What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Do you believe the 2012 Mayan Prophecy? view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - The Mayan Calendar predicts the end of time: 2012. See the trailer for 2012, opening November 13.
395 Comments
- jadex, on 09/06/2008, -22/+157It's not only wrong, it's an outright lie what John Sidney McCain III is saying about the taxes.
- ChessPieceFace, on 09/06/2008, -13/+132FTA: "Len Burman, a former Treasury tax official who is now a senior fellow at the Urban Institute, says if Obama's proposals—which include plans to rescind the Bush tax cuts on couples making more than $250,000, close corporate tax loopholes, and tax private equity earnings known as "carried interest" as ordinary income—were adopted in 2009, for example, married couples with earnings in the lowest quintile of the population would see their aftertax income rise 5.8%. Those in the next quintile would see an increase of 4%. Those breaks would be paid for by those with high incomes: the top 1% of taxpayers would see aftertax income fall 8.4%.
Under McCain's proposals, by contrast—including an extension of the Bush tax cuts for all taxpayers, a corporate tax cut, and a larger reduction in estate taxes than Obama would support—far more of the benefits would go to the top. If his plans went into effect in 2009, married couples in the bottom fifth of the population would see aftertax income go up just 0.2%, while those in the next quintile would see a 0.7% hike. But those in the top quintile would see a bump up in aftertax income of 2.7%.
"It's just flat wrong" to say people would do worse under Obama, says Burman. "Most lower- and middle-class people would pay less taxes under Obama than they would under the proposals being put forth by McCain." - littlequeenie, on 09/06/2008, -24/+93When was the last time you heard McCain tell a non-lie??
- Corrosionx, on 09/06/2008, -3/+60What about cutting spending?
- JenniferInMO, on 09/06/2008, -21/+69Please pass this around, digg and let everyone know the truth. There have been just as many nonpartisan groups which have called McCain out on this lie, but he repeats it 10 times more and it sticks. This is a pretty mainstream source. Maybe people will finally get it.
- wonderchemist, on 09/06/2008, -3/+43I can't remember how many homes I own.
- inactive, on 09/06/2008, -18/+53Republicans have created a alternate universe, it doesn't really exist! It's all based on lies, smoke & mirrors. Think Bush sucks, vote for McCain...
- narkotsky, on 09/06/2008, -14/+48Let me try to summarize both plans:
Obama's plan makes Obame pay MORE taxes
McCain's plan give taxbreak to himself and his super-rich wife (since they file taxes separately).
That's very nice isn't it? I just think that public service is about serving public not your our #$#$#$ pocket. - johnnr2, on 09/06/2008, -12/+39"According to a new analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, a joint venture between the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, two Washington think tanks, this round goes to Obama. The TPC took a look at the various tax proposals put forth by the two candidates and estimated that Obama's plan would lead to a boost in aftertax income for all but the highest earners, while taking a smaller bite out of government tax revenues than would McCain's plans."
- inactive, on 09/06/2008, -10/+37I love it when experts behind the scenes start analyzing the general BS that's being spouted and say "Now wait a minute..." But the general populace only cares about waving a flag and shouting "USA" and listen to broad brush strokes to worry about the details. Sad.
- BossKey, on 09/06/2008, -5/+28False threat. Taxes in the US would have to go up quite a bit for the wealthy to consider moving to somewhere like Europe. Who wants to pay European tax rates?
- inactive, on 09/06/2008, -5/+26But Jason Furman, the newly named economic policy director for the Obama campaign, disputes that view. He argues that the study demonstrates that McCain's tax plans would drive the tax code in a far more regressive direction. "Some 23% of the tax cuts they are proposing would go to households making more than $2.8 million under the McCain plan," he says. "That's a phenomenally large benefit for the super rich, beyond anything George Bush has proposed."
Do you really want to make the rich even wealthier? - breamo, on 09/06/2008, -3/+23I love how the Republicans say they will cut spending, yet they leave the bill for the War off of the books.
