90% will pay less taxes under Obama than McCain »
Posted by: Aidenag 2 months, 3 weeks agoToday, CNN posted an article online summarizing the Tax Policy center's report comparing John McCain and Barack Obama's proposed tax plans. It is available here. The numbers are remarkable, but CNN failes to notice the obvious punchline: more than 85% of Americans will pay less in taxes under Obama than McCain.
Read Full Story at dailykos.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 89
-
-
-
0%
libsRfunny2 months, 3 weeks ago
"the numbers are remarkable, but CNN failes [sic] to.."
Here's a fact ... it's pure BS. The "author" doesn't even know how to run a spell-checker. Just throws out numbers with no explanation, and it's from DailyKOS ... busted for pushing blatant false propaganda more than once.
When people said Aidenag posts garbage while the liberals were getting up in arms over the Michelle Obama whitey rant rumor, this is exactly what they meant. If CNN posted a story on it, why wasn't that posted instead of this crap?
What's next? Fake stories about Fox5 news or Iraqi "bloggers' Using pay pal, US Internet domains and gmail accounts? Ohhh wait, idiots fell for those, too.
"Failes" Yeah, really reliable this one LMAO!!!!!!!
Reply-
0%
libsRfunny2 months, 3 weeks ago
Hiya, Neophile. Thanks for stopping by. Give your mother a hug for me, will ya? That poor, woman puts up with so much.
Hey, why don't we just start posting garbage from the DNC? I'd trust them more than "DailyKOS."
You do know, Larry Johnson, the guy who put out the Michelle Obama rumor contributes stories to DailyKOS, right? No? Silly libs. Thanks for the belly laugh. LMAOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!
Hey, here's some reading for you. Hell, I might as well submit it as a story ..
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/13/16439/2...
Barack Obama, Establishment Man (by LARRY Johnson) LOL!!!!
"The Obama cult is a phenomenom. A weird phenomenom. People are enthralled with the idea of Obama and know nothing about his past, his performance, and the scandals that will bring him down."
Hey, it was in DailyKOS, so it MUST be true!
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Lurch2 months, 1 week ago
that means McCain will raise taxes on the 90% of Americans who are not upper middle class or higher, while Obama will lower them for that same 90% of Americans.
BTW, Bush`s record on taxes:
* increased the trade deficit 150% of all previous presidents combined
* increased the national debt by 50% of all previous presidents combined
Nobody has raised your taxes more in our history than George W Bush. Only he is a political and moral coward who shirks the pain onto future generations as much as he can. Why would anyone take tax complaints from a Bush supporter seriously?
Reply -
0%
JoseMadre2 months, 1 week ago
"Mackie, look at the table again. McCain's plan lower tax revenue across the board. Obama is raising taxes overall, and lowering them for incomes below $100,000."
And of course the incomes over $100K are where most of the employers are, so because of those tax hikes their employees can count on fewer pay raises, fewer benefits, and more layoffs. Brilliant.
Reply
-
-
0%
Dionys2 months, 3 weeks ago
" Can we now call the Republicans the tax and spend party"
No. They're a borrow and mortgage our great-great-grandchildrens lives and spend party.
Which for some reason is better than tax-and-spend to Repugnant Cons.
Reply
-
-
0%
nikkibabe2 months, 3 weeks ago
How can you show this to white republican redneck couch potatoes in small town USA? Their main perception is:
"WE WILL NOT VOTE FOR A BLACK MAN. OBAMA LOOKS SCARY. HE LOOKS LIKE A SNAKE OIL SALESMAN. HE IS EVIL. HE DOES NOT WEAR A FLAG PIN. HE IS NOT ONE OF US. HE LOOKS LIKE A MUSLIM. HE MAY BE A TERRORIST".
For these miserables for human beings, white skin is all that matters.
Reply-
-
-
0%
DropkickaLib2 months, 3 weeks ago
Got a secret to tell you...he's half White. I'll wait quietly while you gasp.
Reply -
0%
JoseMadre2 months, 1 week ago
For leftists, straw man arguments are apparently intelligent.
