Digg Townhall now online!
Check out the latest Digg Townhall, where Kevin and Jay answered the top questions from the Digg Community!
Obama's tax plan in comparison with McCain's tax plan.
taxpolicycenter.org — The Obama tax plan would make the tax system progressive by providing tax breaks to those at the bottom of the income scale and raising taxes on upper-income earners ( above $250,000). McCain's plan would make the system more regressive by providing little tax relief to those at the bottom while giving huge tax cuts to households at the very top.
MercyPolitics- 124 diggs
- digg it
- B00Radley, on 07/25/2008, -10/+6dugg!
- csiunatc, on 07/25/2008, -9/+17Non Partisan My @ss, Look at the language use. Everything with McCain in it is either COULD or Negative, when everything with Obama is WILL and positive...
Whats worse than blatant campaigning are people who claim to be neutral and do everything to avoid showing their true colors.- AtHomeBoy2000, on 07/25/2008, -6/+16Could it be possible that his plan actually IS very bad?
- brad3378, on 07/26/2008, -0/+3Of course it is. Unfortunately it is just as bad as Obama's tax & spend rhetoric. The scariest of which is his $845 Billion (or $6222 per US Taxpayer) Global Poverty Act. With a bulk of our Social Security & Medicare obligations at our front door, we are in no position to expand the role of the Federal Government. Yet here we are bailing out bank stockholders and growing the size of our national debt.
Downsize or bust.
- brad3378, on 07/26/2008, -0/+3Of course it is. Unfortunately it is just as bad as Obama's tax & spend rhetoric. The scariest of which is his $845 Billion (or $6222 per US Taxpayer) Global Poverty Act. With a bulk of our Social Security & Medicare obligations at our front door, we are in no position to expand the role of the Federal Government. Yet here we are bailing out bank stockholders and growing the size of our national debt.
- AtHomeBoy2000, on 07/25/2008, -6/+16Could it be possible that his plan actually IS very bad?
- MommaLu, on 07/25/2008, -6/+12No matter who you choose Americans are screwed.
- brad3378, on 07/26/2008, -0/+4Fair taxation is a distraction from the bigger problem - The Spending.
Ever wonder why even a very modest home in Washington DC sells for over half a million dollars?
It is because of big government spending.
It doesn't matter if we're talking about McCain's 100 year war or Obama's
$845 Billion global poverty act. ($845 Billion divided by 117 Million US Taxpayers = $7,222.22 per taxpayer)
We're getting ***** from both directions.- colincornaby, on 07/26/2008, -2/+2Do some research. The bill would spend the money over 13 years (so we divide your number by 13 and we get around $555 a year), and in addition, a large majority of that money would be paid by taxes on businesses and taxes on the upper class.
An average middle class American wouldn't notice much of a tax increase at all. Your numbers are misleading, at best.
Other countries are already participating and committing 1/4 of a percent of their GDP. The proposal would be committing 0.7% of our GDP, but considering that the program started in 2001 and Bush hasn't been paying a dime towards it (even though we agreed to participate), we're really playing catch up. - Troy64, on 07/26/2008, -0/+3I'm sure businesses would never pass on taxes to consumers.
Besides excessive spending is OK as long as someone else is paying for it.
- colincornaby, on 07/26/2008, -2/+2Do some research. The bill would spend the money over 13 years (so we divide your number by 13 and we get around $555 a year), and in addition, a large majority of that money would be paid by taxes on businesses and taxes on the upper class.
- brad3378, on 07/26/2008, -0/+4Fair taxation is a distraction from the bigger problem - The Spending.
- razorsharpwit, on 07/25/2008, -9/+1seastead!
http://seasteading.org/ - reaganwinger, on 07/25/2008, -6/+12Anything that concludes that a more "progressive" tax proposal is a good thing, is far from non-partisan.
"It's Time to Soak the Poor":
http://digg.com/political_opinion/It_s_Time_to_Soa ... - MorganMghee, on 07/26/2008, -7/+14If it's all about the money for you and unless you are in the top quintile of income earners in the country, McCain is not your guy according to this article.
FTA:Measured against current law in 2009, Senator Obama’s plan raises after-tax incomes by more than 5.5 percent for those in the bottom quintile and also provides more modest increases for those in the next three quintiles (figure 1). The top quintile would experience an average tax increase because of the hikes in the tax rates on capital gains and dividends and the increases in the top two individual income tax rates. The increase in taxes would be dramatic for those at the very top of the income scale, representing 8.7 percent of after-tax income for the top 1 percent of households and 11.5 percent of income for the richest 1 in 1,000.