WTF?!?! I would be fired for that at my job. - inactive, on 09/06/2008, -6/+24And yet, it's ***** like you who encourage us to vote Republican to ease the tax burden on the working man. You make me sick. One minute you're saying how the middle class needs tax breaks, but as soon as it becomes apparent that it ain't happening, you turn around and explain how much better it is for the rich to get tax cuts. If you believe the rich are truly more deserving of tax breaks, just come out and say it - don't play this ***** where you make false promises to hardworking middle class families that you have no intention on keeping. For God's sake, do the Republicans have no scruples at all?
I mean, I get what you're saying - I'm just so goddamn sick of this whole song and dance about how the Republicans will fight for tax cuts for the middle class, and then as soon as it becomes apparent that it ain't happening, they turn around and say well it's okay, even though you're not getting tax cuts, this is better for you anyway. - strangewill, on 09/06/2008, -3/+20This is old news, I've had long tiring debates against McCain supporters that are determined that they'll be taxed less under him.
Most people that support McCain at this point don't care about facts, they care about being part of the GoP, even at the cost of the country's stability. - afruff23, on 09/06/2008, -3/+18To anybody who buries this comment, read the title of the article and then read the article. It does not mention spending much at all.
- homercles337, on 09/06/2008, -8/+23This is such a stupid comment im not even sure where to begin. It takes money to hide money. The rich and corporations hide so much money that poor and middle-class pay way more than they are supposed to. For example, if corporations paid their fair share (and didn't hide it in tax shelters, off shore accounts, loopholes, etc) the tax burden of every single American would be HALVED. Everyone would pay half what they pay now. You can construct false stories all you want, but it doesn't change reality.
- DooM, on 09/06/2008, -2/+16Trickle down economics Does. Not. Work. If you give a tax break to someone making millions who knows what they'll do with it - if you give a tax cut to a guy who is living under a tight budget or even paycheck-to-paycheck I can guarantee you what he'll do with it: that dude is going to SPEND it on products and services that the rich guy makes. So the rich guy gets the money ANYway -and- he gets it physically on the books of his business which really DOES give him an incentive to create new jobs or invest more in that business - lowering his tax burden or making his stock profits worth more just doesn't have the same level of effect.
You can't give Americans a stimulus check and pat yourself on the back saying that this process will stimulate the economy but then turn around and say that it's TOTALLY different when we look at how we should distribute the tax burden. - BossKey, on 09/06/2008, -10/+24No, the Trickle-Down Theory is well proven. It is not a lie.
The rich get the money, and everybody else gets a trickle. - jerrym123, on 09/06/2008, -18/+31Actually trickle down economics have proven time and time again not to work for the majority of Americans, Red Neck Idiots keep falling for it because the rich who benefit by it know the vast majority of republicans are too stupid to know they are being screwed. That why gays, guns, and god continues to fire them up.
- johnnr2, on 09/06/2008, -12/+25"According to a new analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, a joint venture between the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, two Washington think tanks, this round goes to Obama. The TPC took a look at the various tax proposals put forth by the two candidates and estimated that Obama's plan would lead to a boost in aftertax income for all but the highest earners, while taking a smaller bite out of government tax revenues than would McCain's plans."
- brendanbond, on 09/06/2008, -1/+13The Digg description is from inside the article as well...
- Taiyoryu, on 09/06/2008, -0/+11* I'd start with the two wars being fought and reducing our military presence around the world.
* Followed by the departments of security theater namely Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration. It's not as if those functions could not be handled via the FAA, National Guard, CIA, FBI, and NSA which was the way it was before 9/11 and it more or less the way it is after.
* State projects that have no national benefit (There's at least one sentiment I share with McCain)
* Subsidies and tax breaks to industries that have no business receiving them. (Oil is at the top of the list but there are certainly others, like corn and sugar.)
* War on drugs. That can be replaced with a more pragmatic approach.
That's just 5 off the top of my head. - inactive, on 09/06/2008, -4/+15Whenever he's not speaking.
- Peekman, on 09/06/2008, -5/+16Good story..... however i disagree with the ending...
The tenth man would not stop showing up he would make a deal with the bartender so it appears he pays more than he actually does...... maybe buy a percentage of the sale of every beer...
