McCain & Obama Tax Plans analyzed

[Deidre in GA]

According 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.

 

Full article here.

 

That 0.1 percent of families in the upper income bracket would certainly feel the pinch with Obama's plan but somehow I think that wouldn't affect the majority of families on this forum.

[nakitty]

awwww...wouldn't it be awful if they had to sell one of their half dozen mansions? Poor dears...

[LisaKinVA]

I prefer my analysis without spin :D

 

Here's the link to the Tax Policy Center. The review is pretty intense and too long to post. There is also a nifty table with a side-by-side comparison of the plans.

 

The Tax Policy Center also explains the assumptions they've made in their analysis. I won't go into what the WP left out of there's :tongue_smilie:

 

The bottom line is that both plans will siginificantly increase the federal debt UNLESS there are significant cuts or increases in taxes.

 

FWIW (side note) that "top 1% of earners" (meaning people earning $250,000 and above) also includes S-Corps, those are small businesses, ususually family-owned businesses, and the #1 job creation source in the nation (or so I'm continually told). $250,000 in TAXABLE income doesn't go very far -- depending upon where you live. You may be comfortable, but you certainly don't own mansions.

 

IMO, the mega-wealthy will always be mega-wealthy, and they have wonderful tax people and lawyers helping them hide and shelter that income very well.

 

Also, I reject the re-distribution plan sponsored by Obama. You can't reduce taxes for people who don't pay them (families earning less than $45k a year), so they will get a "refund" paid for by people like my dad and my father-in-law

 

EDITED -- the "refund" is called an Earned Income Tax Credit

[lynn]

I prefer my analysis without spin :D

 

Here's the link to the Tax Policy Center. The review is pretty intense and too long to post. There is also a nifty table with a side-by-side comparison of the plans.

 

The Tax Policy Center also explains the assumptions they've made in their analysis. I won't go into what the WP left out of there's :tongue_smilie:

 

The bottom line is that both plans will siginificantly increase the federal debt UNLESS there are significant cuts or increases in taxes.

 

FWIW (side note) that "top 1% of earners" (meaning people earning $250,000 and above) also includes S-Corps, those are small businesses, ususually family-owned businesses, and the #1 job creation source in the nation (or so I'm continually told). $250,000 in TAXABLE income doesn't go very far -- depending upon where you live. You may be comfortable, but you certainly don't own mansions.

 

IMO, the mega-wealthy will always be mega-wealthy, and they have wonderful tax people and lawyers helping them hide and shelter that income very well.

 

Also, I reject the re-distribution plan sponsored by Obama. You can't reduce taxes for people who don't pay them (families earning less than $45k a year), so they will get a "refund" paid for by people like my dad and my father-in-law

 

This is so wrong, I agree. I am tired of hearing people say I can only make X this year or I can't get my $3000 from the g'ment or whatever it is. People that work hard should keep what they earn, pay their FAIR share but that's all. They should be penalized to pay money others. You should be able to work hard and keep what you earn,and have to subsidize others, maybe help your own family.

[jmgconner]

awwww...wouldn't it be awful if they had to sell one of their half dozen mansions? Poor dears...

 

I don't understand your thinking. I wish I had the facts in front of me to share with you. If I remember correctly, most of this country's millionaires are first-generation, small-business owners. They are also some of the most giving, percentage-wise, with their income. Why should they be taxed higher than the rest of us? Because they worked hard and put themselves in a place to be successful?

[Mrs Mungo]

I don't understand your thinking. I wish I had the facts in front of me to share with you. If I remember correctly, most of this country's millionaires are first-generation, small-business owners. They are also some of the most giving, percentage-wise, with their income. Why should they be taxed higher than the rest of us? Because they worked hard and put themselves in a place to be successful?

 

"Millionares" as in people who have worked hard and saved and have acquired a million or two. They are not in the top 1%. You have to be earning in excess of $1.3 million per year to be in the top 1%. The richest 1% of this nation hold over one third of the total wealth in our economy.

 

http://www.chicagofed.org/publications/workingpapers/wp2005_10.pdf

 

http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/swa06-ch05-wealth.pdf

 

http://www.businessweek.com/@@*7OQP4YQG8gsPxgA/magazine/content/04_44/b3906038_mz007.htm

[Mama Lynx]

awwww...wouldn't it be awful if they had to sell one of their half dozen mansions? Poor dears...

