CNN Crunches Obama's And McCains Tax Plans

[Steely Dan]

 

People who are making 38k - 66k McCains plan will save those tax payers $319 Obama's will save them $1,042

 

People who are making $66k - $112 will save $1,009 under McCains plan and $1,290 under Obama's.

 

People who are making $112k - 161k will save $2,614 under McCains plan and $2,204 under O'bama's plan.

 

People who make over $2.9 million will save $269,364 and under O'bama's they will pay $701,885 extra.

 

So unless you're a very wealthy person in this country there is no need to fear the Democrats tax plan even though the Republicans will be spreading lies about it.

[KD in CA]

 

People who are making 38k - 66k McCains plan will save those tax payers $319 Obama's will save them $1,042

 

People who are making $66k - $112 will save $1,009 under McCains plan and $1,290 under Obama's.

 

People who are making $112k - 161k will save $2,614 under McCains plan and $2,204 under O'bama's plan.

 

People who make over $2.9 million will save $269,364 and under O'bama's they will pay $701,885 extra.

 

So unless you're a very wealthy person in this country there is no need to fear the Democrats tax plan even though the Republicans will be spreading lies about it.

Thanks for that Obama ad disguised as a news broadcast. No shock that you took it all at face value.

Let's see.....

1) Last time I checked, George Bush was still = Satan for cutting taxes. Now these two are proposing additional tax cuts??

2) Did they happen to forget the tiny sliver of people between $161k - $2.9MM?? (Gee, I wonder why? Naturally in a country of 300MM people we should instead be focusing on a few thousand who make anywhere near $3MM a year).

3) Whatever pro-Obama fuzzy math they are pulling out is bull---. Anyone making $161k is going to get ass raped if Obama wins (and probably if McCain wins too).

4) and finally......$66k - $112k makes you "pretty rich in this country"? I know that Fox News is pathetic but let's please not forget the Communist "News" Network when we are having a media bash. Thanks

 

 

Oh yeah, and I'm shocked that CNN forgot to mention that Obama plans on raising the capital gains rate by at least 10%.

[DC Tom]

 

People who are making 38k - 66k McCains plan will save those tax payers $319 Obama's will save them $1,042

 

People who are making $66k - $112 will save $1,009 under McCains plan and $1,290 under Obama's.

 

People who are making $112k - 161k will save $2,614 under McCains plan and $2,204 under O'bama's plan.

 

People who make over $2.9 million will save $269,364 and under O'bama's they will pay $701,885 extra.

 

So unless you're a very wealthy person in this country there is no need to fear the Democrats tax plan even though the Republicans will be spreading lies about it.

 

"Save" and "pay extra" over what? The currently implemented tax cuts?

 

That number for the $3M income bracket is pretty insane, too. That's basically a hike from about 30% to 55%. That's an ass-rape. I don't care how rich someone is, NO ONE should be giving more than half their money to the government.

[Steely Dan]

Thanks for that Obama ad disguised as a news broadcast. No shock that you took it all at face value.

Let's see.....

1) Last time I checked, George Bush was still = Satan for cutting taxes. Now these two are proposing additional tax cuts??

2) Did they happen to forget the tiny sliver of people between $161k - $2.9MM?? (Gee, I wonder why? Naturally in a country of 300MM people we should instead be focusing on a few thousand who make anywhere near $3MM a year).

3) Whatever pro-Obama fuzzy math they are pulling out is bull---. Anyone making $161k is going to get ass raped if Obama wins (and probably if McCain wins too).

4) and finally......$66k - $112k makes you "pretty rich in this country"? I know that Fox News is pathetic but let's please not forget the Communist "News" Network when we are having a media bash. Thanks

 

 

Oh yeah, and I'm shocked that CNN forgot to mention that Obama plans on raising the capital gains rate by at least 10%.

 

1. No, Bush is an idiot for giving the highest tax bracket a big tax cut while the nation is at war. A tax decrease during war has never been done before. Look at what the national debt is doing to the dollar. It's not the entire reason but it's a big reason. This increases the price of everything imported to the country. The criticism comes from lowering the taxes on the rich and not the middle class. That's where the criticism comes from so don't gloss over all the tax cuts as the same thing.

