|
|
Post by 76chevy on Sept 24, 2008 16:27:37 GMT -5
Obama and McCain Tax Proposals www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.htmlAccording to a new analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain are both proposing tax plans that would result in cuts for most American families. Obama's plan gives the biggest cuts to those who make the least, while McCain would give the largest cuts to the very wealthy. For the approximately 147,000 families that make up the top 0.1 percent of the income scale, the difference between the two plans is stark. While McCain offers a $269,364 tax cut, Obama would raise their taxes, on average, by $701,885 - a difference of nearly $1 million.  |
|
|
|
Post by 76chevy on Sept 24, 2008 16:30:30 GMT -5
Mccain's plan is certainly some welcome news for all members on here making more than $2.87M per year....
|
|
|
|
Post by TagTeamHunter on Sept 24, 2008 19:17:21 GMT -5
Flat Tax; why should someone who works hard and makes something of themselves have to pay more taxes??? Flat Tax rate for all; than you'll know what the taxes will take out of your paycheck and can adjust your lifestyle accordingly or get a better job.
|
|
|
|
Post by drgreyhound on Sept 25, 2008 4:33:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Sept 25, 2008 6:27:12 GMT -5
Yeah......Let's get those evil rich people! Yeah, they don't provide anything (like jobs) to everyone else, they don't pay a much higher percenatge already. I'm really tired of the liberal divide and conquer mentality.
|
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Sept 25, 2008 7:26:05 GMT -5
Hmmm......Folks with a "family income" of $18,981 will get a $567 reduction under the Obama plan?
Looks to me like the maximum tax liability now for a family of two making that much money would be $149.
$18981 minus the standard deduction of $10700 and the two personal exemptions of $3400 each, would leave a TAXABLE income of $1481 dollars and with no other exemptions or deductions, that would result in a tax bill of $149 from the tax tables.
The chart figures seem kind of deceptive, using "family" income figures to show a tax reduction that could only apply to an individual taxpayer, or a family that is composed of at least one member who is still a dependent on someone else's tax return form.
|
|
|
|
Post by 76chevy on Sept 25, 2008 11:58:54 GMT -5
I am in favor of a dropping the income tax and just going to a flat rate consumption tax. Tax consumption not income and capital gains, those who consume the most G and S pay the most in taxes. Very simple to implement and universally fair. Just tinkering with the uber-confusing and assanine tax code we currently have is not going to get anywhere. Flat Tax; why should someone who works hard and makes something of themselves have to pay more taxes??? Flat Tax rate for all; than you'll know what the taxes will take out of your paycheck and can adjust your lifestyle accordingly or get a better job. |
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Sept 25, 2008 18:01:27 GMT -5
And while McChurian is unlikely to promote a flat tax, the Tu Quoque'ing son-of-a Muslim will NEVER get rid of "progressive" taxation on the Producers of America.
|
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Sept 25, 2008 19:37:19 GMT -5
Fred Thompson - "Now, our opponents tell us not to worry about their tax increases. They tell you they're not going to tax your family. No, they're just going to tax "businesses." So, unless you buy something from a business, like groceries or clothes or gasoline -- or unless you get a paycheck from a business, a big business or a small business, don't worry, it's not going to affect you! They say they're not going to take any water out of your side of the bucket, just the other side of the bucket!
That's their idea of tax reform."
|
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Sept 26, 2008 9:45:33 GMT -5
Great quote, Woody! I hadn't seen that one before.
76 Chevy, we agree completely on the tax system you suggest. It would never get through congress unless we could first energize enough taxpayers to demand it, and I suspect it would take a generation or so mimnimum to change enough people's thoughts on the matter.