 

What happens when success is penalized?

[lynn]

I don't understand your thinking. I wish I had the facts in front of me to share with you. If I remember correctly, most of this country's millionaires are first-generation, small-business owners. They are also some of the most giving, percentage-wise, with their income. Why should they be taxed higher than the rest of us? Because they worked hard and put themselves in a place to be successful?

 

 

:iagree: just because you make more you be taxed more? Everyone deserves to keep what they earn. I really wish one of the candidates would support the Fair Tax where everyone pays the same tax on what you purchase. You keep your federal Tax and Social Secruity, have your own SS savings worked out and pay the feds as you make your purchases. I know this is over simplified but it's something like that from what I understand.

[nakitty]

What happens when success is penalized?

 

Then our society would be more balanced. And I don't know if I agree that it's penalizing the successful... for a couple of reasons...a) I don't actually consider inherited fortune a matter of success.... and b) I think the folks that can afford to... have an obligation to society to pay more than those who cannot. But, then, I'm on the same point in the socio-economic-political scale as Ghandi.:lol:

[nakitty]

:iagree: just because you make more you be taxed more? Everyone deserves to keep what they earn. I really wish one of the candidates would support the Fair Tax where everyone pays the same tax on what you purchase. You keep your federal Tax and Social Secruity, have your own SS savings worked out and pay the feds as you make your purchases. I know this is over simplified but it's something like that from what I understand.

 

 

No federal income tax? How do we pay for Interstates...our military...our border control...our government officials...schools...

[lynn]

No federal income tax? How do we pay for Interstates...our military...our border control...our government officials...schools...

 

Everyone pays the same tax when they make purchases. When you buy things taxes are collected into the system. Those making below X would get X amt each year to cover that.

[nakitty]

Everyone pays the same tax when they make purchases. When you buy things taxes are collected into the system. Those making below X would get X amt each year to cover that.

 

Here in WA we pay over 8.6% sales tax....and that is just in state taxes...how much more would you think we should pay...because, I gotta tell you...I think the idea of sales tax, to replace income tax, sounds INSANE! It would have to be around 30-40% to even come close!:confused:

[kokotg]

Here in WA we pay over 8.6% sales tax....and that is just in state taxes...how much more would you think we should pay...because, I gotta tell you...I think the idea of sales tax, to replace income tax, sounds INSANE! It would have to be around 30-40% to even come close!:confused:

 

That's pretty much the idea. Well, Fair Tax proponents say 23%, but there's a lot of disagreement about that figure.

 

http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html

 

In one of the debates, Mike Huckabee actually insisted that the Fair Tax would be revenue neutral (i.e. it would bring in just as much money as the current tax system) AND it would mean that EVERYONE would pay less in taxes. I'm no mathematician, but....

[Vida Winter]

I prefer my analysis without spin :D

 

Here's the link to the Tax Policy Center. The review is pretty intense and too long to post. There is also a nifty table with a side-by-side comparison of the plans.

 

The Tax Policy Center also explains the assumptions they've made in their analysis. I won't go into what the WP left out of there's :tongue_smilie:

 

The bottom line is that both plans will siginificantly increase the federal debt UNLESS there are significant cuts or increases in taxes.

 

FWIW (side note) that "top 1% of earners" (meaning people earning $250,000 and above) also includes S-Corps, those are small businesses, ususually family-owned businesses, and the #1 job creation source in the nation (or so I'm continually told). $250,000 in TAXABLE income doesn't go very far -- depending upon where you live. You may be comfortable, but you certainly don't own mansions.

 

IMO, the mega-wealthy will always be mega-wealthy, and they have wonderful tax people and lawyers helping them hide and shelter that income very well.

 

Also, I reject the re-distribution plan sponsored by Obama. You can't reduce taxes for people who don't pay them (families earning less than $45k a year), so they will get a "refund" paid for by people like my dad and my father-in-law

 

Exactly. We need to reject this type of socialism if we want to promote free enterprise and personal responsibility. Our government is already bloated enough. An Obama presidency would make it worse. Beware the kind man bearing gifts. There is a price.

 

Why would anyone want to work harder and harder for less and less? Regulations already discourage small businesses from hiring employees. I have been a small business owner. If you have ever owned a small business you know what I am talking about.

 

Bigger government, less incentive to start businesses and create jobs, more citizens dependent on government. This is not the America that our founding fathers envisioned.