 

2. I noticed that too and was curious for the deletion. I think that the reason it may have been left off for brevity.

 

3. Your proof of that?

 

4. I did see the bias but I'm assuming the numbers are correct unless someone else can prove otherwise. If you think $66k-$112k isn't pretty rich when the median income is approx. $48k then what is? Someone making twice the national median isn't rich? Since the median income means that half the people in the country make more and half make less I'd have to say that people making about $20, 000 more than over half the country are at the very beginning of rich. Those making twice the national average qualify as definitely rich. How many times the national median should someone make in order to be considered rich by you?

 

Your calling the most balanced news source out there the Communist New Network is most of what I need to know about you. Let me guess. If you're not an ultra-conservative you're a liberal.

[Alaska Darin]

1. No, Bush is an idiot for giving the highest tax bracket a big tax cut while the nation is at war. A tax decrease during war has never been done before. Look at what the national debt is doing to the dollar. It's not the entire reason but it's a big reason. This increases the price of everything imported to the country. The criticism comes from lowering the taxes on the rich and not the middle class. That's where the criticism comes from so don't gloss over all the tax cuts as the same thing.

Really? So what do you think of the bi-partisan "Tax Rebate" that just went out to pretty much everyone? Or is that OK because your masters were a part of it? Is there not a war still going on? Was Obama for or against the "rebate"?

4. I did see the bias but I'm assuming the numbers are correct unless someone else can prove otherwise. If you think $66k-$112k isn't pretty rich when the median income is approx. $48k then what is? Someone making twice the national median isn't rich? Since the median income means that half the people in the country make more and half make less I'd have to say that people making about $20, 000 more than over half the country are at the very beginning of rich. Those making twice the national average qualify as definitely rich. How many times the national median should someone make in order to be considered rich by you?

$112K is nothing in the real world. You live around any major city in America and have a family of 4 or 5, it's likely you live in a decent house, drive 2 decent cars, and can eat. But you're not saving a hell of a lot and you sure ain't paying for your 2 kids to go to college. That's reality. Democrats seem to define rich as a cop married to a teacher, which is about what $112K will give you if the 2 have been doing their jobs for any length of time.

 

Your calling the most balanced news source out there the Communist New Network is most of what I need to know about you. Let me guess. If you're not an ultra-conservative you're a liberal.

CNN balanced?

[SD Jarhead]

I still want to know when Steely Dan is going to answer the other b*llschit he posted that alleged Christian groups have sabotaged every peace agreement in the Middle East in order to fulfill prophesy.

 

He must've seen that on that balanced news channel also.

 

And, no $112k per isn't rich in S. California where I live, it barely qualifies as middle class.

[KD in CA]

1. No, Bush is an idiot for giving the highest tax bracket a big tax cut while the nation is at war. A tax decrease during war has never been done before. Look at what the national debt is doing to the dollar. It's not the entire reason but it's a big reason. This increases the price of everything imported to the country. The criticism comes from lowering the taxes on the rich and not the middle class. That's where the criticism comes from so don't gloss over all the tax cuts as the same thing.

Nice try. The country wasn't at war when the tax cuts were passed on 2001. Also, tax rates were cut at every level, including the 'middle class'. 0 for 2.

 

2. I noticed that too and was curious for the deletion. I think that the reason it may have been left off for brevity.

And I'm sure you are gullible enough to believe that.

'Brevity' is arbitrarily dropping one of five groups? Or is it more likely that Obama's plan calls for huge tax increases on that group and the Democrats' official news channel doesn't want to point that out to its loyal sheep.

 

3. Your proof of that?

Common sense. Do you care to wager $1000 on it? We'll both wire money to an escrow account and see what happens in 2009.

 

4. I did see the bias but I'm assuming the numbers are correct unless someone else can prove otherwise. If you think $66k-$112k isn't pretty rich when the median income is approx. $48k then what is? Someone making twice the national median isn't rich? Since the median income means that half the people in the country make more and half make less I'd have to say that people making about $20, 000 more than over half the country are at the very beginning of rich. Those making twice the national average qualify as definitely rich. How many times the national median should someone make in order to be considered rich by you?