The rich may be the most vulnerable but they are also the most powerful. - lolupissed, on 09/06/2008, -27/+38Four Types of people will vote for Bush again in November:
-People who were born into the Republican party because that is what there family was born into
-Christian Wackos
-Racists
-Uninformed/Misinformed People
Say no to Bush in November. Vote 3rd Party, Vote for Obama vote, whatever you decide to do don't vote for John "I'm a POW you mother *****" McCain - katorga, on 09/06/2008, -6/+17Sadly, I remember Clinton's promise to do the same thing, and oops sorry he could not make it work, no matter how big the surplus got. Congress will raise taxes all the way down to 35K a year because that is where the money is. The RICH do not pay taxes. Oprah pays almost nothing. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates get to hide ALL of their wealth in foundations. The available money is in the middle and that is what they will tax.
Congress will raise taxes far beyond what either Obama or McCain want. And guess what, the President does not have the power of the purse.
Health Care alone will increase the budget by 40%, plus they have to deal with retiring boomers. - inactive, on 09/06/2008, -1/+12"Congress, too, will want to have its say, no matter who is elected. "
and that is where they both will fail. you heard it here first. - inactive, on 09/06/2008, -10/+21"Give more to the rich, and take from the poor."
- housewarmer, on 09/06/2008, -1/+11Well Quad, I don't think you'll be much missed here. I pity the citizens of whatever corner of the planet you choose to alight.
- EtherGnat, on 09/06/2008, -3/+13Except rather than beat up the tenth man our society and government have been making him more and more wealthy. Our government and economy heavily favor the ultra-wealthy, which left unchecked would eventually lead to an economic aristocracy.
The tax burdens aren't unfair. As Warren Buffet likes to point out he pays less taxes than his secretary as a percentage of his income. Tax burdens on the ultra rich are at a long time low--the lowest in my lifetime anyway. If you don't think the graduated income tax is fair, what would you propose? I suppose we could divide the tax burden equally among everybody and charge every man, woman, and child $7,500. We could switch to the Fair Tax and have a 34% sales tax for everything we buy.
Seriously... what would be "fair"? - ajames01, on 09/06/2008, -9/+18Well where do I stand then? I wasn't born into it, I'm not racist or a Christian wacko... and oddly enough after giving Obama a chance I became informed and realized McCain was the better choice.
- PhillyMJS, on 09/06/2008, -0/+9I love how Republicans call Democrats "tax and spend" like it's some kind of epithet. As if GOP has a forest of money trees somewhere that they use to pay for their boondoggles. No, they just don't worry about the debts they run up and make them the problem of future generations.
- Taiyoryu, on 09/07/2008, -1/+9Here let me inject a little reality into your theory
CAPITAL GAINS TAX
You only pay capital gains tax on the profit of a home sale and only if you make a profit. You are exempt if you reinvest your money into a new home. Thanks to the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (Clinton), you are also exempt if the sale of your home results in a profit of less than $250,000.
(How does this affect you? It does NOT affect you unless you're a real estate investor, you're cashing out, or your home appreciated A LOT or is expensive to start with. In both cases, the capital gains tax is no different then had you earned money off any other investment vehicle, i.e. it's a form of income tax. )
DIVIDEND TAX
This tax doesn't matter if you're a smart investor. For those who actually work for a living rather than push money around, if they're smart, their first investment vehicle is a tax-DEFERRED 401K plan. It has the double benefit of deferring taxes as well as reducing their taxable income. In other words, if you invest in a 401K you pay no tax until you withdraw the money at which point it's taxed as regular income.
(How does this affect you? It does NOT unless you've maxed out your 401K contributions and still have enough disposable income left over to choose other investment vehicles which implies you're pretty well off since you've had to have covered all your other expenses with your reduced net income, e.g. housing, food, child care, etc. because those are certainly not discretionary. Of course you're affected if you do make your living just pushing money around.)
INCOME TAX
This has been covered ad nauseum. Obama wins here unless you make lots o' money.
(How does this affect you? It does NOT because you have a high likelihood of being in that 95% of people who will see a tax break. Of course the higher up the income ladder you are, the less benefit you'll see. If you have reason to complain, remember having more money doesn't mean you're exempt from living within your means.)
