Obama Offers Lower Taxes Than McCain.

[Dan.Linehan]

If you makes less than $111k / year, you will pay less income tax under Obama than you would under McCain. McCain would give the biggest cuts to the rich.

Only those who earn more than $603k / year Obama will pay higher taxes.

See the comparisons here.

[Erin Pavlina]

I would love me some tax cuts. The more money we make the more people we can employ. And that stimulates the economy when people are working, no?

[schola]

I don't agree with the "tax the rich" mentality. Like Erin said, higher income bracket business people can spend more money in the economy and create more jobs when they get to keep their money. It seems like McCain is favoring the rich until you consider that lower income brackets pay less % in taxes anyway. If anything, Mccain's tax cuts would even things out. How can you get an income tax cut if you don't pay any income taxes?

[Brutha]

I would love me some tax cuts. The more money we make the more people we can employ.

Most poorer people also give out their money to buy services which in turn let's employment rise.

[Erin Pavlina]

Yes I am deeply in favor of getting more people earning an income in the work force instead of just giving money to people who aren't working. For one, their self esteem is probably better when they're earning money instead of just receiving it. And people spend more on luxuries when they have plenty of income.

If the mega rich spend their money in ways that stimulate the economy, like adding jobs, then I'm in favor of some tax breaks or credits or incentives or what not. If they're going to use their extra money to pollute the environment and dump toxic waste or create worthless products then I am not in favor of that.

What I am not in favor of is rich people having to pay more than their fair share to balance what the poor cannot pay. I don't believe the poor should pay any taxes personally, but nor do I feel the rich should pay a higher percentage to balance out the load.

I think we need to learn to spend more wisely as a country and not take so much away from people.

[JFKDemocrat]

I would love me some tax cuts. The more money we make the more people we can employ. And that stimulates the economy when people are working, no?

Erin

OhhhhH! You better be careful Erin! I don't think that kind of talk is allowed here. lol

[Brutha]

If the mega rich spend their money in ways that stimulate the economy, like adding jobs, then I'm in favor of some tax breaks or credits or incentives or what not. If they're going to use their extra money to pollute the environment and dump toxic waste or create worthless products then I am not in favor of that.

What do you think that they have done after the last big tax cuts?
Do you think it's now different?

[Erin Pavlina]

Just talking about what I want, not what I think is happening.

[Love]

I don't see why the rich should care if a portion of their income is taken out. Sure, there might be the principle of thing. However, if you had 10 million to work with and now only have 9 million, what could you have done with the 10 million that you can't do with the 9 million?

[Brutha]

If the mega rich spend their money in ways that stimulate the economy, like adding jobs, then I'm in favor of some tax breaks or credits or incentives or what not.

Just talking about what I want, not what I think is happening.

Then as long as that doesn't happen you aren't in favor of tax breaks for the rich?

[Erin Pavlina]

Originally Posted by Love

I don't see why the rich should care if a portion of their income is taken out. Sure, there might be the principle of thing. However, if you had 10 million to work with and now only have 9 million, what could you have done with the 10 million that you can't do with the 9 million?

Principle is everything mate.

I can think of lots of things to do with an extra million dollars. And if I spent my time earning it shouldn't I get to decide how to spend it?

Plus they don't take just 1 million. If they make 10 million they have to give 4 million away.

I don't like income tax at all though so before we get all into who should pay what I am really in favor of the sales tax or flat tax or whatever that's called so that tax is associated with what you buy. Rich people will buy more so they will naturall pay more. Seems more fair to me.

Really I'm just about fairness.

[escapee]

Goodness, that's almost ~45-50% for the top income earners. I'm pretty sure the big business will have a second thought about establishing companies in America under Obama. This will in return worsen the employment rate and make the economic recovery extremely difficult. Obama = FDR-2 ?

Amazon.com: FDR's Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression: Jim Powell: Books

The hardest thing in the world to understand is income tax!
Albert Einstein

[coollikeme]

Love: (I don't see why the rich should care if a portion of their income is taken out. Sure, there might be the principle of thing. However, if you had 10 million to work with and now only have 9 million, what could you have done with the 10 million that you can't do with the 9 million?) You can hire more people or a least not lay off the employees you have.

