comments
Obama vs. McCain Tax Plans: Obama Saves You More
Email
 Print
|
Rich people, watch out.
The Tax Policy Center broke down the tax policy proposals of your options this November and if you make over $603,000 a year, watch out!
If Barack Obama wins and his plans go through as vaguely outlined, expect your tax bill to go up $115,974. If you make over $2.9M, expect to pay an extra $701,885. Now, if John McCain wins and you make more than $603,000, breathe a sign of relief because you can buy yourself a brand new 2008 Porsche Cayenne with the estimated $45,361 you’ll save. If you make more than $2.9M, buy yourself a new house somewhere with the $269,364 you’d save thanks to McCain.
Of course I jest, because rich people don’t read blogs. They get their people to read blogs and then tell them about it as they are being served tea and crumpets (mmmm crumpets). For rest of us, the 89% that benefit more from Obama’s proposal, our wallets tell us to vote for Obama because his tax policy would result in a greater benefits.
| Income | McCain Avg. Tax Bill |
Obama Avg. Tax Bill |
Difference (Obama – McCain) |
| $2.9M+ | -$269,364 | +$701,885 | +$971,249 |
| $603k and up | -$45,361 | +$115,974 | +$161,335 |
| $227k – $603k | -$7,871 | +$12 | +$7,883 |
| $161k – $227k | -$4,380 | -$2,789 | +$1,591 |
| $112k – $161k | -$2,614 | -$2,204 | $410 |
| $66k – $112k | -$1,009 | -$1,290 | -$281 |
| $38k – $66k | -$319 | -$1,042 | -$723 |
| $19k – $38k | -$113 | -$892 | -$779 |
| < $19k | -$19 | -$567 | -$548 |
Incidentally, over the next ten years, the Tax Policy Center estimates that McCain’s proposal would increase the national debt by $4.5 trillion and and Obama’s could add as much as $3.3 trillion.
Of course, this is all in good fun, nice campaign fodder, but until things get signed then nothing is set in stone (how did Pelosi’s first 100 days go… forget the first 100 hours).
Here it is in beautiful chart form (courtesy of ChartJunk):
It does a good job of showing not only the differences in the tax rates but also the number of people affected.
What they’ll do to your tax bill [CNNMoney]
90% of Americans will pay less income tax under Obama than McCain [DailyKos]
The economy: McCain vs. Obama [CNN Money]
Related Posts
 By Jim |
 Stumble It! Bookmark reddit.comTags: Barack Obama, John McCain, Taxes Jun 12, 2008 | Read more in Personal Finance |
Like this article? Get all the latest articles sent to your email for free every day. Enter your email address and click "Subscribe." Your email will only be used for this daily subscription and you can unsubscribe anytime.
I always vote with my wallet!
I don’t know, it seems there is more at stake in this election than our wallets. I’ll balance this with other information on both candidates to make the most informed decision. Of course, it is worth noting that neither candidate can spend a dime without the approval of Congress, so this is all just pretty campaign speak. Thanks for sharing this.
Except I expect Obama’s to be exactly like Bill Clinton’s middle class tax cut that turned into a middle class tax hike. I just don’t believe him. McCain? I don’t think he’s much of a tax cutter either, but I think he’ll keep spending under control much better which will let tax rates stay lower longer.
Mmmmm higher national debt…..
I’m not sold on Obama, but I’m sold against McCain for sure. Tax cuts for the rich? Yea…. we need more of that….. let’s not worry about “cutting spending”, that’s just crazy talk..
The interesting part is that rich people most of the time have people who’s job is to find all loopholes to pay less taxes. So if you charge rich person a lot they’ll find a way to get their paycheck through some fake company in Bahamas. it’s the middle class and poor people who have almost no escape from hikes.
I’m not sure what your point is Slava? Are you arguing for Obama’s plan or McCain’s plan?
It sounds like your saying McCain’s plan is better since under Obama’s the rich will just escape paying taxes anyway. Sounds pretty defeatist to me.
Another Obama article?
Obama’s been in the news a lot since finally beating out Clinton in the longest “car accident” ever known.