No, twice the national average does not make you 'rich'. Not anywhere near it. And $68k?? You really need to understand the world a little better. Do you have any concept at all of regional differences in this country? Do you really believe that $68k in Buffalo or South Carolina is equal to $68k in San Francisco or New York?

 

Websters defines 'rich' as: 1: having abundant possessions and especially material wealth. Being able to afford a second car or a mortgage (barely) does not qualify as having 'abundant' possessions. I'd say 10 times the average makes one rich. Perhaps if you worked at earning more instead of demonizing those who do you might understand that you misuse that word badly.

 

Your calling the most balanced news source out there the Communist New Network is most of what I need to know about you. Let me guess. If you're not an ultra-conservative you're a liberal.

And the fact that you can only see the partisanship on the 'other' side tells me how narrow-minded you really are. As for me, I'm not a liberal or an 'ultra'-conservative (not really sure what that is anyway), so I don't really fit into your black and white views.

[Taro T]

1. No, Bush is an idiot for giving the highest tax bracket a big tax cut while the nation is at war. A tax decrease during war has never been done before. Look at what the national debt is doing to the dollar. It's not the entire reason but it's a big reason. This increases the price of everything imported to the country. The criticism comes from lowering the taxes on the rich and not the middle class. That's where the criticism comes from so don't gloss over all the tax cuts as the same thing.

 

2. I noticed that too and was curious for the deletion. I think that the reason it may have been left off for brevity.

 

3. Your proof of that?

 

4. I did see the bias but I'm assuming the numbers are correct unless someone else can prove otherwise. If you think $66k-$112k isn't pretty rich when the median income is approx. $48k then what is? Someone making twice the national median isn't rich? Since the median income means that half the people in the country make more and half make less I'd have to say that people making about $20, 000 more than over half the country are at the very beginning of rich. Those making twice the national average qualify as definitely rich. How many times the national median should someone make in order to be considered rich by you?

 

Your calling the most balanced news source out there the Communist New Network is most of what I need to know about you. Let me guess. If you're not an ultra-conservative you're a liberal.

Do you really think that someone making $66k is rich?

 

It may have been a rich man's salary in the 20's, but definitely not today.

 

No point in even addressing any of the other stuff in the post if you actually believe that someone making less than $70k (which is ~1/3 over the median) is pretty rich.

[Steely Dan]

Really? So what do you think of the bi-partisan "Tax Rebate" that just went out to pretty much everyone? Or is that OK because your masters were a part of it? Is there not a war still going on? Was Obama for or against the "rebate"?

 

$112K is nothing in the real world. You live around any major city in America and have a family of 4 or 5, it's likely you live in a decent house, drive 2 decent cars, and can eat. But you're not saving a hell of a lot and you sure ain't paying for your 2 kids to go to college. That's reality. Democrats seem to define rich as a cop married to a teacher, which is about what $112K will give you if the 2 have been doing their jobs for any length of time.

 

 

CNN balanced?

 

AD, the rebate is coming out of your taxes for next year. It's going to be paid back next year. You seem to not know that. It's not a tax cut of any kind.

 

EDIT: For the record I wasn't for it last time and this time I really don't care either way. It is odd how the party that's supposed to be so good with economy seems to always suck at it.

 

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think making more than twice the national median is rich.

 

I said "The most balanced" every network has a bias. MSNBC skews liberal. Fux Knus skews far right. CNN is the most balanced news source.

 

Nice try. The country wasn't at war when the tax cuts were passed on 2001. Also, tax rates were cut at every level, including the 'middle class'. 0 for 2.

 

 

And I'm sure you are gullible enough to believe that.

'Brevity' is arbitrarily dropping one of five groups? Or is it more likely that Obama's plan calls for huge tax increases on that group and the Democrats' official news channel doesn't want to point that out to its loyal sheep.

 

Common sense. Do you care to wager $1000 on it? We'll both wire money to an escrow account and see what happens in 2009.

 

 

No, twice the national average does not make you 'rich'. Not anywhere near it. And $68k?? You really need to understand the world a little better. Do you have any concept at all of regional differences in this country? Do you really believe that $68k in Buffalo or South Carolina is equal to $68k in San Francisco or New York?

