breath-taking corporate tax breaks. He calls for cutting the top corporate rate from 35% to 25% and allowing corporations to write off investments in the first year. Combined, the Tax Policy Center wonks cost these at over $1.3 trillion over 10 years. Len Burman of Tax Policy Center estimates that in total, McCain would cut corporate revenues by about 50% from current levels. They'll be making hundreds of millions of dollars and not paying taxes. This is no joke.

To pay for these tax breaks, sustain the Bush tax cuts, add more tax breaks AND balance the budget in four years, as McCain promises, will require heroic cuts in spending. Not military spending; McCain promises to increase that. How will he do this? On the stump, McCain promises to veto any earmarked spending. But that is a gesture, providing about $18 billion a year. (And he isn't exactly consistent. McCain often tells folks who defend a local project that it is the process, not the individual project that he opposes.) Perhaps that's why McCain calls for raising Medicare taxes on seniors with over $50,000 a year in income and taxing employer-based health care benefits for families. Working people and seniors will help pay the tab for the corporate tax give-away.

It's hard not to wonder about the pure, contrary, inanity of the current conservative position. Our military is by far the strongest in the world, while our trains are among the slowest and our sewers are collapsing. So they propose raising spending the military and cutting domestic investment. We suffer gilded age inequality, with the wealthiest 15,000 families -- one-one hundredth of one percent of the population -- capturing fully one-fourth of the entire income growth from 2000 to 2006. Their average income rose from $15.2 million per year to $29.7 million per year. Meanwhile, the rest of us -- 133 million households that make up 90% of the country -- divided up 4% of the nation's income, adding about $305 to our average $30,354 income. So conservatives push for more tax cuts for the wealthy, while proposing to tax employer based health benefits. Corporate profits (prior to the recession) have catapulted to what is by far the highest percentage of national income in the past half century. So they want to cut corporate taxes, inevitably increasing the burden on labor. The economic future looks dim because consumers, drowning in debt, are cutting back. So they suggest cutting taxes on corporate investments will generate new investments and growth -- as if companies don't need someone to buy the products they make.

America's strength lies in the hands of the middle class BECAUSE without consumers there is no wealth to distribute. Republicans will argue this point as most are globalists (or buy into what globalists are saying) and if consumer spending in the US is low they will just move their operations to a country where supply side economics works in the short term. Democrats, on the other hand, view the economy from the demand side and believe that placing money in the consumers hands will boost consumer spending, boost our economy and benefit everyone. Bush has even subscribed to this policy in the form of tax rebates recently when consumer spending was so low that it threatened the economy. Just this week, reports of poor consumer spending and rising unemployment caused the DOW to fall more then 300 points in a single day. Obama realizes that the way to grow our economy isn't to subscribe to failed "Trickle Down" policies and that introducing these tax credits will in fact boost the economy over the long term as the middle class grows. In addition to tax credits for individuals, he will also be providing credits to corporations who invest domestically to spurn employment. He will also reduce the amount of taxes a self employed person has to pay with these tax credits... currently, if your self employed, your tax burden is more then double an employed person because you have to pay the employee and employer parts of the income tax.

So... in review, Obama's plan is NOT wealth redistribution... it is capital investment to rebuild our economy from the ground up like fertilizer is to crops after a long drought. Yes... it takes money from the wealthy and invests it in the people... yes it's probably a socialist policy... but placing labels like these on good ideas doesn't magically make them bad ideas for our country over the long term. It's for the good of the country and our people and in no way put the wealthy at risk of losing their wealth... It merely requires that the wealthy reinvest in our country to improve our country as a whole. I am positive that he doesn't expect the rich to love him... but later on they will see the results and understand what he did.

[Sly]

One interesting thing to note... I recently read an article that said in general, the stock market fares better under Democratic presidents. I thought that was interesting.

[tony286]

Originally Posted by tiger

Ever heard that saying you get what you pay for?

Ever considered that the economy might improve under his leadership and you may actually make more money to balance out the fact that your taxes might go up?

you mean like during Clinton?

[borys]

The Bush administration has heaped up trillions of debts for their wars in the last 8 years. Somebody will eventually have to pay for that. Now guess who? Most likely those who can.

Afaik McCain hasn't given any clue on what to do about it. But those trillions of war debts won't magically go away. No matter what candidates are saying now - in the end, you will pay.