As one who will not “benefit” from Obama’s tax proposals, I think we need to consider a few other details. First, even the “rich” today pay a ton in taxes. At the margin, they are losing 50% of the gross income between local, state and federal taxes. Why in the world should they pay even more? Second, what the tax analysis doesn’t consider are the programs Obama has proposed that will cost hundreds of billions a year forever. They all sound great (free health care, free college education, free retirement benefits), until our grandchildren have to pay for them. Cold chills run up my spine every time he talks about “shared prosperity.” Share opportunity I can embrace, but “share prosperity” sounds like something out of a George Orwell novel. What ever happened to “ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country”?
I hear ya, Dough Roller. What we need is smaller government, not bigger. More programs, more spending….. this is not the way. Our Gov’t is so freakin huge and bloated it’s a wonder they ever get anything done…
I am not convinced by either man yet.
I do worry when I hear a candidate respond to the observation that raising cap gain rates actually reduces revenue to the government with “I just want a fair policy”. The current 15% rate is actually 22.5% for most high earners (ever hear of AMT?) so there’s already a higher rate there. Raise it too high, and annuities become attractive again, and that money is locked away til retirement.
Anyone else find the numbers above pretty odd? I mean is a family making $227K in the same league as those making $600K? Most of that average $7000 McCain savings is going to the $600K guy. I’d like to see the numbers with better granularity, every $50K or so in a grid, as shown, but with more steps. Or just give me the new rates these guys are suggesting. Funny, no matter what I earn, every change in tax rates hits my wallet. When I was just starting, the cuts went to the rich, as I increased my earnings, the cuts still go elsewhere. I don’t mind paying taxes, really, I just mind where the money goes. Eliminate pork barrel spending. Fund education and health care. I’ll pay for that.
Joe
I’m with DoughRoller on this one. The “rich” already pay a buttload of taxes. I understand (and embrace to a point) the wisdom behind a progressive tax scheme. But… There’s a point when you just go overboard.
Why can’t we just have smaller government? If government were smaller than there would be less need for taxes.
“Incidentally, over the next ten years, the Tax Policy Center estimates that McCain’s proposal would increase the national debt by $4.5 trillion and and Obama’s could add as much as $3.3 trillion.”
I haven’t read the Tax Policy Center’s report, but here are my questions:
1. Does this take into account McCain’s claim that he will veto earmarked appropriations?
2. Does it take into account that if Obama is elected, there would be both a Democratic white house and congress? Historically, one party holding both offices usually means increased spending.
3. By definition, a tax cut cannot increase national debt. It’s spending by congress that increases national debt. Whoever gets elected, we need to impress upon our congresscritters that spending must go down.
What a lovely myopic viewpoint!
It is a complete urban myth / republican talking point that democrats want BIGGER government. We absolutely do not! Democrats want SMARTER government – meaning gov’t that works FOR the “average working American” and NOT for huge multinational corporations. It has been a long 8 years of almost TOTAL REPUBLICAN CONTROL over our gov’t. And what have we got? MORE government intrusion than EVER BEFORE! Illegal spying on Americans (supported by republicans – opposed by democrats). Prying into our bedrooms and medical and family decisions (supported by republicans – opposed by democrats). Torture (supported by republicans – opposed by democrats). No – Democrats want the government to work FOR us again, not infringe on our civil liberties or give our tax dollars to war profiteers whose work is so shoddy it’s killing American soldiers on American bases with no accountability.
But who are we kidding? Logical and critical thinking were lost to the republicans years ago. Now it’s just Karl Rove trash-talking points repeated over and over ad nauseum.
DemandTruth…
Your have been blinded by Democrats, and brain washed by the media. Your comment reeks of the mindless dribble I hear on a constant basis from my uninformed liberal comrades. You clearly have paid great attention to Obama’s speeches, but have done no real research on either candidates economic plans. Consider, if you will, the topic at hand.
The biggest tax savings in Obamas’ plan is for the 19K-38K/year earners, netting them a whopping $779.00 extra per year, or basically $15.00/week. Likewise, according to the scale above, that same group of individuals would save about $6/week under McCain’s plan. Times are tough for many, but the $9/week difference is not going to change anybody’s lively hood. But every penny does help.