Reply
-
0%
amazed2 months, 3 weeks ago
does anyone really believe that someone who makes $3mm/year or more is just going to site there and leave his money as regular income so that he can just hand over an extra $960K or more?
The real reform we need is either a flat tax or a national sales tax or VAT (value added tax) with exemptions for groceries and inexpensive clothes. This would be far more fair to all -- and people could choose their tax rate based upon what they chose to spend.
Soaking the rich has been tried -- the highest tax rate was 90% in the late 50's and early 60's -- but if you're going to try to use taxation for social engineering, you're supposed to tax what you want to discourage and not tax that which you want to encourage.
Hey, I guess what that REALLY means is that we should tax the poor, and give the rich a skate (obviously, just kidding) just pointing out the absurdity of using taxation for social policy.
Reply-
0%
Will13132 months, 3 weeks ago
national sales tax or VAT (value added tax) with exemptions for groceries and inexpensive clothes.
----
Best idea...over flat tax.. because...... everyone buys stuff.... EVERYONE.. even people with no TAXABLE income... but I'd only exempt the clothing for 2-3 weeks each year.. around the time school starts..
Reply-
0%
wtagg2 months, 3 weeks ago
Yes and amen. Both you and I have had discussions on this before and I agree with you and amazed.
There would probably be a few other additions, like school textbooks, but conceptually it is the most fair way to tax. It is also a way to effectively tax some of the illegal immigration income in this country, though it doesn't do anything about income that leaves this country with no return of goods.
What surprises me is the lack of the typical admin supporters here commenting on something like this. This is true innovation and conservatism. I would think it would be something they would rally around, if they are conservative.
Reply -
0%
Wolfie20072 months, 3 weeks ago
I don't know why there is a need to replace the income tax with either a flat tax or VAT. The federal government has the power to tax everything that moves from and into this county and across state lines, it's called a tariff. This is the instrument that the Constitution gives to the federal government to collect the money it need to operate. So why not just return to the Constitution?
Reply
-
0%
Lurch2 months, 1 week ago
>Soaking the rich has been tried -- the highest tax rate was 90% in the late 50's and early 60's
That is the highest marginal rate. Hope you understand what marginal tax rate means.
Also, it is important to note that the Greatest Generation used a 90% tax rate to help pay for WWII while it was happening. They did NOT shirk the cost for that onto their children and grandchildren like a bunch of fiscal and moral cowards.
Reply
-
-
0%
nikkibabe2 months, 3 weeks ago
amazed:
Exactly. What Bush did was to give these top 1% of the people the tax cuts they did not need. Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Donald Trump, Bill Clinton all said they did not need these tax cuts.
Almost 85% - 90% of the people in USA make less than $200K and will benefit from Obama's plan.
Reply-
0%
amazed2 months, 3 weeks ago
it doesn't say who these rates are for. If the rates shown are for an individual's income, then this could work, but if it's FAMILY income --not so much. If you have two people each making $60K per year, an okay salary, but not princely, then Obama's plan will hurt you.
Tax collection and tax rates are not zero sum propositions. Studies have shown that when marginal rates go down, absolute dollars collected goes up (because of greater compliance). Of course, each time that it's been tried, instead of letting people keep their own money, the state and local gov'ts rush in and take up the slack -- keeping the tax burden reasonably level...
Reply-
0%
JoseMadre2 months, 1 week ago
I exceed Obama's threshold by myself. I also live in Southern California with three children, which includes 2 college students and a developmentally disabled 4 year old. I can certify that, even though I own my house outright, I am certainly not "rich" by any reasonable definition of the term.
Reply
-
-
0%
bigurn2 months, 3 weeks ago
Nikki,
I can see that you are looking only of the surface of this issue, so let me see if I can explain myself to you.
The Bush tax cuts went to nearly everyone (anyone who pays taxes), but the rich got a larger cut precisely because they pay a *lot* more. They did not get a cut in proportion to how much more they pay. Why give the rich a bigger cut?
When people have more money, they spend it. Regardless of income, Americans spend between 70% and 90% of their income. So, if the tax cut gets you $1,000, then you will spend $700 - $900. What does this do?