 

Websters defines 'rich' as: 1: having abundant possessions and especially material wealth. Being able to afford a second car or a mortgage (barely) does not qualify as having 'abundant' possessions. I'd say 10 times the average makes one rich. Perhaps if you worked at earning more instead of demonizing those who do you might understand that you misuse that word badly.

 

 

And the fact that you can only see the partisanship on the 'other' side tells me how narrow-minded you really are. As for me, I'm not a liberal or an 'ultra'-conservative (not really sure what that is anyway), so I don't really fit into your black and white views.

 

No but we were less than six months later. Plenty of time to call off the cuts for the next year.

 

Do you really think that too many people care about that bracket? There aren't a lot of people in it. The highest tax bracket was used to show the significance. If you can find information on that bracket for both candidates I'd love to see it.

 

Common sense? Find the numbers to prove your common sense and no I don't bet money.

 

Hey, as I said to AD I believe twice the national average is rich. As far as cost of living goes how is that my fault? If you can't afford the area you live in you'll have to move.

 

If you aren't an ultra-conservative then tell me five things you disagree with on the conservative side.

 

Here are five I disagree with on the ultra-liberal side.

 

1. I do believe people deserve to die for heinous crimes.

2. I believe that Americans have a right to bear arms.

3. I believe that military spending isn't too much comparative to other expenditures.

4. I believe that war is sometimes necessary

5. I believe eating meat is not a heinous crime.

 

Your turn.

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

CNN mentioned in the clip that the results were from the Tax Policy Center, a non-partisan think tank. A quick cruise to their site and here's the analysis.

 

They break everything down into 5 quintiles of income, but I couldn't see where they assigned an income range to the quintiles. If anyone sees or knows this, it's good info. Looks like they tried to adjust for the capital gains bumps as well.

 

Most of what you'll want to know is starts on the bottom of pg 33 (34 in the pdf) where they compare the two. This seems really unbiased at first glance. Maybe others will see it differently.

 

Measured against current law in 2009, Senator Obama’s plan raises after-tax incomes by more than 5.5 percent for those in the bottom quintile and also provides more modest increases for those in the next three quintiles (figure 1). The top quintile would experience an average tax increase because of the hikes in the tax rates on capital gains and dividends and the increases in the top two individual income tax rates. The increase in taxes would be dramatic for those at the very top of the income scale, representing 8.7 percent of after-tax income for the top 1 percent of households and 11.5 percent of income for the richest 1 in 1,000.

 

In contrast, the McCain plan would provide virtually no benefit to households in the bottom quintile, and very modest benefits to those in the next three quintiles. The top quintile would receive a tax cut of more than 3 percent of after-tax income. Within the top quintile, the richest 1 percent of households would receive an average tax cut of 3.4 percent. That figure rises to almost 4.4 percent for the top 0.1 percent of the income distribution.

[Adam]

CNN mentioned in the clip that the results were from the Tax Policy Center, a non-partisan think tank. A quick cruise to their site and here's the analysis.

 

They break everything down into 5 quintiles of income, but I couldn't see where they assigned an income range to the quintiles. If anyone sees or knows this, it's good info. Looks like they tried to adjust for the capital gains bumps as well.

 

Most of what you'll want to know is starts on the bottom of pg 33 (34 in the pdf) where they compare the two. This seems really unbiased at first glance. Maybe others will see it differently.

At the risk of sounding like a moron, what is capital gains, exactly?

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

At the risk of sounding like a moron, what is capital gains, exactly?

An oversimplified version is any money you make as profit from selling an investment, like a home, stocks, etc. If you sell a house, and the value has gone up since you bought it, you have to pay a capital gains tax on the difference.

[Adam]

An oversimplified version is any money you make as profit from selling an investment, like a home, stocks, etc. If you sell a house, and the value has gone up since you bought it, you have to pay a capital gains tax on the difference.

Thanks!

[Steely Dan]

CNN mentioned in the clip that the results were from the Tax Policy Center, a non-partisan think tank. A quick cruise to their site and here's the analysis.