[nakitty]

Exactly. We need to reject this type of socialism if we want to promote free enterprise and personal responsibility. Our government is already bloated enough. An Obama presidency would make it worse. Beware the kind man bearing gifts. There is a price.

 

Why would anyone want to work harder and harder for less and less? Regulations already discourage small businesses from hiring employees. I have been a small business owner. If you have ever owned a small business you know what I am talking about.

 

Bigger government, less incentive to start businesses and create jobs, more citizens dependent on government. This is not the America that our founding fathers envisioned.

 

 

Again...MOST of the extremely rich....do NOT work harder and harder...

[Phred]

IYou can't reduce taxes for people who don't pay them (families earning less than $45k a year), so they will get a "refund" paid for by people like my dad and my father-in-law

This is incorrect. A refund is just that, a refund. You cannot get money back that you did not pay in.

[nakitty]

This is incorrect. A refund is just that, a refund. You cannot get money back that you did not pay in.

 

 

Phred... that is not true... EIC and Child Tax Credits...both give a return when none was paid. BUT, they are for the working poor...and *I* don't have a problem with them.... I'm just sayin'...you ARE incorrect here....sorry. :D

[Jenny in Atl]

Here in WA we pay over 8.6% sales tax....and that is just in state taxes...how much more would you think we should pay...because, I gotta tell you...I think the idea of sales tax, to replace income tax, sounds INSANE! It would have to be around 30-40% to even come close!:confused:

 

Read the Fair Tax... it really would be wonderful for everyone. Just read it.

[Vida Winter]

Again...MOST of the extremely rich....do NOT work harder and harder...

 

Maybe among those who have inherited wealth. People tend not to appreciate what they have not worked for. But of those who are building businesses, I believe they are among the hardest working people in the country.

 

~Dana

[LisaKinVA]

This is incorrect. A refund is just that, a refund. You cannot get money back that you did not pay in.

 

You are correct, which is why I placed refund in quotes. However, the money is still sent out, sorry, the exact term escapes me -- when my overly-tired, hormone-drained brain can come up with it, I'll post the correct terminology.

 

POSTING CORRECT TERMINOLOGY: Earned Income Tax Credit

[Mama Lynx]

Then our society would be more balanced. And I don't know if I agree that it's penalizing the successful... for a couple of reasons...a) I don't actually consider inherited fortune a matter of success.... and b) I think the folks that can afford to... have an obligation to society to pay more than those who cannot. But, then, I'm on the same point in the socio-economic-political scale as Ghandi.:lol:

 

 

So are you saying that you operate under the assumption that everyone who makes $250K, or any "rich" person, has inherited wealth?

 

If they don't have inherited wealth, but have instead worked hard and have become successful because of it, then isn't that penalizing success?

 

By a balanced society, do you mean to say that if we are "too" successful, we have crossed a line and should be held back to a more reasonable standard?

 

Out of curiosity ... what is your opinion of people like Bill Gates? He seems to give a great deal of money to help others, on his own, without being forced to. Do you think he does good for society?

[Phred]

Here's the thing that I can't find a way around. A person making 30K per year spends it all. They spend it on food and rent and gas and clothes. There is nothing left for any unnecessary expenditures. A person making 130K per year may not spend it all. They can put some of it away into savings and 401Ks and buy cars and TVs and DVD players and computers and books and magazines and if a sudden medical bill pops up they don't worry about it too much.

 

If they each pay 10% the person making 30K pays 3,000 and that amount will kill him. The person making 130K pays 13,000 and doesn't miss it. It's all about what they do with the money. So if you tax the purchases and not the income it's going to unfairly burden the poor.

 

After all, rich people don't eat more than poor people do. They just spend a lesser percentage of their income on food.

 

So how is it equitable to not tax those that make more... more?

[Mama Lynx]

Read the Fair Tax... it really would be wonderful for everyone. Just read it.

 

:iagree: Read it!

[LisaKinVA]

This link

HERE will take you to the U.S. House of Representatives Document (a PDF file), granted from 2000 (sorry, haven't been able to find a non-political current version yet). The details I've quoted below are in the footnotes.

 

Income earners in the top 10% begins at $100,928 (2000 year level)

Income earners in the top 5% begin at $134,308 (2000 year level)

Income earners in the top 1% begin at $296,828 (2000 year level)

 

Remember, only 95% of Americans (lower 95% of earners) get a "tax cut" under the Obama plan? So, people making more than $134,308 in (I believe) adjusted gross income (based upon 2000 year levels) will have their taxes hiked.