It employs people. The stuff you buy has to be sold by someone. It has to be made by someone. It has to be advertised, marketed, researched, studied, tested, ordered, received, shipped, inventoried and counted by someone. This means jobs for people who pay income tax. Which means the government gets more tax revenue. Lower taxes increases tax revenue, the opposite of what you may think.
Reply-
0%
Lurch2 months, 1 week ago
Bigum,
I can see you are not really looking at the issue at all, so let me try to explain it for you.
There is a debt, that Bush has exploded in size. When he gives the rich massive breaks and you/me insignificant cuts and then tries to make them permanent, that means when his delayed bill for all the record spending comes, you/me will pay an even larger share and the rich/corporations who benefited by the spending to begin with.
The debt is a zero sum game, and this is class warfare, aka transfer of wealth from the middle class/working poor to the rich.
Your $300 Bush tax cut only cost you about $3,000 so far. The rich got five, six, or even seven figure benefits while they will pay much less than that back if Bush`s cuts are made permanent.
Reply
-
-
0%
bigurn2 months, 3 weeks ago
Nikki
There's more. If lower taxes *increases* tax revenue, then higher taxes *decreases* tax revenue. This is because the very people who buy things now pay more to the government rather than buy things. So those very same people in my first post are now at risk of layoff, and that's what happens. The government actually sees *less* tax revenue for a tax increase, even on only the rich.
It is no consolation for someone who just got laid off to know that they will pay less taxes on 0 income.
Trust me on this one. Obama's plan is a fool's game. The rich will hide their money, and less tax revenue will result. It will hurt the economy, and I am genuinely frightened by what I see. I supposedly will get a benefit from the Obama plan, but I don't want it.
Reply-
0%
newbie04202 months, 3 weeks ago
Good summary bigurn.
It should also be noted that Obama's plan will raise taxes on buisnesses which as we all know get passed on to the consumer, the middle class.
He's like a magician, show's you middle class tax breaks with one hand and while your looking at them sneaks them back in with his other hand.
Meanwhile McCains plan lowers taxes on buisness which shoud in turn lower taxes for consumer, the middle class.
Reply -
0%
wtagg2 months, 3 weeks ago
Has lower taxes, in fact, increased revenue?
Does higher gas prices, in fact, decrease gas use?
If so, in both cases, is it a proportional relationship?
It is an easy statement to make. Not so easy to demonstrate that it is a reliable cause and effect relationship.
Not is not to say Obama's tax plan is a good one either. Neither plan balances the budget, which for conservatives should be the obvious goal.
If you support a tax plan that does not balance the budget, you are not conservative.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
vor2 months, 3 weeks ago
I always love it when Republicans scream, "He's going to raise your taxes!" Who exactly is "your" in this talking point? Certainly to someone like Rush Limbaugh making 25 million plus a year the idea of a Democrat in White House means less discretionary income. But to the dittoheads that follow him this point is utterly ridiculous and applies to a very small percentage of them. But you aren't going to turn this herd around anytime soon. They are so afraid of change they will align themselves with those who do not represent their financial interests. Doesn't bother the fat cats like Rush a bit, they just continue to mop up. If you listen to his commentaries he is always talking about his interests not those of the ordinary Americans. The rich always follow the old Floydian mantra, "I'm alright Jack/Keep your hands off of my stack".
Reply-
-
0%
JoseMadre2 months, 1 week ago
"V.O.R.----You're right on the money(pun intended) with your comments. The wealthy always figure, " I've got mine, screw you"."
I employ six people full time and utilize temps frequently throughout the year. If my taxes increase, I will not be able to increase the pay of my employees as much as I otherwise normally do. If they increase too much, I will have to let someone go and pick up more of the slack myself. Most of the people affected will be people just like me and, indirectly, my employees. THAT is reality.
Reply
-
0%
Will13132 months, 3 weeks ago
I've always followed along with the thoughts on taxes of someone that makes 100 times a year more than me..... NOT...
frankly I don't give 2 sh*ts what you or Limbaugh or anyone else pays..