[RP Fade]

Well the way I evaluate things is not strictly from a financial point of view, I look at the big picture with elections and decisions in general. What do I stand to gain, what do i stand to lose, overall. Sure it's all theoretical and empty rhetoric right now. Candidates will or will not tell you what they want/dont want you to hear. Like Reagan for example and his 'read my lips, no more taxes' speech and I believe he raised them 4 times if I remember correctly. I've been in this country for 26 years and I have yet to see a president that is true to his word whether it's a dem or rep.

So you may look at it as you might pay more but what do you gain. Or you might pay less but what do you lose. Or vice-versa. I look at the bigger picture because there are other things that can affect my wallet besides taxes, directly or indirectly. And of course we have other issues facing our country/world that are almost as important my bottom line..

I try to think outside the box whereas elections in general focus on sound bites and catch phrases, mostly aimed at people who can't think for themselves..

[notoldschool]

Originally Posted by borys

The Bush administration has heaped up trillions of debts for their wars in the last 8 years. Somebody will eventually have to pay for that. Now guess who? Most likely those who can.

Afaik McCain hasn't given any clue on what to do about it. But those trillions of war debts won't magically go away. No matter what candidates are saying now - in the end, you will pay.

well fucking said. Most of these people think of themselves as intelligent, yet they have no clue about simple economics. You want to play war then you have to pay. You cannot cut taxes and supply and fucking inansely expensive war, social security, welfare, blah blah blah...gotta fucking pay the piper if you want to survive. Fucking socialists want to own every industry and now they almost do.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by nation-x

The only tax that Obama will raise is the Capital Gains tax

So, if I sell one of my houses I have to pay a higher tax. Why? I believe you neglected to mention inheritance taxes are going up too.

I am sure there are others, but I really don't feel like arguing with a wall right now.

Maybe later.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by borys

The Bush administration has heaped up trillions of debts for their wars in the last 8 years. Somebody will eventually have to pay for that. Now guess who? Most likely those who can.

Afaik McCain hasn't given any clue on what to do about it. But those trillions of war debts won't magically go away. No matter what candidates are saying now - in the end, you will pay.

Elimination of foreign aid would help a ton. That is what McCain suggested.

[nation-x]

I think it's Hilarious that Republicans are for "less taxes and less regulation" while wholesaling our country away to foreign investors and borrowing money from countries we aren't really friends with.

[BFT3K]

Originally Posted by nation-x

The only tax that Obama will raise is the Capital Gains tax... I don't consider repealing (or letting expire) Bush's stupid ass Trickle Down tax cuts as a tax increase...

Here are some facts:

Under the Republicans, corporations have seen HUGE increases in profits and reduced tax liability. A recent study (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08957.pdf) put out by the Government Accountability Office estimates that during their study period 28% of LARGE corporations (estimated as companies with assets exceeding $250 million) didn't even pay income tax and that overall... more then 60% of corporations paid no tax across all income brackets.

Why is this important? Well, the Bush administration, led by Treasury Secretary Paulson and conservatives led by John McCain are mounting a major campaign to cut the corporate tax rate even more, arguing that we are crippled competitively by having a US rate higher than any industrial nation other than Japan. "America has the second highest business [tax]rate in the entire world," says John McCain. "Is it any wonder that jobs are moving overseas? We're taxing them out of the country." But the GAO study confirms what we already knew: whatever the nominal tax rate, US corporations pay an effective rate among the lowest in the industrial world.

Yet the core of McCain economic agenda consists of breath-taking corporate tax breaks. He calls for cutting the top corporate rate from 35% to 25% and allowing corporations to write off investments in the first year. Combined, the Tax Policy Center wonks cost these at over $1.3 trillion over 10 years. Len Burman of Tax Policy Center estimates that in total, McCain would cut corporate revenues by about 50% from current levels. They'll be making hundreds of millions of dollars and not paying taxes. This is no joke.

To pay for these tax breaks, sustain the Bush tax cuts, add more tax breaks AND balance the budget in four years, as McCain promises, will require heroic cuts in spending. Not military spending; McCain promises to increase that. How will he do this? On the stump, McCain promises to veto any earmarked spending. But that is a gesture, providing about $18 billion a year. (And he isn't exactly consistent. McCain often tells folks who defend a local project that it is the process, not the individual project that he opposes.) Perhaps that's why McCain calls for raising Medicare taxes on seniors with over $50,000 a year in income and taxing employer-based health care benefits for families. Working people and seniors will help pay the tab for the corporate tax give-away.