 

Guess it's a good thing I'm having another baby... maybe we should aim for a 12/31/08 birthday :lol:

[Jenny in Atl]

Here's the thing that I can't find a way around. A person making 30K per year spends it all. They spend it on food and rent and gas and clothes. There is nothing left for any unnecessary expenditures. A person making 130K per year may not spend it all. They can put some of it away into savings and 401Ks and buy cars and TVs and DVD players and computers and books and magazines and if a sudden medical bill pops up they don't worry about it too much.

 

If they each pay 10% the person making 30K pays 3,000 and that amount will kill him. The person making 130K pays 13,000 and doesn't miss it. It's all about what they do with the money. So if you tax the purchases and not the income it's going to unfairly burden the poor.

 

After all, rich people don't eat more than poor people do. They just spend a lesser percentage of their income on food.

 

So how is it equitable to not tax those that make more... more?

 

There are already taxes embedded in the products everyone buys. Under the Fair Tax, everyone will receive a stipend of money that covers the taxes paid on the basic needs (food, clothing, etc), basically removing taxes completely from those with low income. By eliminating income tax we will take the power away from the government and give it back to the people.

 

There are some Dems who are excited about the Fair Tax, but will do nothing about it unless they are in power. I just hope either party looks beyond its best interest to see what would grow our economy, that in return would help grow jobs.

[LisaKinVA]

From the Tax Foundation -- About a 50% increase in zero-tax filers between 2000 and 2004

 

From Deloitte -- the Changing face of Income Distribution

 

Oh, and I figured out where the 1.3 million income figure for top 1% of earners comes from... it's the AVERAGE, but the in the top 1% starts much, much, lower (my latest recollection is about $250,000, but haven't found a cite for it).

[Parrothead]

Also, I reject the re-distribution plan sponsored by Obama. You can't reduce taxes for people who don't pay them (families earning less than $45k a year), so they will get a "refund" paid for by people like my dad and my father-in-law

 

EDITED -- the "refund" is called an Earned Income Tax Credit

:iagree: I'm so sick of politicians trying to take dh's money and give it to someone else.

[Bev in B'ville]

First, my husband and I both grew up dirt poor. I joined the Army to pay for my college rather than learn how to repeat often "Do you want fries with that?" Both of us paid our way through college working the whole time. At one point I had three jobs while attending school full-time. Both my husband and I went to graduate school on our own nickel. We did not have any help. We graduated and eventually paid off our school loans. My husband is now a partner in a consulting firm and we are considered in the top 1% income earners (which by the way means any amount earned greater than $250,000). Last year we wrote a tax check for six figures! We do not own two homes or more, just one. We have to save a lot of money just to pay our quarterly taxes. And, by the way, my husband does not work 9-5. I don't know any successful small business owners that do; 60-80 hours per week is normal, some weeks it's more than that.

 

I've seen people using food stamps answering their cell phones, purchasing large screen tv's, insisting that cable tv is a "necessity" so I don't buy into those people earning 30K only spending their money on what they need. They clearly don't. The statistics back that up.

 

Some of the conclusions drawn above about what people think defines rich or what those people do with their money is staggering to me. Most of the so called "rich" are not people born with a silver spoon in their mouth. In fact, only 1% of the top income earners inherited the money. (That's 1% of 1% for those who are thinking about it.) 40% of this country already pays no taxes. The top 10% pays 70% of the taxes already. The gov't can't keep raising taxes on this group.

 

Socialism doesn't work. Taking from one group to give to another is wrong. It promotes apathy among those who are willing to work hard, but won't if it doesn't earn them anymore than the bum living next door.

 

What most people don't understand about the taxing system is that if the gov't raises taxes on the "rich" and corporations, who do you think is going to end up paying for that in the end? The consumers who have to buy those goods, that's who. Those corporations will raise their prices; sometimes that works, sometimes the corporation goes under - leading to job loss.

 

The democrat's charge to raise taxes is what we hear every election cycle and there's a reason for that. They pander to the majority of the population and try to make out that those "rich" people are bad and should be punished and made to pay "their fair share." Well, guess what, we already do, and more.

[Bev in B'ville]

Read the Fair Tax... it really would be wonderful for everyone. Just read it.

:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:

[threetreasurs]

Well I have done taxes for the last few years. Only people with kids get very much in earned income credit - which phases out as income goes up - to be replaced by the child tax credit - which most middle income people get.

 

People do get very emotional on these issues but the tax codes are very complex and there are tax breaks for just about everyone - not just poor people.

 

Also, there are many very hard working single moms who put their earned income credit to extremely good use.

[Zelda]

Can I please quote you on my blog?

[jmgconner]

First' date=' my husband and I both grew up dirt poor. I joined the Army to pay for my college rather than learn how to repeat often "Do you want fries with that?" Both of us paid our way through college working the whole time. At one point I had three jobs while attending school full-time. Both my husband and I went to graduate school on our own nickel. We did not have any help. We graduated and eventually paid off our school loans. My husband is now a partner in a consulting firm and we are considered in the top 1% income earners (which by the way means any amount earned greater than $250,000). Last year we wrote a tax check for six figures! We do not own two homes or more, just one. We have to save a lot of money just to pay our quarterly taxes. And, by the way, my husband does not work 9-5. I don't know any successful small business owners that do; 60-80 hours per week is normal, some weeks it's more than that.

 

I've seen people using food stamps answering their cell phones, purchasing large screen tv's, insisting that cable tv is a "necessity" so I don't buy into those people earning 30K only spending their money on what they need. They clearly don't. The statistics back that up.

 

Some of the conclusions drawn above about what people think defines rich or what those people do with their money is staggering to me. Most of the so called "rich" are not people born with a silver spoon in their mouth. In fact, only 1% of the top income earners inherited the money. (That's 1% of 1% for those who are thinking about it.) 40% of this country already pays no taxes. The top 10% pays 70% of the taxes already. The gov't can't keep raising taxes on this group.

 

Socialism doesn't work. Taking from one group to give to another is wrong. It promotes apathy among those who are willing to work hard, but won't if it doesn't earn them anymore than the bum living next door.

 

What most people don't understand about the taxing system is that if the gov't raises taxes on the "rich" and corporations, who do you think is going to end up paying for that in the end? The consumers who have to buy those goods, that's who. Those corporations will raise their prices; sometimes that works, sometimes the corporation goes under - leading to job loss.

 

The democrat's charge to raise taxes is what we hear every election cycle and there's a reason for that. They pander to the majority of the population and try to make out that those "rich" people are bad and should be punished and made to pay "their fair share." Well, guess what, we already do, and more.[/quote']

 

:patriot: Thank you for this post.

[happygrrl]

Well I have done taxes for the last few years. Only people with kids get very much in earned income credit - which phases out as income goes up - to be replaced by the child tax credit - which most middle income people get.

 

People do get very emotional on these issues but the tax codes are very complex and there are tax breaks for just about everyone - not just poor people.

 

Also, there are many very hard working single moms who put their earned income credit to extremely good use.

 

Thank you. My husband started a business, and we received the Earned Income Tax Credit for a few years. We did not spend it on a TV. We spent it covering our social security and self employment tax; the remainder was spent on food. I did not "steal" this money from any husbands, wives, or parents. Now, I give more than 10% of our income to help others even less fortunate than we have been. I estimate that I have paid back that EIC to our community many many times. I don't want to step on any toes here, but please be careful as you (collective) describe the (American) poor.

 

(I felt I needed to be specific about 'American' poor... my friends in Africa and Asia think even *most* of the poor here are pretty well off!)

[Phred]

Ok... for the sake of the discussion let's examine the last few years. We've had a war (no comments about the war itself, please) going on that has had to be paid for. During WWII there were taxes and war bonds and such so that the population knew that there was a cost associated with such an undertaking. This war has been invisible as far as cost goes. If you were to ask me the only way I know there's a cost at all is that I've been paying attention to the news and I know what congress has been fighting over allotting...

 

So, even though there's been a tax cut, there has been a rise in spending. How can this be? I certainly can't spend more if my salary is cut.

 

And yes, while there has been an increase in the amount that the treasury has taken in each year... it comes nowhere near the amount we're spending on the war.

 

So I ask you. In what way is a tax cut a good thing when the country is obligated by a war to spend MORE money than it takes in? How can you force our politicians to cut, cut, cut or not be elected when this sort of deficit/national debt problem continues unabated? Every senator, representative or other public servant who returns to his or her district and claims to be getting more money for you than you sent in... where do you think that money is coming from? And don't you think the district next door is being told the same thing? Anyone saying this should be ashamed, not proud.