I CARE WHAT I PAY... and while I believe the LESS THE BETTER.. there are some things we simply cannot provide without government....
Interstate roads and bridges and air traffic controllers come to mind..
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Will13132 months, 3 weeks ago
It's AMAZING.. but Amazed and I actually agree...
we need to REFORM taxes.. so that every time an adminstration changes.. the tax codes DON'T CHANGE...
The FAIR TAX or Sales Tax plan that Huckabee proposed would be IDEAL..
and could be adjusted slightly for NEED.. go to war.. raise the tax a couple % to pay for it...
and EVERYONE buys stuff.. EVERYONE.. the hooker on the street who shows no INCOME.. buys stuff.. the handy man that gives you a break for CASH.. buys stuff.. hell even KIDS buy stuff.. old young rich poor EVERYONE buys stuff...
exempt food.. nothing else except maybe a couple weeks for school clothing.. course you could buy a couple shirts for yourself at the same time...
and the tax you pay is based in some instances on what you want to pay....
MOST rich people are not going to buy a Corolla...
Reply-
0%
Will13132 months, 3 weeks ago
THIS WOULD COMPLETELY REMOVE TAXES AS A POLICY FOR DEBATE BETWEEN THE PARTIES..
THE BEST REASON FOR DOING IT.. IS ALSO THE REASON THAT IT WON'T GET DONE...
THEY NEED WEDGE ISSUES.. BECAUSE NEITHER PARTY REALLY HAS A LEG TO STAND ON.. EXCEPT TO POINT A FINGER AT THE OTHER PARTY AND TELL YOU .. OOHHH THEY GONNA TAX YOU..
REMOVE THE WEDGE ISSUES.. AND THERE IS NO POLITICS...
SORRY FOR SHOUTING...
Reply
-
-
0%
bigurn2 months, 3 weeks ago
What jumps out of this table at me is that McCain will lower tax revenue across the board, and Obama will raise tax revenue by taxing the most wealthy.
I have three problems with Obama's approach:
1) The most wealthy have access to tax relief that you and I don't have. These folks have high-value accountants that can and will hide their money. I don't believe we'll really see the tax revenue Obama is suggesting.
2) Obama's plan further penalizes people for improving themselves. Everybody wants the "rich" to pay for things, but what happens when *you* become "rich"? The 3% wealthiest of the population currently finance 65% of the tax base, creating a horribly unfair system.
3) I don't see what I'm getting, as a citizen, for the increase in tax revenue (assuming it really happens, which it won't). I know what Obama gets; a "stick it to the Man" campaign pledge. I don't see a benefit to me. I don't want more government, but less.
Reply-
0%
amazed2 months, 3 weeks ago
Exactly. Making one segment of society a scapegoat for all the ills of the country, doesn't increase revenue, it does not improve our quality of life. All it does is further divide our country and continue the class warfare that has been part and parcel of the leftist machine since Das Kapital was published.
Reply -
0%
Lurch2 months, 1 week ago
When the top 1% own 90% of the wealth, yet the top 3% currently only finance 65%, that means the those of us who only own 10% of the wealth of this nation are paying for a heck of a lot more than 35% to maintain this society.
Why not be fair and equitable and make those pay the most who have the most? Why penalize some guy cuz he wasn`t born with a trust-fund in his name? Why penalize a guy cuz he had to pay for his way through college?
McCain`s plan will increase our debt even more than Bush, and look what that has done to our economy, our dollar, the cost of fuel etc already. McCain`s plan is over 40% more expensive than Obama`s, and it hits the working class much harder than Obama`s plan.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
newbie04202 months, 3 weeks ago
Oh how people love to leave out the details....
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idU...
Including added interest costs, McCain's plan would add $4.5 trillion to the national debt, while Obama's would add $3.3 trillion -- and that's before spending proposals are considered.
"It seems really unlikely that they're going to be balancing the budget," said Leonard Burman, director of The Tax Policy Center run by Brookings and the Urban Institute in Washington, D.C.
The group sought to quantify revenue costs for the tax break proposals articulated on the campaign trail but assumed flat spending for each candidate based on this year's budget.
