No, the CONSERVATIVES have failed us. Wether they be Rebuplicans or Democrats. John McCain is a conservative. Adn voted with the conservatives 96% of the time.

Come on. Be serious. The amount of the budget going to pay for IRS employees. Is probably less then .000000000000000000000001% of the US budget.

I voted other. But, i think there should be a box called "Lord help us all"

So only the poor would pay 100% taxes on their income -- becuase they have to spend all their income to survive. The rich would pay only a small part of their income on taxes -- because they spend only a small part of their income. The majority of their income never gets spent. It sits in the bank. Yeah. That sounds fair. Shift the cost of maintaining America onto the working people; let the rich (who use American's infrastruture the hardest and get the most from it) go free.

No it wouldn't. Say you make 50,000 a year and 20,000 of that goes to income tax. In effect you are working for 30,000 a year. Correct? So, your employer knows you are willing to for 30,000 a year. What do you think they will do if the income tax is taken away? They are not stupid. They are in business to maximize profits. They understandably want to work you as cheaply as possible. They will lower your take home pay to 30,000 a year to match the 30,000 a year take home you were working for before. You will be right where you were before the taxes were removed.

The cost of administrating the IRS is miniscule in the grant scheme of things. Futhermore, you would still need an IRS to collect the sales tax. With a sales tax that high there would be a massive black market. Especially considering my above comment: take home pay would not keep up with the new huge sales tax hike. People would have the same take home but now a huge sales tax to pay.

This is a non-starter.

:.THE GREAT CORPORATIONS,AND GIVE BACK TO WHERE IT BELONG !! TO THE MEDIUM CLASS,AND ONLY ONE OF THE CANDIDATES GO IN THAT DIRECTION (AN UNFORTUNATELY NO GUARANTIES);IS TIME TO SEE AND CHECK FACTS, NO ONLY FOLLOW THE TALK RADIO (AND 98% LIES AND EXAGERATIONES),WE THE ENGINE OF AMERICA SHUD BE THE FIRST TO DEMAND STOP THE GRATE GIFST TO THE ENERGY COMPANYS AND OTHER FRIENS OF THIS ADMINISTRATION AND DEMAND INVERTION ON INFRACTUSTURE (ROADS SPECIALY,THAT WE BETHER THAT NOT BADY KNOW THE URGENCY OF DICENT AND SAFE ONES) UNFORTUNALY THE CB ETELL TELLME THAT AMERICA HAVE A GREAT PROBLEM OF Hatred
AND YOU KNOW WE DRIVERS DO NOT HAVE SHAME TO SHOW IT:chairshot

Okay, for those of you who want to see how the tax plans of both candidates effect Americans, here's a summarization of the work done by the Tax Policy Center:

McCain: In 2009, the fully-phased-in McCain tax plan would, on average, provide a tax cut equal to 2.1 percent of after-tax income, or $1,230 (table 6). The distribution of benefits from his plan would be regressive. Households in the bottom quintile of the cash income distribution would receive an average tax cut of just 0.2 percent of income ($21) and those in the middle fifth of the income distribution would receive an average cut equal to 0.8 percent of income ($325). Households in the top quintile, however, would get an average tax cut of 3.2 percent of income ($6,498). For those in the upper portion of the top quintile, the decreases would be significantly larger. Taxpayers in the top 1 percent of the population would see their taxes fall by an average of 3.7 percent of income or almost $50,000 and the richest 1 in 1,000 would see an average tax cut of more than $290,000 or 4.7 percent of income.

Thus, while Senator McCain’s plan provides a tax cut to nearly 60 percent of all households, fewer than one in five households in the bottom quintile and less than half those in the second quintile would see their taxes go down.

McCain’s overall tax plan be much more regressive in 2012 than in 2009 because expiration of the Bush tax cuts makes the baseline much more progressive. Measured against current law, the fully-phased-in McCain plan would cut 2012 taxes for those in the bottom quintile by 0.9 percent of income, or about $100 (table 7). Households in the middle of the income distribution would receive an average tax cut of 3.1 percent of income, or $1,441. The top fifth would receive an increase in after-tax income of 6.4 percent or $13, 909. The largest cuts would go to those at the very top of the income distribution; the top 1 percent would receive cuts averaging 9.5 percent of income ($126,902) while the top 1 in 1,000 would see their after-tax incomes rise 11.6 percent, or about $680,000, more than ten times the relative gain of those in the bottom quintile.