 

It's time to stop believing in magic. Money doesn't come from nowhere. When we go to fight a war like we've just done, the cost must be borne by the population of the United States. WE have to pay for it. But, skillfully, our politicians have made that burden disappear. And they've cut our taxes to boot. Somebody, sometime, is going to have to raise taxes to pay for this reckless spending. That, or cut programs we all have come to love.

 

So please stop arguing about cutting taxes and raising taxes... there is no argument really. The only responsible thing to do is raise them and to do it now... before we're in it so deep we can't get out any longer and the dollar becomes worthless.

[Haiku]

At one point I had three jobs while attending school full-time.

 

I quoted this more for the sentiment than for the exact details. I recently watched the movie Pursuit of Happyness and spent some time reading about Chris Gardner's life. Here is a man who went through hell and eventually became extremely wealthy. He's the type of success story that people love to throw around as proof that our society is working so well. But what I want to ask is' date=' is it really ok that people have to go through that kind of hell? We live in the richest country on earth, is it right that we have people going homeless while trying to earn an education? And what about the people who go through hell and never come out, no matter how hard they try? There are plently of people out there who work hard and remain in dire situations. Is it really ok with Americans that this happens? Are we really willing to shrug our shoulders and say, "If you work hard enough you will succeed?" when we have proof all over the place to the contrary? I think it's wrong to consign one segment of the society to the economic dustbin so that another segment can grow ridiculously wealthy.

 

Socialism doesn't work. Taking from one group to give to another is wrong. It promotes apathy among those who are willing to work hard, but won't if it doesn't earn them anymore than the bum living next door.

 

Interesting that I see that sentiment repeated ad nauseum by people who don't live in socialist societies but the majority of people who live in socialist societies don't have that opinion.

 

 

Tara

[Michelle in MO]

First' date=' my husband and I both grew up dirt poor. I joined the Army to pay for my college rather than learn how to repeat often "Do you want fries with that?" Both of us paid our way through college working the whole time. At one point I had three jobs while attending school full-time. Both my husband and I went to graduate school on our own nickel. We did not have any help. We graduated and eventually paid off our school loans. My husband is now a partner in a consulting firm and we are considered in the top 1% income earners (which by the way means any amount earned greater than $250,000). Last year we wrote a tax check for six figures! We do not own two homes or more, just one. We have to save a lot of money just to pay our quarterly taxes. And, by the way, my husband does not work 9-5. I don't know any successful small business owners that do; 60-80 hours per week is normal, some weeks it's more than that.[/quote']

 

He grew up in a blue-collar neighborhood in St. Louis. Neither one of his parents graduated from high school; his mom did graduate from the 8th grade, but his dad never made it even that far. There was no money for college, but somehow my dh and his two siblings managed to put themselves through school. After he worked for six years, he decided to become a lawyer. Again---no scholarships or help from mom and dad. He put himself through law school and managed to graduate with no debt and an old, beat-up Datsun.

 

After working for other people for approximately 10 years, he went into business for himself. Bev is right--60 to 80 hours per week was normal for his schedule, until last year, when he developed a heart condition and had to cut back. Yes, we're in a higher tax bracket, but paying quarterly taxes has never been a picnic for us. We have a nice home, but by no stretch is it a mansion. We also believe in giving, and I'd rather not broadcast too loudly what we've given to in the past, but besides giving to church we've done a fair share of anonymous giving to needy people. When we did, we never once looked at this as a tax break or a tax benefit, because it wasn't; that was never the concern---the needs of those individuals in question was the concern.

 

I certainly don't want to see those in the $20,000 to $60,000 range taxed more---those are the people who get hit from both ends. They have a hard enough time making ends meet with that income, and I don't think they should be taxed more. However, I tend to get annoyed when I hear catch phrases like "born with a silver spoon in their mouths" or "they don't pay their fair share of taxes" or "they don't have to work hard for that money".