[Brutha]

You can hire more people or a least not lay off the employees you have.

Most big business lays off employees to increase their profit. Even if they have more money they still lay off to make profits.

Really I'm just about fairness.

You basically claim that it is unfair that the income destribution in America isn't more unequal than it currently is.
I generally don't think that America unequality is fair.

And if I spent my time earning it shouldn't I get to decide how to spend it?

You make the assumption that you get money for the time you spent, which isn't very realistic today.
If you would tax in a way that people who spent the same amount of time earning would have the same amount of money the tax rates for the rich would be much higher.

If we would live in a world where all investors have the same amount of skill we would still have billionaires because of luck.
If you want to read more about that fact read Nassim Talebs The Black Swan.

In a world where some people earn a lot because they are lucky and other people earn less because they are unlucky, the world isn't fair. If you redistribute a bit the world gets more fair.

[escapee]

Burtha, if you've ever owned a business, I seriously doubt you would make such a (socialist ) post. High tax rate is bad for commerce. It's going to make the nation poorer because the capital will be forced to leave to other countries with less punishing tax rate. Period

[Brutha]

Burtha, if you've ever owned a business, I seriously doubt you would make such a (socialist ) post.

Basically, if I would have an interest in low taxes for businesses I wouldn't write an post that against the interests of businesses.

You should also take into account that I'm not taking here about the real small businesses but about big ones (you need to earn more than 600.000$ to pay more taxes after Obama).
If you look at the stock market there are a lot of companies that lie off worker and make profits at the same time.
Today, in corporate America the decision of whether to lie of worker or to hire worker lies primarly on whether the person in charge thinks whether that decision will increase or decrease profits.

In addition we are not even speaking about about taxes that business have to pay but about income taxes that are payed by individuals.
As long as you leave your capital in your business with the expectation to raise your profits through the work of your employes you don't pay income taxes on that capital.

High tax rate is bad for commerce.

Obama wants to lower the average tax rate. We are not talking about high or low taxes but about whether wealthy people should pay more than poor people.

Poor people having more money is also good for the economy. Most people who start a business from nothing are for example earning less than 600.000$ per year.

[escapee]

You should also take into account that I'm not taking here about the real small businesses but about big ones (you need to earn more than 600.000$ to pay more taxes after Obama).
If you look at the stock market there are a lot of companies that lie off worker and make profits at the same time.

You do not understand the power of big business, do you? they are the kind of people or organization that will increase jobs and invest in equipments to boost production of goods. A high tax rate on them, especially in an economy that is sliding into recession will do the exact opposite.

Poor people having more money is also good for the economy. Most people who start a business from nothing are for example earning less than 600.000$ per year.

That's not going to work with capital from big organization leaving the country. From my own experience and observation, the riches will always find a way to preserve the wealth. The harder you tax them , the harder they will try to evade (legally, by renouncing their own citizenship in some cases ).

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

If you makes less than $111k / year, you will pay less income tax under Obama than you would under McCain. McCain would give the biggest cuts to the rich.

Only those who earn more than $603k / year Obama will pay higher taxes.

See the comparisons here.

Its clear that McCain thinks that his overall tax increase will stimulate the economy and more jobs. Obama wants to increase gov't spending by taking more taxes from the wealthy.

McCain's plan would definitely put more money into circulation in the economy and create more jobs however Obama's plan would give more money immediately to those who need it. The net difference would be that McCain's plan would give the gov't less money and Obama's would enable him to have more money for more gov't programs. If properly managed Obama's plan would have a greater gain for our country and if not properly managed then it would not be affective. McCain's plan is more of a sure thing because experience has shown us what the market will do however Obama's plan will tread upon new ground. Creating free health for all and free college for all is a bold undertaking. Its a very socialist thing to do and it could be great if our gov't suddenly became a great manager of our money. This would require Obama to be simply awesome. If he was unable to get the entire US gov't to straighten up then we'd have less money in circulation and a gov't blowing the money like they normally do.

