Originally Posted by Halfway north

I don't post all that often, but I feel I should here. Before we all go and get crazed by what the media is telling us, just look at the state of Michigan. I live here, and my job is very much affected by what's going on. You can't raise taxes on the bussiness too much, or they will pull up stakes and go else where. I'm not saying they shouldn't be taxed, just not to the point it's no longer profitable for them to be here. All of these jobs that left here didn't all go overseas, (yes some did) they went to other states that have a lower tax bracket for them. Our wonderful governor told us that "in 5 years, we'd be blown away". Well, tax the big bussiness, and they will move away. They move away, workers can either move with the factory ( if that option exists, and sometimes it does ) or they can stay put and watch everything slip away. Whose fault is it? It don't matter, it happend and it's too late to do anything about it now. It's not too late to make sure the wrong person does not end up in the white house. Raiseing taxes on the bussiness now, will cause them to leave the country in search of one that has a lower tax bracket for them.The one here is the highest in the world. After all, they are in bussiness to make money,not just for themselves, but for the stock holders as well. I think that's why they went into bussiness to begin with. Can you name any bussiness that went into bussiness to loose money? Just think about it for a moment... If they get taxed, they move. If they move, we have no product to move. No product to move, no job. No job, no money. Get it? Like I said, just take a close look at Michigan before someone get's their nose out of joint.

Originally Posted by Arby

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!

Originally Posted by TruckinGamer

Why would someone vote for someone they don't want to win? If that is you, do the country a favor and don't bring your stupidity into the voting polls!




The poll on this board is about the only poll going good for the McCain/Palin ticket. But unfortunately for you, this poll doesn't reflect the average voter and is pretty meaningless with regards to who will actually win the presidency. Currently the polls are indicating if the election was held today it would be a landslide for Obama. McCain's got less than 3 weeks to turn the tables, and I don't think he'll do that by calling him a socialist. It's time for McCain to start campaigning with some substance, the fear campaign isn't working.

Originally Posted by ptif219

I notice you did not address the tax welfare I pointed out.Also 39% plus state and local taxes equates to 50% or more.What % does a person pay before you consider it being overtaxed?

Originally Posted by ptif219

Obama will tax business.Business don't pay taxes they pass it on to the consumer.So that would be a tax on us.

Originally Posted by ptif219

One more thing is If Obama wins and congress is democrat run you can expect freedom of speech to leave with them putting the fairness doctrine back in play.They also would not protect the borders which Obama never mentions.

Originally Posted by ptif219

Marriage as we know it would be perverted by doing away with the protection of marriage act and opening the door to legalize gay marriage.more liberal judges on the supreme court would open the door to take away freedoms and make this country a socialist country.