Now imagine if you will, you were fortunate enough to work your tail off through life and climbed to point where you made $2.9mil/year. Under the CURRENT tax structure you pay about 40% of that to federal taxes, or $1.16 mil/year. McCain says 40% of your income going to the fed is to much. So he will cut you tax liability to 30%, or $890K per year. Putting money back in your (the tax payers) hand. Obama’s plan says 40% is not enough, and wants to increase your tax liability to about 64%, or $1.86mil per year. Enough to make a grown man cry.
What do you think those wealthy people are going to do if the government gives them an extra $270K under McCain’s plan? Maybe invest it? Possibly Invest in their own company, creating jobs. Maybe they’ll blow it on house they don’t need like the above article suggests, but at least that would help the housing market right? In any case, it would probably go back into the economy in one way or another.
What would they do Under Obama’s plan? Probably spend less and have less to invest. Definitely not going out and buying property. God for bid they may actually be some sort of entrepreneurial American, who might control the lively hood of some employees. I don’t even want to think of the implications there.
In the end, McCains plan gives tax breaks to EVERYONE.
Obama’s plan takes EXCESSIVE amounts from the rich, and gives SLIGHTLY MORE to the poor. Who wins here? Oh wait, it looks as if uncle sam does, and wait, thats under Obama’s Plan isn’t it. No that can’t be right, It’s the blood sucking republicans that do that stuff. After all, they want an extra $9 a week from some of us.
Taking a law abiding Americans money because he is to successful in life is the BIGGEST GOVERNMENT INTRUSION OF ALL.
By the way, I would get more money back in Obama’s plan, but I’m thinking about the country here, not the extra $200 I would see in my wallet. ( that’s $0.26 a week by the way)
I was responsible for that last post, accidentally left it as anonymous.
Also wanted to clarify that I would get $3.84 per week not .26 cents, lol.
Still sitting in McCain’s camp though…
Anonymous from 9/4/08 3:25pm,
Your do make some good points, however, you cannot say that DemandTruth has been brainwashed and blinded. The wealthy, if they are smart, invest their money and invest to benefit themselves, probably in an overseas investment since republican rule has done a good job of stifling innovation in this country. And you did not address any of DemandTruth’s points about government interference which the Republican party seems to be all to good at.
Quite frankly, I was merely trying to address the topic at hand, and my post was already way to long addressing the current topic.
But I am republican, so obviously I support the inhumane torturing of others, so I will go on.
Illegal spying on Americans. I have to assume this refers to calls made to or from foreign nations being monitored to help prevent terrorist actions. Pure result of the events of 9-11, but definitely a sever intrusion on our privacy. However, If it can prevent one terrorist action that is only fraction of the size of the catastrophe of 9-11, it is a necessary means to an end.
Spying into our bedrooms & medical records? I’ll need some better explanation on how this is supported by the republicans. I thought the democrats wanted the government to control health care. And if you can’t put two & two together, that would result in BIGGER government and complete disclosure to a federal agency of your medical records.
Maybe we should stop all the finger pointing and name calling the has increased exponentially since the Gore-Bush election of 2000. It seems more important to bash any opposing idea, than to fight for a middle ground. It has become more important to highlight every misspoken word, than to grasp the issues at hand. You would think in our advanced society our government would work for the good of ALL Americans.
Unfortunately it does not. This is not due to republicans or democrats. It is due to each and every one of us. The constitution is no longer up held by either side. Lawyers interpret the letter of law, and not the intent or over all purpose of what was written. We live in a world where our laws are no longer decided on by the people. They are decided on by a group of judges, where on most occasions, one vote determines law.
I honestly hold very little hope for us in the near future. A republican win will only mean the power struggle will continue, and less will be accomplished by us as a nation. A win for the democrats in this election looks like it will send this country back to the years of Carter, and for those who can remember, they weren’t good times.
and if you inherit your parents house? expect obama to slam you for 100′s of thousands…after you’re done paying for funeral services, etc….
have any of you democrat morons thought of this? do you care?