The consequences of all these proposals for economic efficiency and the distribution of economic burdens depend critically on how the measures are financed. To the extent that individual and corporate marginal tax rate reductions are deficit-financed (that is, the government simply borrows more), the positive effects of lower tax rates will be offset by the costs of increased government debt. More government debt eventually translates into higher interest rates, which discourage business investment and consumers’ demand for homes and such durable goods as automobiles, or into increased debt owed to foreigners, which mortgages the nation’s long-term economic future. And if swelling deficits are closed by future tax increases rather than spending cuts, we impose much greater economic costs of taxation on our children and grandchildren than they would face if we do not enact tax cuts today.
If growing deficits eventually require draconian spending cuts—a stated goal of those who adhere to the “starve the beast” theory of government—then vulnerable populations may lack essential services; critical infrastructure investments for roads, bridges, and dams may be deferred; and the national defense may suffer.


Obama: In 2009, Senator Obama’s tax plan would, on average, provide a modest tax cut equal to 0.3 percent of after-tax income, or $151 (table 1). But his plan would drastically alter the distribution of tax burdens and make the tax system significantly more progressive. Households in the bottom quintile of the cash income distribution (the 20 percent of the population with the lowest incomes) would receive an average tax cut of 5.5 percent of income ($567) and those in the middle fifth of the income distribution would receive an average cut equal to 2.4 percent of income ($1,041). In contrast, taxes would rise by an average of 2.0 percent of income ($4,115) for households in the top quintile. And the increases would be even more dramatic within the top quintile. Taxpayers in the top 1 percent would see their taxes rise by an average of 8.7 percent of income or about $116,000. The top 0.1 percent—the richest 1 in 1,000—would face an average tax increase of more than $700,000, or 11.4 percent of income.

Under current law, virtually all of the provisions of the 2001–06 tax cuts will expire at the end of 2010. Senator Obama’s plan would extend most of the provisions affecting lower- and middle-income households and create the new refundable credits discussed above. Thus, measured against current law, the Obama plan would provide much larger tax cuts for lower- and moderate-income households in 2012 than in 2009. Households in the bottom quintile would see an average tax cut of 6.2 percent of after-tax income or $698 (table 2). Households in the middle of the income distribution would receive an average tax cut equal to 4.6 percent of income or $2,132.

Since some of Obama’s proposals affecting upper-income households, such as the individual income tax rate increases to 36 and 39.6 percent, are already scheduled to occur after 2010 under current law, his plan appears to raise taxes less on upper-income households in 2012 than in 2009 when measured against a current-law baseline. In fact, in 2012, the Obama plan would provide an average tax cut to the top quintile of 1.5 percent of income or $3,328. Only about two-fifths of taxpayers in the top 1 percent of the population would face a tax hike. For them, the increase in the tax rates on capital gains and dividends, as well as the corporate and estate tax increases outweigh the other elements of Obama’s plan. Overall, less than 6 percent of all households would experience a tax increase in 2012 compared to current law. Almost 9 in 10 households would receive a tax cut, including almost 60 percent of those in the top 1 percent of the income distribution.

Top marginal income tax rates would increase to their pre-2001 levels, but top capital gains tax rates would be higher and dividend tax rates lower. The effect of the higher capital gains tax is a mixed bag, however. (See Burman [1999] for a discussion.) Higher tax rates on capital gains encourage investors to hold assets longer than they would otherwise, may deter risk-taking, and contribute to the double-taxation of corporate equity. But reducing the difference between the tax rates on capital gains and other income lessens the incentive to use economically inefficient tax shelters to convert ordinary income into capital gains. The lower tax rate on dividends compared with current law in 2011 reduces double taxation of corporate equity and thus gives firms less artificial incentive to retain earnings instead of paying dividends. Together, the capital gains and dividends provisions probably have little or no effect on the performance of the economy.

Obama’s proposals to tax carried interest as ordinary income, limit international corporate tax shelters, improve information reporting, apply the “economic substance doctrine” to business transactions, and reduce the tax gap could all improve economic efficiency by reducing the incentive to engage in purely tax-motivated transactions. Corporations and high-income individuals would be motivated to select investments and arrange compensation to maximize productivity rather than simply to reduce tax liability. But some of the proposals may generate much less revenue than the Obama campaign claims, because the sophisticated tax avoidance techniques that Obama wants to reduce are difficult to control.

Overall, the economic effect of the Obama proposals will depend on how the resulting deficits are closed. If the deficits result in higher tax rates in the future, the economy will be harmed. If they are closed by cutting less productive government spending, the economic costs will be lower, but the long-term gain in progressivity may also be diminished depending on which programs are cut.


The TPC conlcludes that Obama would increase the deficit by $3.4 Trillion by 2018 and McCain would incease the deficit by $5 Trillion by 2018.

I tried to post the link to TPC's updated findings, but I have not posted 15 time...???

Decide which candidate servers your best interest and vote.

Stop the ideological rants and loonacy!