Taxes
Find a Conversation
Taxes
| Sat, 09-06-2008 - 1:17pm |
Found this summary on the Obama Facebook page but I checked out the website and the summary is accurate according to the nonpartisan Tax policy Center.
The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center found that Mr. Obama's plan would amount to a tax cut for 81 percent of all households, or 95.5 percent of those with children. The center calculated that by 2012 the Obama plan would let middle-income taxpayers keep about 5 percent more income on average, or nearly $2,200 a year, while Mr. McCain would give them an average 3 percent break, or about $1,400. The richest 1 percent would pay an average $19,000 more in taxes each year under Mr. Obama's plan but see a tax cut of more than $125,000 under Mr. McCain.






Pages
EVERYBODY wants to keep as much for themselves, right?
>>....you can't tell me for one minute that the Wealthy aren'y for McCain because it's better for them.<<<
You obviously don't know many wealthy people.
A vote for McCain is better for the country. The successful people in the higher tax brackets didn't get there by being economically daft. They know how the system works. They realize that wasteful spending hurts everyone but those in the middle the most. It hurts the poor the next most.
They understand that when you have government to provide for you cradle to grave there goes risk taking, creativity, the drive to take a risk. It's those risk takers who are responsible for providing the jobs in the first place. When they go away or are reduced so goes everything else. That short term tax windfall caused by overtaxing the largest producers in this country is long forgotten when the jobs are fewer, the earnings are lower, inflation is higher, etc....
You can't "tax" what isn't being earned or spent........
<hurt those in higher cost-of-living states.>>
People within a $46,000 income range will be taxed on the same percentage rate and tax base which allows
Oh, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap!! (And I'm not being sarcastic!!) You hit the nail on the head!! (Along with a previous poster who mentioned that SBO's are going to get wrangled in with the "wealthy" under Obama's plan.)
Wealthy people rarely start out wealthy. It takes time and effort to get to that point in life. Microsoft did not start out as the giant it is today. Wal-Mart did not start out as the giant it is today. McDonald's did not start out as the giant it is today.
People had to step out on a limb and start those companies. It has gotten progressively harder for someone to start their own company in this country. My husband is an excellent web designer and programmer. He has been hounded by several companies. However, he really wants to work for himself. When he started a small side business to do web design, we realized how impossible it was going to be at this point in our lives to depend on that solely. We had almost no overhead, as web work can be done from our own home and without other employees. Unfortunately, Mike was required to pay over 40% taxes on any income he made as a self-employed wage earner. He was only on track to make about $30,000 this year, but the 40% rate would have stayed the same.
That will only get worse under the Obama plan, and we really feel like Obama will probably win this election. Therefore, we were too scared to try to stay self-employed during this time in the economy.
Instead, he chose to go work for a regular company using his degree until we save up enough to help with that tax hit the first few years. He'll be making slightly more than he would have as an SBO, but we will now qualify to pay 0 taxes, since he's not self-employed. Therefore, since we didn't take a risk, we get to keep more money as a family. We are a prime example of how democratic economic theories squash entrepreneurship.
-----------------------------------
Also, regarding the flat tax:
Some of you feel like it would be unfair because everyone would be paying the same amount of tax to feed and clothe our children. I'm not sure how that's unfair. I just don't get it. Of course we should all be paying the same amount of money for food. We're getting the exact same product...why should it cost more for a wealthy person??
But here's the part you're forgetting about: Wealthy people have more expendable income! They are more likely to go out and buy a flat-panel t.v. or a brand new car or tons of gifts for their children's birthdays...because they have the money to do it.
*THAT* is where the flat-tax becomes *genius*.
A single mom raising three kids on $25,000/year most likely will not be buying a flat-panel t.v. (She probably has much more important things to purchase.) However, a wealthy father raising a family of five on $250,000/year will most likely buy a flat-panel t.v. for the living room, as well as a smaller one for the bedroom. He would have to pay the flat tax on those two purchases, whereas the single mother would not be paying that tax.
On the same token, if the single mother takes her children out to celebrate a birthday, they might go out to McDonalds. Their total bill will be about $20. She'll pay tax on that $20. The wealthy father might take his family out to Applebees (or somewhere even nicer). Their total bill will be about $100. He'll pay tax on that $100.
Yes, the wealthy man gets taxed more, but it's by HIS choice! The government will still end up getting more money out of the wealthy. However, it will be by their choice. A flat tax helps to inspire economic responsibility. People will think more about the things they purchase. It might even inspire some people to give the money they would spent on a flat-panel television to the single mother in their church who could use it more.
------------------------------------
I know a flat tax is not on the ticket this year. I realize that. However, it could have been. There were two candidates who talked about a flat tax during the primaries. Neither one of them could be found on the Democratic ticket. (Gasp!) It's simply a foundational shift in economic thinking.
Republicans will almost always allow me (and those closest to me) to keep more of our money than the Democrats in the long run. It's not that I want to keep it for myself. It's simply that I know I can use it better than the government. Faith-based programs are MUCH better at social services than the government. Education systems flourish when there is competition and incentives. If I can choose to give my money to a local church, and if I can have a voucher that allows me to choose where my child will attend school, then my community will improve without a doubt.
However, if I send all that money to the government, then we could end up funding wars that aren't ours to fight. We could end up funding schools that are giving substandard education to the students with which they are entrusted. And I end up seeing a decline in my community.
Not only my community, but others too! The United States government is practically ignores hurting third world countries unless they are located over oil reserves or pipelines. I hate that. If you let me keep my money, then I can help organizations like Compassion International or the Gates Foundation who are moving heaven and hell to try to help the forgotten children around the world. If you let me keep my money, then maybe I could finally afford the adoption we wish for so badly. Maybe I could finally take one more child out of the orphanage.
I know I can't heal the world with my measly income. But I sure seem to be doing a lot more social good with my teeny tiny amount than any government has done in my lifetime with that same amount of $$.
That's my personal philosophy. I want to use *my* money to effect the change *I* believe in. I don't want to give someone else my money to effect the change *they* believe in.
Powered by CGISpy.com
Thanks to the awesome Susie (ssusie_q)
for my wonderful sigs!!
Why is Obama insisting on penalizing married people?
>>Obama would adjust the income-tax brackets to ensure that no married couple making under $250,000 or single filer making under $200,000 would pay the top rates.<<
What a family man!
40% rate would have stayed the same.
I question this as I am self-employed and make around that much per year.
<>
How did you figure he owned 40% for his income?
<>
This is so completely untrue.
Powered by CGISpy.com
Thanks to the awesome Susie (ssusie_q)
for my wonderful sigs!!
<>
This is for a state flat tax.
Pages