Regarding estate tax policy of Obama, you need to first read the tax code. You are exempt from at least $600,000 which includes real estate. Also, the inheritance tax he is talking about is for the very very wealthy with multi-million dollar assets. If your parents are still living, have them see a good tax attorney and put the house into a Family Limited Partnership divided into shares between all of the beneficiaries if the house is worth more than $600,000. There are ways to get around this that have nothing to do with what you might think are Obama tax policies. Federal law is on your side now and you can make the right arrangements now if you have major assets. Anything in an estate is exempt from federal tax up to $600,000 and it might be higher now. They were talking a couple of years ago about $1M and making a lot of exceptions for family owned businesses so they can be passed down. I worked for tax attorneys who do this all day.
this is a silly comparison. rich people pay more taxes so of course their refund under mccain’s plan yields a big absoulte dollar amount… you can’t refund someone who is making $16K per year $200K in taxes. DUH. we should have a straight flat tax anyways… everyone pays the same percentage. why should i pay more taxes (as a percentage of income) because i studied in school, got good grades, paid for and went to college, and saved/invested my money and sacrificied before retirement.
To “get real”: Income taxes are meant to be progressive (that would be the actual vocabulary word to describe what you are complaining about). Your incredibly idiotic proposal for everyone to pay the same percentage of income tax (and referring to that as a “flat tax”, which it is not) shows us you’ve no idea what you’re talking about. That aside, to answer your question as to why “you” should pay more taxes for making more money is simple: because you can. Life is more expensive for people who make less money and less expensive for those who make more. Progressive taxes aim to redistribute wealth because it’s best for the economy as a whole. If you look at Europe, you’ll see nation after nation that charges much higher income taxes than the U.S. but provides far superior social services such as universal health care and even higher education. And they have a cap on how much CEOs can make compared to their employees as a percentage. Now, I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but Europe sure has come back strong economically in the 60+ years since WWII. The Euro is incredibly strong against the dollar. While Europe is keeping its gap between rich and poor narrower, we’re letting our human resources and infrastructure rot. If we don’t start taking care of public schools and health care for all Americans, it’s only a matter of time before face the next depression. We’re in the same boat, folks.
I think McCain is such a butt hole what about the poor people they are people to they need food and clothes too. all yahh rich folks only care bout yourselves and not others. and god want everybody to give to the people who need it the most.
To “for the best”
Taxes ARE progressive under a flat tax system. Rich people pay more because they make more. If you truly want to open your mind to perspectives other than the one side you see now, read the “fair tax” entry in wikipedia, or go to http://www.fairtax.org and educate yourself.
Unless your main goal is “superior social services,” which I think it is not seeing as you are lauding Europe’s economic comeback, you surely want to see the United States grow economically. If you naively believe that we can provide all kinds of social services and still have a booming economy, there isn’t much anyone can do for you. If you are a bit more realistic and realize that any time the government provides another service the economy takes a hit on growth, then perhaps we can begin to agree on one key point: Perpetually increasing the percentage that the highest earners pay will decrease the amount of revenue the government receives from those earners. Read: Laffer Curve
If your goal for the US is socialism, then please vote for Obama. If your goal for the US is economic and monetary freedom, vote for McCain.
And by the way, Europeans see a much lower living standard than Americans as measured by per capita disposable income. US: $27,142. EU-15 average: $16,693. But you see living standard as services provided, don’t you?
Oh, Dave. First of all, a “flat tax” is not the same as the “fair tax” proposal. You can consult those sources you provided for info on that. More importantly, taxes are NOT PROGRESSIVE under a flax tax system as you insist above. Definition of “progressive tax” from Dictionary.com: “any tax in which the rate increases as the amount subject to taxation increases.” The tax RATE (%), Dave. Not the tax AMOUNT ($). How about you educate yourself before you act like you know anything.
The Laffer Curve, by the way, is a laugh. It’s debunked as a way to predict the tax vs. revenue relationship by actual DATA. You can check the “Critiques” section of the Laffer Curve Wikipedia article. Here’s even more for you to chew on: http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2007/07/a_laughable_laffer_curve_from.php
And lastly, I happen to have experience living in Europe and several “developing” nations as well. At the end of the day, yes. Making sure all citizens have access to adequate health care and education actually helps the economy grow. Maybe now as FAST as you’d like it since you’re counting on your (currently diminishing) “growth” portfolio to get rich, but a socialist country can grow in a realistic and SUSTAINABLE manner. See what happens when we have UNSUSTAINABLE and false growth? HA! Sure, vote McCain in and let’s all see what happens when we have a president who is as clueless as YOU! Please! Let’s vote McCain in so perhaps FINALLY Americans can UNDERSTAND why trickle-down does NOT WORK.