In contrast, the McCain plan would provide virtually no benefit to households in the bottom quintile, and very modest benefits to those in the next three quintiles. The top quintile would receive a tax cut of more than 3 percent of after-tax income. Within the top quintile, the richest 1 percent of households would receive an average tax cut of 3.4 percent. That figure rises to almost 4.4 percent for the top 0.1 percent of the income distribution.
The difference in the distributional effects of the two plans is just as stark when measured against current law in 2012 (figure 2).- reaganwinger, on 07/26/2008, -6/+6If you assume that higher tax rates don't alter investment by high-income earners, you would be partially correct. But your assumption is wrong. Raising taxes on higher income earners always hurts the poor more than anyone else.
Have you ever gotten a job from a poor person? My neither. Rich people employ us in thee hopes of getting richer. If you take away their incentives to invest, you take away jobs from the lower classes.- MorganMghee, on 07/26/2008, -4/+7Maybe if the poor weren't quite so poor they wouldn't need to be employed by the top 1% of the richest people in the country. (most of them aren't, anyway) Your example doesn't follow through to a logical conclusion. The top 1% are not known for investing locally, not in general and certainly not for the last 15-20 years. Smaller, local business owners reinvest in their own communities more frequently. Mega-corps that sap retail dollars from a community and re-invest them outside the country are sapping one of America's natural resources, American Labor. Mega-rich run Mega-corps.
- MercyPolitics, on 07/26/2008, -2/+5That is, Scott, if you believe in an economical " trickle down effect"of the wealth coming from top to bottom. The systemic problem that we have right now ( a clear example is the Fannie & Freddie bail out by the Feds) is an hybrid economic model.....full blown capitalism for the good time of profit( for the very few), and socialism in bad times( losses for everyone). This is completely illogical, and quite frankly is collapsing in front of us.
- reaganwinger, on 07/26/2008, -3/+2Mercy - It isn't conservatives who are favoring the bailout. The system is completely illogical because one party hates free market capitalism. That's what we're trying to fight here.All of the country's history since the start of the 20th century shows that the majority of people have fared much better under low taxation than under higher, which is only to be expected, yet one party consistently tries to prevent lower taxation.
- reaganwinger, on 07/26/2008, -6/+6If you assume that higher tax rates don't alter investment by high-income earners, you would be partially correct. But your assumption is wrong. Raising taxes on higher income earners always hurts the poor more than anyone else.
- vexingmodstwo, on 07/26/2008, -7/+14Cutting taxes is always good. The more the better and particularly for the higher income brackets since they are the ones who employ the lower ones.
Buried for trying to come off as unbiased when it really is just another attempt to justify higher taxes. - Minarchian, on 07/26/2008, -7/+14"A heavy progressive or graduated income tax."
The second of ten planks of the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx.
See, Obama isn't the first to come up with that idea. - treetop23, on 07/26/2008, -7/+5Obama's tax plan will soak the young while allowing the baby boomer generation to march off into retirement ill-prepared and unwilling to make any sacrifices. The selfishness which has defined a generation will follow them to their graves.
http://newsburglar.com/2008/06/why-does-barack-oba ...- Stevanoski, on 07/27/2008, -1/+1we may be ill-prepared and unwilling to make any sacrifices but that will not matter. The current generation retirees have taken it all. These are the good old days that we will remember. There is no solution to the ss, medicare/medicaid mess but to cut.
Well actually there is a simple solution (I don't expect my many conservative mutuals to digg this). If we let 30 million people in in the next 10 years the above mentioned problems go away. I said simple, not easy. But I think if you think of it in the long term they are going to come either through armies of illegally. So why not let them in legally. It will change the country but the Capitalistic Republic can absorb any changes.
- Stevanoski, on 07/27/2008, -1/+1we may be ill-prepared and unwilling to make any sacrifices but that will not matter. The current generation retirees have taken it all. These are the good old days that we will remember. There is no solution to the ss, medicare/medicaid mess but to cut.
- jbenson2, on 07/26/2008, -3/+9The O-man's plan does not consider the dynamic nature of taxation.
Check out the Snopes article on How Taxes Work
http://www.snopes.com/business/taxes/howtaxes.asp- michaelz92, on 07/26/2008, -0/+6I love that article. It perfectly explains it.
- LibertyVista, on 07/26/2008, -3/+10Do the wealthy not have a right to their property ? The ownership of property is necessary in order to be free, and if they can take property from "the rich", they can find a "just" reason to take yours.
- JerichoSam, on 07/26/2008, -1/+2Exactly. Shouldn't we be giving everyone the incentive to work hard? And "rich" seems to be defined in a very fluid way these days.
