Ugh. Change: what we'll have left in our pockets when Obama gets through taxing individuals and businesses for our own good, since he and government bureaucracy will know what's best for us.
Putting our domestic energy needs in perspective.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Honk! If you Think This Country Will Go To The Dogs Under Obama
Ugh. Change: what we'll have left in our pockets when Obama gets through taxing individuals and businesses for our own good, since he and government bureaucracy will know what's best for us.
Putting our domestic energy needs in perspective.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
If you make under $121,000 a year, your taxes will be less under Obama
And since 84% of Americans make $100,000 a year or less (according to the latest figures I could find), Obama's tax plan would help the overwhelming majority of Americans. Gee...I can see why that makes you so upset. That really is awful.
The annual incomes of Americans are pretty interesting. Almost 55% of Americans make $50,000 per year or less, with 28% - or more than 1/4 - making $25,000 or less. The national average is around $44,500.
Funny to hear you constantly complaining about government bureaucracy, Web. Care to guess which president has increased govenment spending the most over the past 30 years? Hint: It's not Ford, Carter, Reagan, George H.W. Bush or Clinton.
Will be back to this soon. Had a bit of a fall on a mountain hike today.
This from Business Week:
"Obama is more aggressive in the number of his proposed tax plans. They range from creating income-related subsidies for health insurance to refundable "Making Work Pay" credits and "Universal Mortgage" credits. He'll increase the maximum capital-gains tax to 25%. He will keep some of the 2001 and 2003 tax laws, such as the child-credit expansions and the 10%, 15%, 25%, and 28% income rates.
"That breakdown of the two tax plans comes from the Tax Policy Center, a joint venture between the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. Its recent analysis captures the essential difference between the two tax approaches:
"• Senator McCain's tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes, almost all of whom would receive large tax cuts that would, on average, raise their aftertax incomes by more than twice the average for all households. Many fewer households at the bottom of the income distribution would get tax cuts, and those whose taxes fall would, on average, see their aftertax income rise much less.
"• In marked contrast, Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers. The largest tax cuts, as a share of income, would go to those at the bottom of the distribution, while taxpayers with the highest income would see their taxes rise.
"McCain Wins on the Simplicity Front
For many voters, that's all the information they need to know about the candidates and taxes. But there are other ways to judge. For instance, by one critical measure—how they would deal with the omnivorous Alternative Minimum Tax—both plans are failures. The AMT was designed in the late 1960s to make sure that the very wealthiest Americans paid at least some tax. Yet because it was poorly constructed, some 3 million taxpayers now pay the AMT, and by 2010 that figure could swell to 30 million, according to William Gale, economist at the Brookings Institution.
"Congress and the White House have punted for years on the AMT, largely because neither political party is sure how to replace the lost revenue. It's estimated that repealing the AMT would cost at least $800 billion over the next decade. Instead, Washington has preferred to rely on a series of "patches" to keep the dreaded tax from reaching deep down into the middle class. Both McCain and Obama plan on continuing that ignoble Washington tradition.
"By the metric of simplicity, McCain edges out Obama. For one thing, he's proposing fewer tax initiatives. For another, he has embraced repealing various corporate loopholes, such as eliminating the preferential treatment of oil companies, in return for a lowering of the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%.
"Nevertheless, neither candidate is embracing dramatic simplification by broadening the tax base and eliminating a wide range of deductions and credits."
*****
Of course, Obama will be worse for the nation for a myriad of other reasons other than increased tax complexity. But for now, I'll let it go at that.
"Senator McCain's tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes, almost all of whom would receive large tax cuts that would, on average, raise their aftertax incomes by more than twice the average for all households."
Well, I can see why you like McCain - if I was going to get a raise in my aftertax income by about $45K I might consider him (living on government handouts makes that impossible, however). He'll continue to give you the Bush tax cuts he voted against twice before realizing he was for them. Tax cuts plus more war(s) - what's not to like?
Well my dear vienna, Obama's tax cuts would actually benefit me too....since I am certainly not in the top tax brackets....but I support McCain for many other reasons, including his tax and energy policies and his stand on Iraq.
But I find it sad that the discussion in this country has deteriorated to which candidate will do the most for each of us....only in entitled America can such a thing happen....we're living in times of the Nanny president if ever there was one.
"Well my dear vienna, Obama's tax cuts would actually benefit me too..." Then why the implication that you and American businesses will only have change in your pockets after his tax policies are implemented?
I guess I'd have to slightly agree that we vote for president based on what he (or she) could do for us personally, although that's not why I'm voting the way I am. Though, truth be told, I would appreciate the government fulfilling its promise with respect to my husband's pension, which we fully expect will be on the chopping block once the government runs out of money - more than it already has, of course.
I think the McCain/Obama matchup is perfect: we have two very different candidates, from very different backgrounds, with very different views of where to take this country. A vote for McCain will continue the past 8 years; a vote for Obama will take us in a different direction. It's up to us to decide where we want to go....
Wish I had more time this morning and today to go more at this, but don't.
However, what I mean, Vienna, is that other policies of Obamas is going to further burden middle America. You can't punish the job creators and wealth providers and not create other effects down the road like higher unemployment as more businesses send their work overseas....like Ford just relocated its new plant in Mexico. The labor unions simply can't keep piling on demand after demand such that companies like Ford can make a profit without ultimately paying the heaviest price and lose the auto workers jobs altogether.
BTW, it's not your husband's pensions that could be at risk one day, but all promised entitlements to the baby boomers as they try to retire. We've all been warned that there is going to be disappointment ahead...all of us.
Uh, yeah, actually it is my husband's pension that could be at risk. The government has gone back on its word to veterans before (look up the bouns army when you've got time). With the amount we're spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, all the services are facing cutbacks in equipment and benefits (two services are facing likely cutbacks in personnel) - and we've been told since 2004 that the pensions are not guaranteed and everything is and will be on the table.
I wouldn't worry about the baby boomers though - they'll take care of their own. It'll be my generation - and your children's - that ponies up money for the boomers and is left with nothing in return.
Having just spent a week in Michigan, where my husband is from and where his father spent 30 years working for Pontiac motors, you're not going to persuade me that the labor unions are asking too much - unless decent health care (which I can tell you for an absolute fact is being covered less by the big 3 and more by the workers), a 40 hour work week and a safe working environment are examples of "piling on demand after demand."
In case you haven't noticed, jobs have been leaving this country since about the mid-1990s after NAFTA was implemented (thanks, Bill Clinton!). [What's funny about the auto industry is that the white collar workers were all for NAFTA and sending factories overseas...until their jobs got shipped of to India. Then, of course, it was totally unfair.]
If you think business are going to be leaving this country in droves if Obama is elected, you simply haven't been paying attention. They're already...GONE...
Post a Comment