Or, we can vote in Obama who GETS IT.
Those with “millions” tend to make a big target – despite the fact the shear numbers of people making much less will always pay the bulk of taxes. No mathematical way around that. Most “millionaires” these days started as “normal” people – if they aren’t still considered middle class.
That means YOU could be the target of the “fair” tax crowd (hopefully). Maybe not now, but isn’t that what most people aspire to and work hard for? But that’ll never happen if it becomes correct and proper to pick the pockets of those who’ve worked hard and made good.
Charity towards others is a virtue. Helping others is a virtue. Both are goals that most strive towards. Have a little faith!
But, I take no solace in anyone’s attempt to forcibly abscond with someone else’s property. That’s called theft… or a socialist agenda embodied in tax law. It’s not charity. It’s extortion.
Trickle down doesn’t work? Stupid buzz-word, and class-bating rhetoric. I own a small (5 person) business. To some, I’m that fat-cat business owner driven only by my own by greed. But those like me sign the paychecks of more people in the USA than all the “big business” Fortune 1000 combined. We support our families too – immediate and extended. The more my business makes (and keeps), the more my employees make, and the more employees I can hire (they get pay-checks, and when they do, they pay taxes too).
We business people do – counter to common opinion – have a conscience. We know we have responsibilities to both family and employee. So tell the politicians to leave us alone. We’re responsible enough, and smart enough, to understand our obligation, and reliance, to family and to employee. We don’t require – and we resent – the concept that the government (pick your party) needs to force “charity” upon us because we’re too stupid – or greedy – to understand our inter-dependence. THAT is short-sighted and myopic.
Jeff,
As a small business owner, you must understand the importance of having healthy, non-stressed, well-educated employees. I have to say, our public education system is a laugh. Our healthcare coverage is going downhill, as I’m sure you would discover personally if you ran into a medical issue that your insurance mysteriously refuses to cover (where it would have covered that same condition in your policy ten years ago).
How is it that a “developing” country like Sri Lanka, where the average individual annual income is only $800, is able to provide basic healthcare for its entire population along with a high-quality education system? My husband is Sri Lankan and a software engineer educated in the public school system (including university) there. I can tell you that he is hands-down one of the best and smartest software engineers in the Chicago office; he far surpasses the American employees. We’re actually planning on moving to Sri Lanka once our children reach school-age!
I say we NEED to to get this country up to par on the world-standard, because we are lagging far, far behind; we have to bring foreigners over to support our economy, and you can see what even Bill Gates has to say on this issue. We are the only wealthy industrialized nation that does not provide some sort of universal healthcare! It is beyond pathetic and Europe laughs at us! But hey, with such a crappy economy they can buy up all our businesses (think: Budwiser) since our dollar is so cheap now! Go Europe! But Americans are mostly oblivious to this fact, because hey– we can all buy $500 Coach handbags now! That’s progress?!! That’s why we need further tax breaks? So we can buy meaningless material crap that makes us feel richer?!
So yes, we need to reinstate the Clinton-era tax structure (that Barack Obama supports) so we can get back on track and support healthcare and education initiatives. (Anyway, if the bailout passes we will need to raise taxes on everyone regardless. It is just a matter of how much on who.) As for the argument for Progressive taxes, I think Adam Smith, father of capitalism, said it best in his Wealth of Nations:
“The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”
Everyone is, whether they like to admit it or not, looking out for their own self-interest. Whether that self-interest be money or simply their beliefs about what one’s priorities ‘should’ be in our society. How about, rather than having such split parties that will forever fight eachother, we run this country in a moderate manner that is considerate of both conservatism and liberalism? Combine the best from both.
It makes me very mad, though, that our government, even under the conservative power of Bush, justifies forcefully taking money from those that have more. They have too much? So what? They earned it, you didn’t. Just because you are jealous of their ability to “buy exotic cars and big mansions” does not mean you should steal their money. Tough luck for you. People can’t handle tough luck because in America “EVERYONE is equal”. No, not everyone is equal. We all are supposed to have equal rights under the law, yes, but not in money-making. Some people are smarter, some people are harder working, some people are lucky to inherit, some lucky to be born in an opportunistic situation… Deal with it!