- pbd1637, on 07/26/2008, -1/+3"...and the pursuit of happiness..." can be rephrased as the right to be wealthy. The liberals don't think it's fair for some to have more than others.
- pbd1637, on 07/26/2008, -1/+6"McCain’s reduced individual and corporate rates could improve economic efficiency and increase domestic investment, but the larger future deficits would reduce and could completely offset any positive effect."
This statement is bogus. There won't be "larger future deficits".
By improving economic efficiency and investments, you grow economic activity. Taxes are a percentage of legal monetary transactions. The size of the percentage depends on which transactions (payroll, sales, fees, etc.). By spurring economic activity, you increase revenue to the government.
Every time money changes hands, the feds take a cut. The more business we do, the more revenue for the feds. Lowering taxes increases revenue to the government.
If we could just get the morons in congress to cut spending and reduce the debt, then we would see awesome growth and prosperity for all. - 3tcp, on 07/26/2008, -0/+6It's worth noting that the 'tax policy center' is not a neutral organization. It was founded by liberal think tanks and I've never seen them say anything that indicated that a republican policy was superior to a democrats.
- rhabd0mancer, on 07/26/2008, -2/+6It seemed to work well when Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy. He brought the country out of the first Bush Recession.
- Troy64, on 07/26/2008, -2/+3The economic growth in the 90's was due to increased productivity mainly due to computerization. The only thing Clinton did to help the economy was pall NAFTA.
- Stevanoski, on 07/27/2008, -2/+1The country was out of recession when Clinton took office but if you only watched the MSM then I can understand your ignorance on this.
- warlax27, on 07/26/2008, -1/+2Where are the damn graphs! My attention span can't handle like 30 pages of text.
- MattgUP, on 07/26/2008, -2/+4NO NO NO NO I'M NOT LISTENING! I DON'T CARE ABOUT FACTS! John McCain is really looking out for us hard working Americans and his tax plan is going to help me. By giving my boss and his company tax cuts, he'll be able to afford his BMW, country club membership and high priced hookers, which translates into a happy boss which will trickle down to me and mean I can afford to replace the turn signal on my house! Beside, Borak HUSSEIN Obama, it doesn't sit right that he's related to that guy from Iran.
- spetracco, on 07/27/2008, -1/+2Why do middle class Americans like McCain? Do they think that "being Republican" means that one day they'll eventually be rich? Or can so many people just not see past abortion, and stop their thinking after addressing one issue?
- sergionegro, on 07/28/2008, -1/+1The problem with USA is that the mass of people are deluded into thinking that class doesn't matter. That everyone can be rich. OK - it's possible that one in a million overcomes a lower-class background to become wealthy - but the fact is that the system overwhelmingly favors the wealthy. Money equals political power, and the rich have used their ownership of the media to convince even more poor and middle-class Americans to vote against their own economic self-interest. The poor deluded fools defending McCain and the whole Republican approach would be funny if they were not so pathetic.
- scubageek, on 09/20/2008, -0/+0Taxing those that earn more money than us is neither fair nor in anyone's own economic interest. Socialism/communism are failed systems of government and taking freedoms and rights of others away for your own selfish welfare is wrong any way you look at it.
Personally, neither have a good tax plan as they are just adding more garbage to a very out dated complicated tax code that no one understands or benefits from except those the politicians on both sides are trying to buy their votes.
If you want tax reform the we should get rid of the IRS and the horribly corrupt and unfair tax code and opt for the fairtax (www.fairtax.org) which is exactly as it is named a fairtax and the only fair way I have seen in my lifetime to pay for government in a free society.
No one on the right is blind we just see Obama for what he is a socialist, racist and liar and although we are not crazy about McCain he is at very least honest and principled.
The tax comparison is not from an unbiased source as pointed out in an earlier post and I doubt you can find one that is unbiased sadly.
And you ignorant liberals need to stop listening to propaganda. You actually think that democrats and liberals in power are poor?? or for the poor?? Neither Republicans nor liberals in power are common at all they are elitists on both sides and very wealthy so they are not effected by their tax policies or laws at all. Although Palin is one of the few that just regular people and probably understands those of us that are not rich and struggle to make ends meet.
And if you look at Dems they are a very wealthy party that could care less about the common man or woman at all. In case you haven't figured it out folks politics is about power and we need to be electing people like Palin that are seeking neither money nor power but she started her political career to bring change. Obama is like others and about power nothing else.
And no in answer to that moronic question, no one thinks being a republican will make them rich, how stupid...
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is