I am not saying that Obama's plan is bad because societies need to try new things and just because the gov't has always failed to manage systems doesn't mean that this time Obama wouldn't accomplish it.

This is the age old debate of Rep's vs Dem's. Reps believe that the gov't should be smaller and Dems usually believe that the gov't should be larger. Reps believe that the private sector and individuals can better make decisions that the gov't and the Dems believe that the gov't should decide for us. Bush has been so non -Republican because he's increased spending and taken more rights. I think McCain is different than Bush but is he different enough? There are signs that he would be like Bush's third term.

If we just stick to taxation and not politics I would say I prefer neither system. McCains is more simple to execute however it simply doesn't create new tax revenue.

I think that what our gov't needs is a little Kaizen tweaking. The Federal gov't could stay small but then reguire states to offer more social assistance to the poor for example. A mandatory increased sales tax of 2% on single item retail purchases larger than $200 at the State level and then using that State tax for private healthcare, food for homeless, etc. This would keep our federal gov't small while also capturing tax revenue from spenders. Think of all the people that own companies that hide profits or people vacationing in the US or people dealing in illegal activities. The tax dollars collected would be used to help the poor and the gov't would stay small. The money would then flow to private hospitals, schools and for food for the homeless.

I think that Reps want to keep a huge military and Dems want to create a larger beauracracy of power and positions. Both are POWER HUNGRY and corrupt. If Obama or McCain gets elected it will be business as usual. The special intersts own both parties, period.

In Germany, for example, they have dozens of parties. I'm not saying their system is perfect but for real change we need for new parties to come into power in our country. And I can only hope that we can reduce the size of both our military and our gov't. I guess I'm dreamin.

[escapee]

And I can only hope that we can reduce the size of both our military and our gov't. I guess I'm dreamin.

Lao Tzu would agree with you. and he is widely regarded as a sage and revered as god in taoism.

The Ancient Chinese Libertarian Tradition - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Institute

Govern a great nation as you would cook a small fish. Do not overdo it.

“A leader is best when people barely know he exists, when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say “we did it ourselves.”

"The more artificial taboos and restrictions there are in the world, the more the people are impoverished…. The more that laws and regulations are given prominence, the more thieves and robbers there will be."

The wisest course, then, is to keep the government simple and for it to take no action, for then the world "stabilizes itself." As Lao-tzu put it, "Therefore the Sage says: I take no action yet the people transform themselves, I favor quiescence and the people right themselves, I take no action and the people enrich themselves…."


Disorder arises when government oversteps its bounds -- when it overtaxes and denies people their natural right to be left alone to pursue their happiness, as long as they do not injure others. Lao-tzu saw taxes, not nature, as the primary cause of famine:"When men are deprived of food, it is because their kings [rulers] tax them too heavily." Likewise, he recognized that rulers could easily destroy the natural harmony people cherish by destroying their liberty: "When men are hard to govern, it is because their kings interfere with their lives."

Lao Tzu

[jetpack]

I love Lao Tzu's view on government and almost everything. Happiness and true fulfillment are so easy.

As for the tax plans, i'll just say this: MOST new jobs in this country are created by small businesses. It's not a big new factory that creates all the jobs, it's many many small businesses doing a wide range of work. The Dems and the Union bosses like more big factories, while everyone should want more small, innovative and fast growing small companies. Don't raise taxes on small business.

[Brutha]

Its clear that McCain thinks that his overall tax increase will stimulate the economy and more jobs. Obama wants to increase gov't spending by taking more taxes from the wealthy.

According to the numbers in the link Obama is also for a net tax reduction.
The difference is that Obama wants to put more of the tax burden on rich people instead of poor people.
Cutting the income tax for poor people is hardly increasing goverment spending.

A mandatory increased sales tax of 2% on single item retail purchases larger than $200 at the State level and then using that State tax for private healthcare, food for homeless,

That a hugly burocratic approach. That the total opposite from making the system more simple.

As I understand it there are states in the US without sales tax. Making a sales tax for just 2% takes a new burocratic appartus in those status.
You need complelicated rules (that probably nobody understands) to define what a single item retail purchase actully is.<