The poor do NOT have it THAT bad here. They are clothed, they have color TV’s, they have public schools. It is human nature, whether you are rich or poor, to want MORE MORE MORE. The poor want more money and social services, the rich want less so they can keep and increase the money they are already making/saving. If you go to extreme liberalism, you have communism, if you go to extreme conservatism you have a monarchy.
Rather than bouncing back and forth between Democratic and Republican leaders, we need to find a reasonable middle ground. Didn’t we always learn growing up, “Everything in moderation”? Extremes are dangerous.
obame is a were man.
john is a cool man.
Wow the person who wrote this article is clearly jealous of people with money and clearly a socialist. What this idiot does not understand is who provides jobs to everybody. Well mostly rich people. What happens when their taxes go up and their payroll taxes go up. Well all you socialists get fired and your job gets shipped out. But hey at least we punished the rich people eating crumpets and tea eh!!! Awesome way to look a society with a sense of entitlement…government gimme gimme….where are you going to get the money take from the rich people and gimme gimme while i sit at home smoke my weed and paint my pictures.
I wrote it and I’m not jealous of people with money, I was just writing tongue in cheek.
I am not in the top 3 categories. But if those people do not get more money from tax cut, who are hiring those in the bottom categories?
Base on Obama’s Tax Plan, if everyone in the top 3 categories cut their expense. For example, they use their gardeners every other week, instead of every week. Who is going to be affected the most? The one paying for the gardener, or the gardener? Which category does the gardener belongs to?
Yes, the gardener may get a tax cut. But at the same time the gardener may lose half of his income. Does the gardener better off with Obama’s Tax Plan?
Come on people. The “rich” do A LOT for charities. I attend MANY quite often where the “evil rich people” give and give and give and help and help and help. So for those of you blinded by INSECURITIES and INFERIORITY COMPLEXES….you need to pull your head out of your behind and begin to understand that the answer is NOT hand outs from government.
“Being charitable with your money should be a CHOICE…not an obligation.” me
I am voting Anonymous and Curtis for President!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! heehee
Working class,
The ultra wealthy will not need to get rid of the gardener, the middle class will–that would be the last thing to get cut and they’d still have millions to play with! In sheer numbers, more middle class people employing cleaning ladies weekly or bi-monthly or monthly than do the super wealthy, same with gardeners and landscapers.
The middle-class drive the economy with our spending of millions. How many computers does one rich person consume? Maybe two or three. This is why the government gives stimulus checks to all of us making UNDER a certain amount. And they’re thinking about doing it again. If you don’t believe in any kind of “redistribution of wealth”, don’t cash your check this time, and write the government a check so you can return the money they gave you in the summer. Let us all know when the check is in the mail.
I’ve just got to add that I’m sick of hearing people saying that taxing the rich is unfair. Anyone with millions in income or assets is set up with a corporate umbrella where that “40%” tax rate winds up being much MUCH less. Also, people are throwing around random statistics like “Obama will raise your tax rate to 64%”, that’s BS. I’ve been paying close attention to all sides and no where does that come up. Stop throwing around random numbers that have never been brought up, it doesn’t help anyone. The real fact of the matter is that Trickle down economics does not, has never and will never work. Ever. When the rich get extra money they don’t create new jobs, they buy stuff, invest it and find ways to not pay taxes on their earnings. When the middle and lower class get money, they buy things and pay bills, both of which shore up and drive our economy. Clearly we all want our roads paved, our social security available and our country safe, and to do that we ALL need to pay taxes. Reducing taxes sounds great, but how do you pay for the military without taxes? Living with the amenities and freedoms we have in America comes with a price tag, and the more you have, the higher the price tag, I don’t see how that’s unfair.
Interesting responses. I have always thought the party system is definitely the biggest hindrance to American politics and thus the American way of life.
I think there are elements of Obama’s plan that are good…but extreme. In any system, cutting taxes always benefits the rich more because their incomes are so much bigger.
But combining conservative and liberal views to become a moderate and sustainable growing economy…not one with huge peaks and valleys…while providing the people with adequate education and health care are signs of a progressive 21st century nation. If you have cancer, you shouldn’t go bankrupt and have to sell off all your assets to pay your medical bills. If you break your arm, you shouldn’t have to worry about paying your rent or mortgage because it costs $3000 to get it set again.