It's hard not to wonder about the pure, contrary, inanity of the current conservative position. Our military is by far the strongest in the world, while our trains are among the slowest and our sewers are collapsing. So they propose raising spending the military and cutting domestic investment. We suffer gilded age inequality, with the wealthiest 15,000 families -- one-one hundredth of one percent of the population -- capturing fully one-fourth of the entire income growth from 2000 to 2006. Their average income rose from $15.2 million per year to $29.7 million per year. Meanwhile, the rest of us -- 133 million households that make up 90% of the country -- divided up 4% of the nation's income, adding about $305 to our average $30,354 income. So conservatives push for more tax cuts for the wealthy, while proposing to tax employer based health benefits. Corporate profits (prior to the recession) have catapulted to what is by far the highest percentage of national income in the past half century. So they want to cut corporate taxes, inevitably increasing the burden on labor. The economic future looks dim because consumers, drowning in debt, are cutting back. So they suggest cutting taxes on corporate investments will generate new investments and growth -- as if companies don't need someone to buy the products they make.

America's strength lies in the hands of the middle class BECAUSE without consumers there is no wealth to distribute. Republicans will argue this point as most are globalists (or buy into what globalists are saying) and if consumer spending in the US is low they will just move their operations to a country where supply side economics works in the short term. Democrats, on the other hand, view the economy from the demand side and believe that placing money in the consumers hands will boost consumer spending, boost our economy and benefit everyone. Bush has even subscribed to this policy in the form of tax rebates recently when consumer spending was so low that it threatened the economy. Just this week, reports of poor consumer spending and rising unemployment caused the DOW to fall more then 300 points in a single day. Obama realizes that the way to grow our economy isn't to subscribe to failed "Trickle Down" policies and that introducing these tax credits will in fact boost the economy over the long term as the middle class grows. In addition to tax credits for individuals, he will also be providing credits to corporations who invest domestically to spurn employment. He will also reduce the amount of taxes a self employed person has to pay with these tax credits... currently, if your self employed, your tax burden is more then double an employed person because you have to pay the employee and employer parts of the income tax.

So... in review, Obama's plan is NOT wealth redistribution... it is capital investment to rebuild our economy from the ground up like fertilizer is to crops after a long drought. Yes... it takes money from the wealthy and invests it in the people... yes it's probably a socialist policy... but placing labels like these on good ideas doesn't magically make them bad ideas for our country over the long term. It's for the good of the country and our people and in no way put the wealthy at risk of losing their wealth... It merely requires that the wealthy reinvest in our country to improve our country as a whole. I am positive that he doesn't expect the rich to love him... but later on they will see the results and understand what he did.

Well put!

[Sly]

Originally Posted by baddog

So, if I sell one of my houses I have to pay a higher tax. Why? I believe you neglected to mention inheritance taxes are going up too.

I am sure there are others, but I really don't feel like arguing with a wall right now.

Maybe later.

Yeh it doesn't really make sense to tax homeowners more and punish them more when they did the right thing from the beginning and we need them to be buying more houses right now,n not less.

Punish people for investing rather than wasting money... excellent.

[nation-x]

Originally Posted by baddog

So, if I sell one of my houses I have to pay a higher tax. Why? I believe you neglected to mention inheritance taxes are going up too.

I am sure there are others, but I really don't feel like arguing with a wall right now.

Maybe later.

If it's investment property... yes... but you don't pay the tax on the whole amount of the sale in the case of Capital Gains tax... you only pay tax on the actual profit... at the same time you can offset those taxes with losses (like every investor does). If it's your primary residence and you haven't taken the one time tax exemption... then you won't pay ANY tax.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by nation-x

If it's investment property... yes... but you don't pay the tax on the whole amount of the sale in the case of Capital Gains tax... you only pay tax on the actual profit... at the same time you can offset those taxes with losses (like every investor does). If it's your primary residence and you haven't taken the one time tax exemption... then you won't pay ANY tax.

Stop to think for just one moment.

Are you better off than you were 8 years ago? Most of the people I see interviewed on TV seem to be doing okay. I have asked my son (24) an ex-g/f (34) and g/f (36) and they are all doing better than they were 8 years ago.

Sure, there are people that got in over their heads because deregulation allowed them to get loans they never would have qualified for before then.

So, is it my job to pull them up by their bootstraps because we tried to give them a chance but they couldn't handle it? Why do we have to pay because someone else bit off more than they can chew?

Lazy people will never succeed, and continuing to fund them is not going to change a thing except to possibly bring us all down to their level.

Hard work should not be punished.