INHERITANCE TAX
Inheritance taxes can be avoided simply by putting assets in a trust. Ownership of the assets get transferred rather than get inherited.
(How does this affect you? It does NOT if you hire a decent financial planner. It also does NOT affect you since you're not likely to have a super-rich family member where you're the sole benefactor. Philosophically I'm a bit on the fence here because from one perspective it's double taxing on the other that's a lot of income.)
------------------
That said, neither Obama or McCain are going to cut spending enough. The article points out both budget plans result in a deficit. Obama has the smaller deficit. Of course there's a bunch of economic theory about the pros and cons to deficit spending. The one thing I do know, I always come out ahead when I pay off my debt quicker. - dexter411, on 09/06/2008, -5/+13"Doug Holtz-Eakin, McCain's top economics advisor, argues that the study doesn't take into account which policies might prove better for jobs and the economy, or how companies or individuals might behave in reaction to changing tax rates. Cutting the corporate tax rate, for example, is intended to keep jobs in America, he says."
Seems disingenuous to present the specifics of a tax plan without the motivations behind them. Indeed, middle class Americans would get a bigger tax cut under Obama; I don't dispute that. That doesn't account, though, for what will happen to jobs, small businesses, and product prices if we raise taxes on unincorporated businesses and corporations. Similarly, this study doesn't seem to take into account the nearly 50% of Americans who would be affected by an increased capital gains tax. - JenniferInMO, on 09/06/2008, -1/+9Massaks: Neither of them will balance the budget. It is so out of whack that it cannot be done in the short term.
If you read the entire article you would see this:
FTA "In an analysis of how the candidates' tax proposals would affect federal revenues, the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute said McCain's plans would cut receipts by $3.72 trillion from 2009-2018 compared with current tax law. Obama's plans would cut revenues by $2.73 trillion over the same period.
Including added interest costs, McCain's plan would add $4.5 trillion to the national debt, while Obama's would add $3.3 trillion -- and that's before spending proposals are considered."
Our budget and debt are so screwed up that it will take decades to change. Obama offers sweeping change in education, healthcare and offers a plan to get us 80% off of foreign oil and on to renewables (as opposed to drilling our way off of only a small portion of foreign oil and only a token amount dedicated to renewables). Obama's plan includes almost universal healthcare (McCain's healthcare plan is a joke and doesn't address most of the problems with the existing system), yet his entire economic plan will cost $1.7 trillion LESS than McCain's. - trogdor282, on 09/06/2008, -7/+15I'm voting for Obama, but just to be fair I would like to point out that no politician in the history of humanity has ever fulfilled a campaign promise ;)
- rationalist, on 09/07/2008, -1/+9"Very limited government"
Does that exclude the interstate highway system, which enables commerce?
Does it exclude public sanitation and health, which reduce worker's absenteeism?
Does it exclude national standards, so that manufacturers devices can plug into anyone's wall-sockets?
Does it include enforcement of clean water and air standards, given than pollution doesn't neatly cease at the border of one state (or one's estate)?
Does it exclude all the other benefits we collectively - and, in particular entrepreneurial and corporate enterprise - enjoy, thanks to our collective agreement to pool our resources in return for a level playing field which has facilitated the greatest capitalist successes in the world?
More wealth was created in America for more Americans during the periods of highest taxation on the wealthiest (=the most progressive taxation) than in these miserable eras when the GOP fooled people into shoveling money into the corporatist furnaces to be burnt abroad.
Read some history, explore some reality - don't be hypnotized by demagoguery and propaganda that appeals to your personal sense of greed and selfishness. Don't fall prey to the myth of the lone cowboy - learn how cooperative ventures thrived in pioneer America.
The very reason we humans have organized into societies is because, empirically, we all do better when we work together than if we each work alone. Let's not undermine what works because of dogmatic, blind ideology. - inactive, on 09/06/2008, -2/+10The headline, 'Leaving the Treasury Short', here's an answer:
Stop paying for the conflict in the Middle East
Stop giving money to Israel
Rescind that $15 Billion to fight aids in Africa
Seriously re-think this so called 'War on Drugs'
and
Stop printing money.