Most rich people, whether small time very successful small-medium business owner or disgustingly rich old money type, incorporate their business. If it were wise to cut taxes at a point when our deficit is at a record high, a good tax plan would keep corporate taxes down, because this WOULD trickle down in the economy DIRECTLY. These corporations would now have more money to invest in their company, could pay their employees more, and create jobs. Capital gains taxes for investors could also be reduced. This is a conservative idea that makes sense and one that would benefit ALL Americans at no expense to another group (other than the government receiving less taxes). However, conservatives go too far in extending that to personal wealth. These same rich people usually draw a salary from their company. Since their corporations usually cover a lot of their expenses…sometimes all…, their salaries are largely disposable. True, they may trickle down into the economy, but INDIRECTLY. Yes, they might buy that new vacation home and help the housing market. But who wins in the housing market? Construction companies and real estate investors. Sure the construction company is now able to pay their employees and all…but the profits will go to the already rich owner. The employees get the work to assure that they can sustain a living. But their employees, most likely average people, just becomes less able to buy a house as prices go up. Taxing the personal income of someone who makes over $600,000 a year more is fine with me, though I think an 11% increase is a little too much. But making the rich pay more from their disposable income is certainly reasonable. This is a liberal mentality. Smart rich people, instead of bitching, would find ways to keep their money tied up in their investments which would keep the economy strong.
Smaller corporate tax would also strengthen the dollar, as the excess cash businesses would have on hand would allow them to lower prices as a means of competing. This is a conservative standpoint.
Tax the individual, NOT the business.
Universal health care ought to be considered important. I wonder how many average families that can’t afford health care whose family members are dying or requiring long term care are voting Republican these days. It is sad that we are the only industrialized nation that doesn’t have it. All the Republican critics of “socialist” Europe cite the per capita income of the average European vs. the U.S. and how we’re better. Distorted stats. In their arrogance, they are comparing a country to a continent. There are some Eastern European former communist states that are still practically third world dragging down the average (Algeria. There are highly progressive governments that are not extreme socialist or extreme capitalist like the U.S. Look at Denmark. They rank 7th in the world in per capita income while we rank 12th. They have a stronger economy AND universal health care. Maybe it’s time to be progressive enough to identify that other countries may have perhaps found a better way. Other countries that have universal health care whose economies are creaming ours AND have the highest per capita income…the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland…
Education? The government should stay out of it. As a teacher, I take offense to critics that say our education system sucks. Leave the teaching to the teachers. NCLB is the worst piece of legislation ever. The government doesn’t know anything about teaching kids. They like to pretend they do. The reason our education system sucks? We test the kids more than we teach them. We teach them to pass the government mandated tests instead of how to think. We expect too much from them at an early age. You could probably fund a lot of these tax cuts by just repealing this act and leaving things as they were. Be tougher on the KIDS AND PARENTS of inner city schools. Those are the ones dragging the test scores down. And it’s not the teachers…any teacher in an urban district has my respect. It’s a war zone in those places. Kids can’t learn when they go home to abusive, dysfunctional families who don’t support them or are surrounded by even a few dysfunctional kids that are allowed to make a mockery of discipline and education. Every urban district should have a school run by the United States Army for the tough cases. That’ll staighten them out real quick.
Get the hell out of Iraq. Liberal. We could pay off our entire national debt in just a few years by getting out of there with the money would save. What are we accomplishing there exactly? Spreading democracy? Let’s worry about our own country right now.
Drastically reduce foreign aid. It’ll reduce spending. Demand documentation from the millions of illegal immigrants in our schools feeding off of our system. Conservative.
Be about our problems and not your party…but that can never happen. Our entire election process needs reform. When people can speak their minds not having to worry about what their supporters think, there will be some real progress. It’s about working together.
Obama—–”Socialism & Terrorist supporter.” He has shown so much & often, how much he’s against America. If he wins, it will be the begining of the end for our country.
It amazes me at the lack of the understanding of the English language. This is also true of reporters and newspeople (one would think they would be knowledgeable) They can listen to a speach by either party and turn right around and miss quote, or miss understand the the meaning of the language of the speach. I guess, It just emphasizes the great need for a much better education system in America.
Yes, I see how much money Obama saved us. Matter of fact, I am banking so much I can quit work…wait a minute…I don’t have a job…what happened?