[Bev in B'ville]

So please stop arguing about cutting taxes and raising taxes... there is no argument really. The only responsible thing to do is raise them and to do it now... before we're in it so deep we can't get out any longer and the dollar becomes worthless.[/quote]

 

I would add that the Fair Tax Policy (please read the book if you haven't. It's a quick read and it really does answer a lot of the questions about the logistics of such a plan. You can see it here and it's sequel here. ) The basic premise of which is the ony federal income tax you pay is when you spend money. This would allow fair taxing across the population (yes, there are exclusions for those who don't earn a lot). Those people with "six mansions" would be taxed when they buy a new mansion or a Ferrari. The rest of us would be taxed when we buy things we want. The authors (one of which is a congressman) explain how at 23% we would have more than enough money to cover our spending (as long as we don't go overboard with spending, that is).

 

I am a big proponent of the Fair Tax Policy. One of the biggest advantages is that people who vacation in the U.S. (who use our water, sewage, etc. while they're here) would also be paying this tax. Do you know how many people visit the U.S. every year? Walt Disney World alone? We're talking millions of dollars. By the way, this is not a new idea. I once accompanied my husband on a business trip to Switzerland (15 years ago now). I had to buy batteries and paid their national sales tax. I paid over $8 for one set of batteries.

 

We're always looking for alternatives to energy. Why not look for alternatives to our current tax system, too? Just because we've done it one way for a long time doesn't mean there's not a better way to do it.

 

As always, just my musings.

[Haiku]

I read the Fair Tax book. I have mixed emotions about it. I think that a lot of the ideas about the Fair Tax sound good. I think that a lot of the criticisms about it are valid. Since I am not an economist, I don't know how it would shake down in real life. One thing that bothers me, though, is the 23%/30% debate. The author of the book spent a lot of time defending the idea that it is a 23% tax, but then in at least one example he gave, it was clear that it was a 30% tax. The author said it was semantics, but it didn't seem that way to me. It had to do with whether the tax is taken from the total amount paid for a given item or whether it's added onto the price of the item.

 

Tara

[OhM]

Interesting that I see that sentiment repeated ad nauseum by people who don't live in socialist societies but the majority of people who live in socialist societies don't have that opinion.

 

 

And do you feel these socialist societies provide a preferable standard of living?

[lynn]

Here in WA we pay over 8.6% sales tax....and that is just in state taxes...how much more would you think we should pay...because, I gotta tell you...I think the idea of sales tax, to replace income tax, sounds INSANE! It would have to be around 30-40% to even come close!:confused:

 

Isn't that just about what is taken out of your pay any ways? You would get that in your paycheck to keep or spend how you want. You would have more take home pay because that % just would not be taken out and I believe the fair tax would be less, so you will get to keep more. Instead of say 35% being taken off the top you would get 35% more pay then pay only 23% on things you purchase when you purchase them.

[Haiku]

I have not lived long-term in a socialist country. However, I have lived short-term in several.

 

Yes, I feel that they provide a better standard of living.

 

Part of it is economic and part of it is attitude toward life (what is considered "the good life," what people feel they need to do to keep their country a nice place to live, etc.).

 

In addition, my friends who live in socialist countries are horrified by the medical horror stories they hear from Americans and are aghast that we have such problems with homelessness and hunger. They do not blame poor people for being poor. I have much of that same mindset.

 

Tara

[Amy in NY]

Phred... that is not true... EIC and Child Tax Credits...both give a return when none was paid. BUT, they are for the working poor...and *I* don't have a problem with them.... I'm just sayin'...you ARE incorrect here....sorry. :D

 

Unfortantely, Phred is wrong and nakitty is right. Last year, dh started a small business with a friend who had been unemployed previously (long story but it turns out they were living off of her family - unknown to us.) This February, the friend's wife complained to me that they weren't getting back their normal 6 thousand or so dollars in EIC and child tax credit because her dh was now self-employed.

 

I was stunned. We have always worked and consider ourselves fortunate to get anything back.

 

Needless to say, I am not a fan of the Obama plan and I strongly favor a flat tax plan. I work too hard for my money to give it away indiscriminately.

[Amy in NH]

Also, I reject the re-distribution plan sponsored by Obama. You can't reduce taxes for people who don't pay them (families earning less than $45k a year), so they will get a "refund" paid for by people like my dad and my father-in-law

 

EDITED -- the "refund" is called an Earned Income Tax Credit

 

This is wrong. We make less than $45K & we don't qualify for EIC.

 

I do believe that people who make more than $250K should pay a fair share of the tax burden.

[Amy in NH]

:iagree: with Phred!

