JK2000 Posted September 8, 2008 Posted September 8, 2008 Didn't we already discuss this in another thread? I traced the Post's summary back to the source document, and I couldn't see where the numbers came from. Not saying they are wrong, just noting that there seems to have been an extraordinary amount of handwaving between what the original report said and what the Post say's. And I'm pretty skeptical about the Post's conclusions about the 160-600k range. Also, note that the Post's table has as a baseline assumption the expriation of the Bush tax cuts. Thus McCain's 'tax cuts' are really the present situation, while Obama's more modest cuts for those 111k+ should be read as an actual increase in taxes from the present. And the +8.7 and +11.5% increases at the top are *in addition* to the repeal of the tax cuts - they are more like 12% and 16% increases over todays rates. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF...tes_summary.pdf
finknottle Posted September 9, 2008 Posted September 9, 2008 http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF...tes_summary.pdf Yes, that's the summary, but there are no details, certainly not something you could construct the Post's table with. For that they used http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF..._candidates.pdf But it is still not at all clear how you take the data in the report and get the Post's table. If I take an unmarried 120k income, for arguments sake, and apply Obama's changes in table R2 from the summary, the taxes seem to go up a heck of alot more than the Post suggests.
sweet baboo Posted September 9, 2008 Posted September 9, 2008 He also plans to double government funding of cancer. I feel that curing cancer, though a great feat, would hurt this country more in the long run than help it. throwing money at the problem isn't going to solve it
bills_fan_in_raleigh Posted September 9, 2008 Posted September 9, 2008 One has to ask, if Obama is elected, and his tax raises are passed, what happens to the additional revenue? This article foretells an enormous increase in suckling at the government breast, with no accountability whatsoever. Contrast this with McCain's idealistic notion to end earmarks as we currently know them. Sure McCain will lower our taxes and fix the budget issues created by Bush and the republican congress. Why wasnt McCain filabustering his own party when they were out creating these earmarks for themselves. The problem in washington is that there is not a difference between either party they all tax and spend the only differences are who they tax and what they spend on.
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 9, 2008 Posted September 9, 2008 Sure McCain will lower our taxes and fix the budget issues created by Bush and the republican congress. Why wasnt McCain filabustering his own party when they were out creating these earmarks for themselves. The problem in washington is that there is not a difference between either party they all tax and spend the only differences are who they tax and what they spend on. That is what I have been saying. So you pick who is "worthier" and vote.
/dev/null Posted September 9, 2008 Posted September 9, 2008 He also plans to double government funding of cancer. I feel that curing cancer, though a great feat, would hurt this country more in the long run than help it. I don't mean to hijack a PPP thread with anything meaningful, but there may already be a cure for cancer http://www.kanziuscancerresearch.com/
finknottle Posted September 9, 2008 Posted September 9, 2008 Obama changes his tax plans? Maybe... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1220918513...ew_and_outlooks But take away those tax increases and his draft deficit goes through the roof.
bills_fan Posted September 9, 2008 Author Posted September 9, 2008 Sure McCain will lower our taxes and fix the budget issues created by Bush and the republican congress. Why wasnt McCain filabustering his own party when they were out creating these earmarks for themselves. The problem in washington is that there is not a difference between either party they all tax and spend the only differences are who they tax and what they spend on. McCain did try to stand up to his party and was ostracized for it. I'm not saying McCain will fix everything, just that he will try to restrain spending far more than Obama. Personally, my libertarian self would love to see a balanced budget amendment to the US Constitution, but its not going to happen.
GG Posted September 9, 2008 Posted September 9, 2008 Obama changes his tax plans? Maybe... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1220918513...ew_and_outlooks But take away those tax increases and his draft deficit goes through the roof. But I thought that raising taxes leads to economic growth?
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted September 9, 2008 Posted September 9, 2008 But I thought that raising taxes leads to economic growth? I don't believe that any more than I believe deficits don't matter and giving un-needed tax breaks to oil companies will trickle down.
bills_fan_in_raleigh Posted September 9, 2008 Posted September 9, 2008 McCain did try to stand up to his party and was ostracized for it. I'm not saying McCain will fix everything, just that he will try to restrain spending far more than Obama. Personally, my libertarian self would love to see a balanced budget amendment to the US Constitution, but its not going to happen. If he really stood up to the party there is no way in hell he wins the primaries and is the Nominee. I agree with you on balanced budget as well as term limits. These career politicians are just as rotten as the leaders of most of corporate america. Its all greed and all about greed.
EC-Bills Posted September 9, 2008 Posted September 9, 2008 One has to ask, if Obama is elected, and his tax raises are passed, what happens to the additional revenue? That's simple. They use the extra cash to go to Disneyland.
EC-Bills Posted September 9, 2008 Posted September 9, 2008 But I thought that raising taxes leads to economic growth? Have you been listening to/reading Al Franken again?
DrFishfinder Posted September 9, 2008 Posted September 9, 2008 One has to ask, if Obama is elected, and his tax raises are passed, what happens to the additional revenue? This article foretells an enormous increase in suckling at the government breast, with no accountability whatsoever. Contrast this with McCain's idealistic notion to end earmarks as we currently know them. Acting lessons for his kids?
GG Posted September 9, 2008 Posted September 9, 2008 Have you been listening to/reading Al Franken again? Yes, getting an economics lesson from him, and tips on comedy writing from Bernanke.
EC-Bills Posted September 9, 2008 Posted September 9, 2008 Yes, getting an economics lesson from him, and tips on comedy writing from Bernanke. That's a killer combo
DC Tom Posted September 9, 2008 Posted September 9, 2008 Yes, getting an economics lesson from him, and tips on comedy writing from Bernanke. Well...you're getting a better education in comedy writing than you would the other way around, at least...
TPS Posted September 9, 2008 Posted September 9, 2008 But I thought that raising taxes leads to economic growth? Yeah, we need to cut those taxes at the top so more so we can continue the success that Bush started....errr.... Oh, yeah, it was Greenspan's fault... Note: I believe tax cuts stimulate the economy, but it's more effective to cut taxes on those who spend, not those who save.
KD in CA Posted September 9, 2008 Posted September 9, 2008 Yeah, we need to cut those taxes at the top so more so we can continue the success that Bush started....errr....Oh, yeah, it was Greenspan's fault... Note: I believe tax cuts stimulate the economy, but it's more effective to cut taxes on those who spend, not those who save. Bush cut taxes for everyone.
finknottle Posted September 9, 2008 Posted September 9, 2008 I read somewhere that 35% of households pay no federal income tax (after credits and deductions), and that that number rises to 50% under the Obama plan. (1) If anybody can give me a reference (or shoot it down) I'd be appreciative. I couldn't find it again, and couldn't find statistics broken down like that anywhere... (2) Does the threshold of 50% bother anybody else as it does me? It's one thing to say 'they are less fortunate, let's pitch in and help them out' which is the situation at 35%. But when every other household contributes nothing to paying for the country's services, it seems manifestly unfair to the minority who foot the bill for everything.
Recommended Posts