What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.730 Comments
- FTWmovin2canada, on 06/11/2008, -54/+247Republicans count on people not paying too much attention when they say "lower taxes" to voters, because they actually mean "lower taxes for rich people and business, but not you" and since they have less money coming in the debt goes up because they don't reduce spending. It's amusing.
- chispito, on 06/12/2008, -33/+133And 100% of America will never see a Ron Paul Presidency.
- DonWigler, on 06/12/2008, -70/+161100% of Americans will pay 100% less income tax under Ron Paul.
- ralphthemagi, on 06/12/2008, -19/+96But Obama wants to raise the capital gains tax. There is an argument to be made that capital gains shouldn't be taxed at all, since nothing is actually being created. Something you owned simply went up in value.
The problem with raising the capital gains tax is that it can depress capital markets, which is something of a big deal right now incase you missed it. When you've got investment banks like Bear Sterns folding, and investors moving to other currencies or investing in commodities like oil, increasing taxes in the capital markets doesn't make a lot of sense. It sounds really good on paper, because you can bring in a lot of revenue by only directly taxing a minority of people, but everyone else is going to feel the impact. Capital markets in the US need ever dollar they can get their hands on.
Both McCain's and Obama's tax policies are equally stupid. - l0k0, on 06/12/2008, -11/+64If you go to the CNN article it says at the bottom:
"The center will also incorporate the tax elements of McCain's and Obama's health care proposals when they update their findings."
So these numbers are not set in stone, especially since Obama supports Universal Healthcare, and McCain doesn't. I'd wait for the update for a more accurate picture, because Obama's health care proposals could change the picture quite a bit. - meese, on 06/11/2008, -22/+75These are the sort of numbers and hard data to tell friends and family about, whether they're Republicans, Democrats, or Independents. At the end of the day, this affects our lives and our pocketbooks way more than what the media spends most of its time covering.
- buddhistMonkey, on 06/12/2008, -15/+62Bill Gates probably saved a hundred million dollars on his taxes this year, thanks to the Bush/McCain tax policy. Me? I got a $600 rebate check (which is actually an advance on next year's refund). On average, though, Bill and I saved $50,000,300 on our taxes.
That's what Republicans mean by "tax cuts for everyone." - postingbh, on 06/12/2008, -1/+45Given that the federal budget does not account for many of the Iraq war costs (b/c they are funded through emergency supplemental bills), I doubt the McCain budget accounts for those dollars. If his budget does does, I'm sure it's just a fraction of the direct costs, ignoring indirect costs such as increased price of oil, decreased productivity, etc.
- neognostic, on 06/11/2008, -45/+85Sounds good to me, when do we start?
- thefirstenemy, on 06/11/2008, -15/+54Can somebody please reply to me with whether or not McCain's listed policy includes the war costs? I checked the CNN article and they seem not to mention anything about it, but I had read previous articles that McCain's budget failed to include war cost.
Thanks. - FTWmovin2canada, on 06/11/2008, -11/+47See my point above about people not paying attention. Thank you for providing an example of what I'm talking about.
- FTWmovin2canada, on 06/11/2008, -5/+40Actually, Obama was born in Hawaii and McCain was born on a navy base in Panama, which isn't even a state. Please use facts if you're trying to disagree.
- FTWmovin2canada, on 06/11/2008, -11/+43The problem is that the money the rich are getting isn't going back into jobs and industry anymore, they're just gathering wealth and expanding the gap between the top 1% and everyone else.
- rationalist, on 06/12/2008, -8/+38Actually, most individuals will pay more. Taxes will simply be shifted down to the states and localities, and masked as fees and the like. The federal taxes that will not be replaced keep our highways and bridges from crumbling, so that American capitalists can truck their goods out to consumers around the country; support the CDC's planning efforts to handle potential national outbreaks of bird flu or diseases effecting livestock; maintain vaccination programs that helped to end small pox and other diseases that ravaged millions before the advent of national public health programs; provide an emergency fund for major disaster relief that is beyond the means of most individual states let alone municipalities; ensure that we have national standards, so that an electrical plug manufactured in one place fits an electrical outlet in another; supports long-term public interest programs beyond the horizon of a single generation such as nuclear waste disposal and controlling interstate transport of hazardous waste; and on and on and on.
If, in fact, funding for those programs go away, Americans will pay much, much more dealing with the consequences - and, in many ways, in reality our freedoms will become more circumscribed.