Drilling for more oil in Alaska (which I'm not against for resource value) will not lower the cost of gasoline or increase the value of our dollar.
We've already paid $4/gal. We'll never see 97cents/gal again. - inactive, on 09/06/2008, -2/+10But McCain supporters "rescued" those flags!!!
- inactive, on 09/07/2008, -0/+8"There is nothing to take from the poor."
Sure there is. How do you think state lotteries make their money? - webwatch, on 09/07/2008, -0/+7 "Socialism is un-american" .... well its easy to parrot these things. But in reality the run-away capitalism is not helpful to the society either.
Corporations have a strong hold on the government. Like the energy policy of this administration was essentially directed by the big oil.
The CEO pay is through the roof. The CEO pay in 1970 was 25 times the average worker, by 2004 it was 90 times the average worker's salary. I do not have the latest numbers but the multiples could easily be well over 100 by now. Statistics show the rich are getting richer and poor are getting poorer.
** Also it is important to note that the "happiest country in the world" - Denmark operates on socialistic principles.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/14/60minute ... - zippy757, on 09/06/2008, -2/+9the table you point to misses the AMT, which now hits about 14 million Americans....and has tax rates in excess of 60%.
- lolupissed, on 09/06/2008, -9/+16"produce run-away inflation."
ROFL, as if that isn't already happening under bushs tax policy. - browntiger, on 09/07/2008, -1/+8Bye Quad, feel free to leave. I don't think you will be moving to EU because they tax rates are much higher . Good luck finding any place in the world where you would not have to pay tax. And after that pay for your own police, firefighters, roads, airport, etc etc etc.
- shelm, on 09/07/2008, -0/+7Are you illiterate? Factcheck debunks your entire post. http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/would_obama_ ...
Just read down the page and you'll see they are responding to a question asking if your message is accurate.
It isn't! - Peekman, on 09/06/2008, -1/+8The war in Iraq increased the budget by more than 40%.......
Am just wondering... are you more for war than healthcare? - brendanbond, on 09/06/2008, -0/+6In defense of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, they donate a MINIMUM of 1.5 BILLION each year to worthy causes like global health, education, poverty initiatives, etc. Although I agree with your main point that the super rich don't pay enough taxes under the current system, I'm not sure that these foundations' only goal in is to hide wealth. Oh, and Warren Buffet famously made a donation to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation that was worth billions over time, and attached a clause that made sure that it would in effect match any donation that the foundation made rather than just increase the foundation's endowment.
- manoftruths, on 09/07/2008, -0/+6After eight years McCain calls for change. This is a clear acknowledgement that the Republicans had messed up. What were they doing for eight years? Could they not have changed then?
Change can only happen through a change of government and Obama brings that change.
There need to be new ideas and new policies in the white house. The days of republicanism are over. Only the republicans could have pushed America into this state of recession. Obama will put the American economy back in a position of strength. - shpilk, on 09/07/2008, -1/+7Back when Americans were responsible and conservatives were .. well .. conservative we had to pay for WWII.
To those morons and fools who call themselves 'Republican' today, I offer up the nominal tax rate for the rich during Dwight D Eisenhower's term. For those earning more than $400,000 a year, the individual tax rate was 91%. Not a typo. 91%.
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php
Read. Learn about your history, rather than being a tool of corporations, you morons.
Eisenhower was a responsible conservative who was interested in building up the country's infrastructure, and wanted to pay down the costs of debt incurred by WWII. He knew that unlike Dick Cheney's blase response - deficits and national debt do matter.
Democrats are the responsible party of tax and build the nation. Republicans BORROW the money from our enemies, like the Communist Chinese and then WASTE the money on Dick Cheney's hard-on about controlling mid-East oil and gas.
Democrats TAX and BUILD.
Republicans BORROW and WASTE.
It's really that simple. Only morons that vote over and over again against their own best interests don't get it.
Real conservatives that cannot see supporting Obama are at least not stupid enough to vote for McCain, their voting Barr or writing in Paul.
Hey McCain supporters .. what's your excuse? Brain dead? Stupid? Drugged? Or just greedy? -
Show 51 - 100 of 411 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is