[PeterPan]

I just wanna say I'm SICK TO DEATH of Obama saying anyone making over a certain amount (200 or 250 gr, whatever his latest number is) can "afford" to pay more in taxes. It DOES affect people here, and lots of us!! They're called small business owners. My take home pay looks like no more than yours, meaning I CAN'T afford to pay more taxes, but on paper, as S-corp owners, we pay taxes for everything the business does. And if you knew how screwey the tax laws are, you'd know it's possible to pay taxes and lose money, all the in the same year too!!

 

Obama is a socialist thief and I'm sick of it.

 

Yes, I'm pregnant, and yes I'm mad. And why wouldn't there be "rich" people on a homeschooling board either? People come in all shapes and sizes. With the pics of houses I've seen around here, I'm pretty sure there are quite a few people making amounts that Obama has the audicity to call rich. And they probably don't feel like they have thousands extra lying around to pay more taxes either. People should stop complaining, stop wanting to live off others, and WORK for what they want.

[Vida Winter]

Quote:

Socialism doesn't work. Taking from one group to give to another is wrong. It promotes apathy among those who are willing to work hard, but won't if it doesn't earn them anymore than the bum living next door.

 

Interesting that I see that sentiment repeated ad nauseum by people who don't live in socialist societies but the majority of people who live in socialist societies don't have that opinion.

Tara

 

As an American, anytime socialism begins to creep into our society (under the guise of taxing the wealthy) it offends me to the core. This is not how our country was founded, and it is not how it should work. Stated again, It is not how our country was intended to function.

 

I also find socialism a very cop-out, lazy, politically convenient solution to society's problems. Hey, let's just tax the top X% of earners, that way we can pay for XXX. How about working hard, working together, and perhaps actually working to find creative solutions to our nation's problems?

[OhM]

I have not lived long-term in a socialist country. However, I have lived short-term in several.

 

Yes, I feel that they provide a better standard of living.

 

Part of it is economic and part of it is attitude toward life (what is considered "the good life," what people feel they need to do to keep their country a nice place to live, etc.).

 

In addition, my friends who live in socialist countries are horrified by the medical horror stories they hear from Americans and are aghast that we have such problems with homelessness and hunger. They do not blame poor people for being poor. I have much of that same mindset.

 

Tara

 

I have no knowledge to agree or disagree with the widely varying stories that I hear.

 

The only personal insight I have into this is my friend's mother, who emigrated from Russia about 10-12 years ago. She prefers her life here as a supermarket cashier to her life in Moscow as a scientist. She took risks coming here, doesn't regret it a bit, as she would very passionately tell anyone who asked. She insisted that her daughter (my friend) make a 220-mi round trip to vote for Bush in the last election. Hopefully she's registered here this time and won't have to be late for work. :001_smile:

 

My friend's opinion is the antithesis of your friends' regarding our healthcare system. She came very close to dying from a relatively minor injury as a child in Russia. I can't recall the details of the situation, but I believe that experience was the reason her mother took the steps to leave.

 

I guess, as in this country, the "picture" you get depends who you ask.

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

This is incorrect. A refund is just that, a refund. You cannot get money back that you did not pay in.

 

For the last 5 years we have recieved a tax return that was more than what we paid in income taxes for that year.

[PeterPan]

When I was in Russia, I met people lamenting the passing of the old days of communism. Their logic? Under communism they got to take vacations. Almost everyone I met, excepting a few young people and entrepreneurs, were still living on gov't jobs, gov't handouts. There were nice stores in big cities, not in the rural areas, and you got the sense people still couldn't afford things most people here take for granted (toilet paper, etc.). And yes, where I was, the medical care was EXTREMELY primitive. In the family I stayed with, on of the boys broke his collar bone and didn't even receive pain killer! Not anything. They set it, put him in a funky brace, and sent him home to cry.

 

So in a sense they aren't so different from people here, where it's easier to whine and want the govt to do it for you than to do something about it yourself. Difference is, over there it's harder to have chance to break free. (expensive college, limited jobs, hard life just to eat) They've been run over so much it's in their psyche to be afraid and not believe in their own powers to affect change, either of their own lives or the government. (at least that's how it was with the people I met) But over here ANYONE can advance, anyone. You have so many opportunities to advance, no matter where you're coming from, and your vote COUNTS. Over there, they didn't even believe their vote counted and many didn't bother. Whether it would have or not, I don't know.

[sleepy]

Read the Fair Tax... it really would be wonderful for everyone. Just read it.

 

:iagree: Fellow Fair Tax supporter, here. :D