You and I would not be having this conversation today if not for nationally funded vaccination programs and public health controls. Air and water do not limit themselves to a single local jurisdiction or state, they require national oversight to ensure the safety of all. Many studies have shown that some things are more efficient as the scale grows.
Medicare, for example, is one of the most efficient health care programs in the country, far more efficient than any private HMO, in terms of the number of dollars spent that actually end up providing direct care to patients.
It is nice and easy to hold on to a dogma and blindly follow it. You never have to think very hard, you always have a simple answer to everything.
Reality, however, is complex and does not obey ideological constraints. A better approach to life and social well-being is to look at the real world, the facts, the evidence, and determine, in each case, what is the strategy that produces the greatest common benefit - however you define that. Sometimes that might be a "libertarian" strategy, sometimes what you would call a "liberal" or "conservative" strategy, sometimes it will be a policy that defies easy categorization.
What is important is that we start using critical thinking and govern by reason, not some narrow, naive, simplistic ideology - whether that comes from the "right", the "left", or wherever.
I recommend you actually spend some time looking at Obama's policy pages on his website, particularly the ones about government accountability, open source and open data standards, transparency, citizen oversight of government activities, net neutrality, and more. You might be surprised at the logic behind the politics. - highlymodified, on 06/12/2008, -8/+37January
- drpleau, on 06/12/2008, -5/+33People should care more about where tax dollars are being spent, then if we have higher or lower taxes.
- RedHerringHack, on 06/12/2008, -57/+83Who are these "rich" people of which you speak? They deserve their money, they earned it, it isn't yours, get your ***** greedy hands off it. Most of you slackers think rich is 100K. That's because you enjoy a rewarding career in fast food. 100K is nothing, it is low middle class nowadays. How about 200K? Barely becoming comfortable. This is where I am. I am not rich. How about 500k? This person is probably employing people. You hit him, you hit 10 people. 1 mil? nope. Doesn't matter how much money you make, it still isn't doesn't belong to you or the government. It belongs to whoever earned it. A concept beyond ALL diggers. It boils down to hate. I hate you because you make more money than me. I'm going to make the government take your money and laugh all day long, and pay for my fake medical expenses, so I can afford my meth habit. You slack, you die. Makes a man of you.
You know what? I say if you can't make the money to feed yourself. Starve. Do you know how powerful of a drive hunger is? It's enough to get your fat ass up off the couch, disengage your lips of the government *****, and get a job.
The rich? The terrorists. The neocons. everyone is an enemy. Hate them and hurt them. Come on. Morons. - imolaavant, on 06/12/2008, -15/+41From Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1 ...
"McCain's [tax] 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."
A trillion here a trillion there...
To put on trillion dollars into perspective: if you earned a dollar a second at 40 hours a week, it would take 31,709 YEARS to reach one trillion dollars.
These two ***** think that they can buy us with promises of tax cuts, while completely ignoring the big picture. Neither one will reduce government spending; in fact, if you look at their websites all their promises indicate increased spending.
The U.S. national debt is $9.5 trillion while GDP is $13.5 trillion. Again trillions are big numbers to comprehend, in everyday people speak that's like someone with a $35,000/yr income owing $24,500 in credit card debt (bear in mind this doesn't factor in normal living expenses). Could you survive on less money coming in than you have going out?
There's not an invisible elephant in the room, it's a huge ***** bomb, yet everyone ignores it while bickering over ex-wives and loud-mouthed pastors.
Trent Reznor said it best: "Bow down before the one you serve, you're going to get what you deserve" - Ertai22, on 06/12/2008, -2/+28gas
- thegsa, on 06/12/2008, -9/+34Where's your citation?
- KiminCA, on 06/12/2008, -13/+37Here is the problem with your ludicrous argument. Those who have been the most blessed by what America has to offer, should expect to pay more to keep those blessings. If you want roads to drive on, dams to hold back flood waters, and bridges to drive across, and you make a great deal of money in wages, or investments, you owe more to protect, maintain and update that fundamental infrastructure than the man or woman who are struggling to feed themselves.
This has nothing to do with jealousy and everything to do with common sense.
Also, there was a time when you could legitimately argue trickle-down theory, but that time is no longer now. Now, millions, even billions, of dollars are invested overseas and not here at home. So, when we give larger and larger tax breaks to the rich, they are not honoring their part of the bargain by investing that money in foreign countries. This is great tax policy for Europe, and the growing economies of Asia, but not for America. If your preference is for a foreign country's growth, then your argument is well thought out and written. Otherwise, I think you need to do some THINKING. - biogears, on 06/12/2008, -13/+37Please, cut the class warfare stuff, it works for the uninformed, but as soon as you
start making a living and supporting a family and maybe even some employees, you will get it.