 

They break everything down into 5 quintiles of income, but I couldn't see where they assigned an income range to the quintiles. If anyone sees or knows this, it's good info. Looks like they tried to adjust for the capital gains bumps as well.

 

Most of what you'll want to know is starts on the bottom of pg 33 (34 in the pdf) where they compare the two. This seems really unbiased at first glance. Maybe others will see it differently.

 

Facts have no business being in this discussion. It makes people look foolish when they question them.

[KD in CA]

An oversimplified version is any money you make as profit from selling an investment, like a home, stocks, etc. If you sell a house, and the value has gone up since you bought it, you have to pay a capital gains tax on the difference.

 

In general, capital gains tax treatment is defined by how long you've held the asset before selling it. If more than a year, you pay the capital gains rate (currently 15%), as opposed to the higher rate (whatever the rate is for your earnings bracket).

 

Such tax policy incents longer term investing which leads to growth, jobs and economic stability. It is a cornerstone of any sensible economic policy.

[Steely Dan]

In general, capital gains tax treatment is defined by how long you've held the asset before selling it. If more than a year, you pay the capital gains rate (currently 15%), as opposed to the higher rate (whatever the rate is for your earnings bracket).

 

Such tax policy incents longer term investing which leads to growth, jobs and economic stability. It is a cornerstone of any sensible economic policy.

 

Explain to me how buying a thousand shares of Kodak stock helps Kodak provide more jobs.

[Adam]

Explain to me how buying a thousand shares of Kodak stock helps Kodak provide more jobs.

All depend if Kodak has enough employees or needs more- there are so many ways to gauge the economy, job growth is just one

[KD in CA]

I think making more than twice the national median is rich.

That's because you are a narrow-minded simpleton who is unable to view the world from any perspective other than your tiny little corner of it.

 

I said "The most balanced" every network has a bias. MSNBC skews liberal. Fux Knus skews far right. CNN is the most balanced news source.

Wow, who knew that MSNBC, FOX & CNN were the only 3 sources for news on the planet.

 

No but we were less than six months later. Plenty of time to call off the cuts for the next year.

Tax cuts were in 2001. War was in 2003. 2 years = 6 months? I see your ability to do simple math is on par with the rest of your drivel.

 

Common sense? Find the numbers to prove your common sense and no I don't bet money.

I can't 'prove' common sense to someone who apparently has no ability to recognize it. You don't believe me? Take my money. Otherwise you are too gutless to back up your bullsh--.

 

Do you really think that too many people care about that bracket? There aren't a lot of people in it. The highest tax bracket was used to show the significance. If you can find information on that bracket for both candidates I'd love to see it.

Why am I not surprised that you are too stupid to figure out where such information could possibly be found. Let's see; 2.3 million just in the 200k-500k range. So between $161k-$2.9MM the number would be somewhere around 6 million people. Yeah, not too many. But keep pumping that strawman about the rates for the tiny fraction (80,000) that make over $2.9 million.

 

If you aren't an ultra-conservative then tell me five things you disagree with on the conservative side.

 

Here are five I disagree with on the ultra-liberal side.

What??? If you want to know my position on something specific, feel free to ask. Otherwise I don't care if you are ultra-man; I'm just pointing out that you don't have a clue when it comes to the topic being discussed here.

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

Explain to me how buying a thousand shares of Kodak stock helps Kodak provide more jobs.

What if I invested in Kodak, sold my shares at a profit and used the money to start my own business? or Kodak using the investment from stock purchases to start a new product line. There's lots of examples, but they don't always pan out in the real world. As an example, Exxon invests a lot in R&D, but uses a huge % of net to buy back stock, which only helps the shareholders.

 

The problem becomes when you continually try to encourage investment by rewarding corporations and rich people, someone usually suffers, like the lower incomes or middle class. There has to be some middle ground where we reward entrepreneurs and help families that can't keep up, but maintain enough revenue in the Treasury. Not easy to do...

[Adam]

CNN skews both ways- to be honest, Grace and the other guy on CNN Headline News are a lot worse than anyone Fox News has aside from O'Reilly. Olbermann doesn't impress me in the least, unless you are talking about his ability to alienate those he works with