It was nearly a generation ago when I first saw such a system proposed. It has picked up some steam over the years, but it still a long way from having enough support to be enacted.
|
|
|
|
Post by raporter on Sept 26, 2008 13:04:25 GMT -5
Does anyone know if there is a country that has a consumption only tax? While it certainly will not affect me I just do not see where taxing a person for being successfull is right.
|
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Sept 26, 2008 13:17:14 GMT -5
I still favor a flat income tax instead of a consumption tax. Everyone pays the same % on every dollar they earn.
|
|
|
|
Post by huxbux on Sept 26, 2008 14:31:27 GMT -5
Does anyone know if there is a country that has a consumption only tax? While it certainly will not affect me I just do not see where taxing a person for being successfull is right. The big problem with a consumption tax is that it discourages, well, consumption. That's a bad thing in a capitalist economy. It particularly affects the purchase of non-essential goods. |
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Sept 27, 2008 10:38:40 GMT -5
swilk, the problem with the flat tax is that it misses the major faults of the current system. The tax evasion, the needs for intrusive info collection, the high cost and low success of attempted collection, are involved with determining the income figures, not in applying the rates to them once they are established. The flat tax rate might be appealing, I agree, but it does absolutely nothing about the far greater problems of determining income amounts.
Huxbux, I would have to disagree. I have also always heard that a consumption tax is bad for our capitalist economy, but I have questioned the truth of that statement for a while. Like you point out, it may well be a factor in the purchase of non-essentials, but even for those, I should think the extra money in hand rather than withheld for taxes would offset the discouraging factor of paying the tax at the time of purchase.
I can see where it would be bad for the economic outlook of lots of tax accountants, H&R Block employees, and various tax cheats everywhere in "cash businesses", but I think the rest of us would benefit from the boost in efficiency and fairness.
|
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Sept 27, 2008 10:40:45 GMT -5
Oops...meant to mention that the big problem with the income tax is that it discourages....income. Particularly that income which is admitted to and declared as such.
|
|
|
|
Post by 76chevy on Sept 27, 2008 12:30:15 GMT -5
Just to add to what Russ Koon said above, The consumption tax allows taxation of those involved in the 'underground' (ie illegal activity) economy and those here illegally who pay no income taxes now. I agree with Russ, the overall level of consumption would stay the same or likely even increase as people had more of their own money in their own hands. Does anyone know if there is a country that has a consumption only tax? While it certainly will not affect me I just do not see where taxing a person for being successfull is right. The big problem with a consumption tax is that it discourages, well, consumption. That's a bad thing in a capitalist economy. It particularly affects the purchase of non-essential goods. |
|
|
|
Post by 76chevy on Sept 27, 2008 12:48:51 GMT -5
There are several. I dont have an exhaustive list though. Here is an interesting paper I just found about Jamaica and their switch to a consumption tax. isp-aysps.gsu.edu/papers/ispwp0712.pdfDoes anyone know if there is a country that has a consumption only tax? While it certainly will not affect me I just do not see where taxing a person for being successfull is right. |
|
|
|
Post by huxbux on Sept 28, 2008 19:02:48 GMT -5
I agree that just about anything would be better than what we're stuck with now. IMO, it is the way it is because it allows our legislators to penalize or reward consituents as they see fit and can be tweaked accordingly at any time. IMO, it's not going to change unless we can somehow institute term limits and I don't see that happening either.
|
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Sept 29, 2008 9:42:50 GMT -5
Yep, we do agree on the main reason it will be hard to change.
I do see some hope, though. Seems like there's increasing resistance to the outdated, inefficient, and inequitable taxation methods, both property and income.
We now have Neil Boortz on the federal level with the Fair Tax movement, and a pretty substantial minority movement at the state level last year sounding off against retaining the property tax.
Neither movement is anywhere near a majority yet, but they both have received more notice and picked up more followers than I can recall ever getting interested in the subject before. Oh, there were some fringe element groups distributing fliers back when I was in high school calling for a repeal of the income tax, but they never seemed to get the attention of many mainstream folks. More people now seem to be taking notice. Maybe the net having some effect? Sure don't get much serious discussion of the matter in the newspapers or on TV.
|
|