To be fair, everyone should pay the same % with some exclusion for the first x$.
We are now at the point where more than half of the voters are voting themselves money
from fewer payers.
And corporations just pass income tax on through product pricing, so that's a scam too.
If people want their government to take care of them, someone is going to have to pay for it. - rationalist, on 06/12/2008, -4/+28The irony of "educate yourself" in the above illiterate rant is so rich it raised my cholesterol count.
- Harbinger67, on 06/12/2008, -3/+27I have no idea why this guy is getting buried...he's making more sense than the majority of people commenting on this story.
- Chiliyago, on 06/12/2008, -26/+49This is why this site is turning into a lot of crackpots. This is not news or anything worthwhile - it is written and posted by people with a political agenda to fool people into letting politicians take more money. government already wastes too much of our money and they don't need more! Don’t vote for anyone who thinks government needs more of anyone’s money – rich or poor!
- stretch611, on 06/12/2008, -1/+21Actually Obama is using a figure of $150,000/year and lower as middle class.
And another nice item in is plan is that seniors who make less than $50,000 pay no taxes. - madmanz123, on 06/12/2008, -3/+23Could you back that up with facts? Not saying you are wrong, but that's a big assumption to make.
- mikebfb, on 06/12/2008, -12/+32I would like to see some media coverage about how the top 50% of the income distribution already pays for 97% of the income tax in the U.S. The numbers are being tossed around in a very manipulative way on this site. I've officially lost hope for any economically valid discussions this election season.
Thank God I'm poor and the government only steals 45% of my paycheck. I'm sure Washington is spending it well. - KiminCA, on 06/12/2008, -5/+25Here is the fundamental problem with your analysis. There was a time when you could legitimately argue trickle-down theory, but that time is no longer now. Now, millions, even billions, of dollars are invested overseas and not here at home. So, when we give larger and larger tax breaks to the rich, they are not honoring their part of the bargain by investing that money in foreign countries. This is great tax policy for Europe, and the growing economies of Asia, but not for America.
- ralphthemagi, on 06/12/2008, -5/+24Probably shouldn't have used Bill Gates as an example, because if he got $50M in tax breaks, he probably spent that on poor, sick and dying people in Africa. What did you spend your $600 on?
- 1337Einstein, on 06/12/2008, -3/+22We could just write our own names in, after all, who better to represent oneself than oneself. The problem that arises then is the same for writing in Ron Paul, or Bob Barr, or any number off other candidates, agreeable as their views may be. That of course being that unless the difference between your candidate's number of likely votes and those of another are close and whereby the victorious among the two gets the job, that vote will be little more than a symbolic gesture made in complete anonymity.
- droo31, on 06/12/2008, -15/+34Misleading. Obama's tax plan may have less cuts for the wealthy, but his programs he is proposing would cost 276 billion annually to fund. Where's that money coming from? Obama will raise taxes.
Read my lips. - Mard, on 06/12/2008, -3/+21Actually, most Republican voters think they -are- in the top 10%. In reality, the top 10% is about $62,500+ for an individual income, or somewhere between $125,000+ for a household. If you don't earn more than that as an individual or household, you're an idiot for voting Republican. They'd like you to think Democrats are the elitist ones, but in reality they're the ones catering to the cream of the crop.
Oh, and these numbers have not been adjusted for the last three years of Bushflation. Neither has your own income, more than likely.
Source, personal income: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_th ...
Source, household income: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_quintiles#Inco ... - ZenMojo, on 06/12/2008, -7/+25"How about 200K? Barely becoming comfortable. This is where I am. I am not rich."
You're in the top 1% of earners in this country. Stop whining. (No, seriously. You have violated and raped the privilege to complain.)
You are officially, by HUD definition standards, a rich person. The average person in this country makes 44k/year. You make five times as much. The fact that you said you are barely becoming comfortable on a salary five times that of what the vast majority of people in this country have is DEFINITIVE of the class divide and why poor people probably hate you.
No, not rich people in general. You.
I seriously wonder how those people survive working an entire year for what you make in less than three months. They must dig through garbage. Or maybe you have a skewed perspective of reality.
The argument that you are somehow a victim of a system in which your wealth makes you suffer unjustly is laughable, like the fat kid crying because his ice cream fell on the ground.