He added that Obama's plans for universal health insurance could add significantly to the national debt, while failure to achieve spending cuts and continued Iraq war spending at high levels under McCain could also raise deficits."
(cont)
Reply-
0%
Aidenag2 months, 3 weeks ago
Wow, thats something i didn't notice newbie, thanks for the headsup. Definitely good to know McCain's plan would add 30% more national debt than Obama's. Yet another reason i'm voting Obama.
Reply-
0%
newbie04202 months, 3 weeks ago
LOL
Such sound logic, vote for a guy because he is going to raise our national debt less than the other guy and forget the fact that his plan would still raise it 3.3trillion.
See that's the difference between you and I, I notice the good and bad of both guys plans, mean while all you see is the big bad republican is going to raise it 30% more then your hero Obama.
All this does is prove my point that Obama is going to CHANGE nothing, he's a politician like the rest fo them and he suckered people like Aidenag into thinking he was something he wasn't, not surprising with the logic he applied to his post...
Reply
-
-
0%
JoseMadre2 months, 1 week ago
No one has the discipline to balance a budget that now consumes approx. $450B/year in interest alone. Heck, if not for interest on debt from previous years, Bush would have had a $160B SURPLUS in 2007.
Reply
-
-
0%
bigurn2 months, 3 weeks ago
Since I can't let it go, and Will1313 brought it up....
Most of the taxes we pay today didn't exist 100 years ago.
Federal Income Tax - Nope
State Income Tax - Nope
Local Income Tax - Nope
Inheritance Tax - Nope
And the list goes on. If you dig into the details you will find that the politicians of the era *in nearly every case* sold the tax as 1) temporary or 2) on the rich only or 3) both. Politicians have a way of getting greedy with our money once they get it. One taste, and they want more.
All of us have a duty to question the use of our taxes, because their *our* taxes. Rarely will a politician put a new tax or tax increase to a vote because they know what will happen. We have a duty to impress upon our representatives that they both work for us and are spending our money.
Real tax reform is needed, but to be honest there is such a big industry around tax law and tax accounting that the PACs probably won't let it happen.
Reply-
0%
JoseMadre2 months, 1 week ago
"Most of the taxes we pay today didn't exist 100 years ago."
If we really want to get technical, the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified by the required 3/4 of the states because several states changed the wording and others did not follow the proper procedures in their state constitutions. In fact, it was not declared "ratified" but as "in effect" by Secretary of State Philander Knox. Of course, the SCOTUS would laugh any challenge away, and subsequent decisions have declared that income taxes on wages are, in reality, "excise taxes" and would be unaffected by any successful challenge in any event.
Reply
-
-
0%
aniokly2 months, 3 weeks ago
Obama would praise Hillary, and lie about lowering taxes in the same breath. Both are lies. He hates Hillary, he hates white people, but he needs them to get elected, and he has already p*ssed off most of them with his "clinging to their guns, and God statement". So he says he will lower my taxes, Yeah, like Nancy Pelosi lowered my gas prices like she promised in 06. The truth is not in the Democrats. Didn't the titular head of their party get impeached for lying? Yes, he did.
Reply -
0%
bamababy2 months, 3 weeks ago
Well, how about a second Boston Tea Party, that might shake 'em up, for a second....lol
Reply -
-
-
0%
rimbaud2 months, 1 week ago
Have you ever been forwarded that email about a small farmer selling tomatoes (I think) off the side of the road. A yuppie stops and tells him how he could expand and make millions and then retire. The guy answers: so after all that trouble I can be where I am already.
Reply
-
-
Submitted By:
Aidenag
Photographer by day, news junkie by night. My main areas of interest are politics and the environment. If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions ...
Also submitted:
- 5.0 - Palin got help from corrupt oilman during her first run for state office
- 5.0 - Biden: The silence is Deafening
- 5.1 - Palin Tried to Force Daughter Into Marriage Before Word Got Out She Was Pregnant
- 8.8 - Sarah Palin ‘affair’: big media stays quiet as ‘lover’ named
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