You are that fat kid, and you are crying. Deal. - talibah, on 06/12/2008, -4/+21I'd really like to see that statistic.
- elipabst, on 06/12/2008, -4/+21Yes that clearly explains why America was doing so poorly under Clinton when the top tax bracket was 5% higher than it is now.
- Papercraft, on 06/12/2008, -4/+21Huh....article says that Obama will lower taxes....RP sheep bleats about how all Obama will give is higher taxes. Nice.
- Brian48216, on 06/12/2008, -3/+20It's also the same top 1% that control 95% of the wealth in America.
- hatepaste, on 06/12/2008, -1/+17Take an economics class. The national debt is nothing like someone owing credit card debt. They are nothing alike.
In addition, spending more money usually increases the GDP by a multiple. If the government pays an extra dollar to a worker, then that worker is going to take that dollar and buy a soda in the vending machine. Off that dollar, the soda company makes money and vending machine company makes money, which both in turn spend the dollar on something else, and on and on and on... - chispito, on 06/12/2008, -2/+18Whoa whoa whoa. Calm down and clarify your point. When you insult someone's intelligence, you had probably better first check your spelling and second make sure you leave in whatever the operative word is in your argument.
Are the rich being taxed more? Less? What are you even saying? - SpinningHead, on 06/12/2008, -2/+17Actually, he never said anything about raising taxes across the board. A citation might help your argument.
- MrTranquility, on 06/12/2008, -4/+19Our Tax System Explained: "Bar Stool Economics"
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go
something like this:
The first four men (The poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the
arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all
such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily
beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the
first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.
But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they
divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They
realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from
everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up
being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be
fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded
to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to
drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare
their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to
the tenth man," but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth
man. "I only saved a dollar, too It's unfair that he got ten times more than
I!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back
when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute,"
yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The
system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down
and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they
discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of
them for even half of the bill!
And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how
our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most
benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being
wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start
drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics University of Georgia - Ajajadude, on 06/12/2008, -7/+21If by "amusing" you mean curl up in the fetal position and cry, then yes, amusing. It just goes to show you how dumb the masses really are and how bad partisan politics can make things in this country.
- inactive, on 06/12/2008, -9/+23I was waiting for this comment, +1. Absolutely agree. Most of people who are rich earned it, and taking their money away just so that low class people could get tax cut is bad.
- chrispix, on 06/12/2008, -3/+17While I don't know where you live, my wife and I make a little bit over 105K/yr. We have 2 cars, a 2400sq/ft house w/ a pool on one acre near Dallas. We are putting some money away for retirement and don't feel like we are in a pinch. How the heck can $200k be hard to live on? Maybe you should look at moving somewhere with a lower cost of living. Stretch your dollar a little bit.
- ralphthemagi, on 06/12/2008, -3/+17You're right and you're wrong. Capital gains is what allows wealthy people to stay wealthy. But it's also what allows capitalism to function. You are able to take out a loan on a car, and the rich get richer. Unless you want to pay cash for everything, and further depress the value of the dollar, you better just get used to the fact that there are rich people, and life is easier for them.
Capital gains is what makes capital markets function at all. If there is no incentive for gains, there's no incentive to participate in capital markets. Good luck getting a loan or a credit card when capital markets collapse.
They are already severely depressed thanks to the sub-prime disaster. The last thing we need is to tell people, "You know what you should really do? Spend your money in another country." Given the current value of the dollar and the current interest rate, there really isn't much of a reason to be invested in dollars. Despite this, the stock market is doing surprisingly well. Raising the capital gains tax basically says, "Prepare for less profits here. Consider looking elsewhere." - gapingass, on 06/12/2008, -9/+233% less taxes for most and 20% more taxes for the rich.
- PeppermintPig, on 06/12/2008, -6/+19I have a better idea: You pay for your own stuff and leave other people's alone.
- culbeda, on 06/12/2008, -4/+17I'm fortunate enough to "afford to be a Republican" but I canvased for Kerry and will likely do the same for Obama. The sad part is how many "piss-on-me-Republicans" I know that are still swayed by the 3 G's and who are still slave to the corporate media machine in this country. The first thing you need to do is get them away from that tripe or you'll never be able to talk sense into them.
- zoid, on 06/12/2008, -23/+36This may be true in the sense that 90% will pay less DIRECTLY to the IRS but in reality it will lead to price increases/inflation in order for the companies/wealthy to pay their taxes. Don't be fooled by this, ask Jimmy Carter.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 737 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is