Whose tax cuts would help you most?

PLC1

PLC1

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
10,666
Location
The Golden State
Obama's, or McCains?


McCain, borrowing a page from Ronald Reagan and President Bush, would keep tax rates low for higher-income taxpayers and slash rates for corporations, arguing that this is the way to jump-start a lethargic economy and create more jobs.
Click to expand...


Obama, focusing on a theme of many past Democratic campaigns, seeks to target his help to the squeezed middle class and address the growing income inequality between rich and poor. He would retain all of the Bush tax cuts for families making less than $250,000 a year, but would do away with Bush's cuts for people making more than that.
Click to expand...


Since neither party wants to go back to the tax rates in effect before 2001, whoever wins will have to work with Congress to pass legislation shaping how the tax code will look beyond 2010. At stake will be billions of dollars.
Click to expand...



Under Obama, the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers, those making roughly $600,000 or more, would see their taxes go up on average by $93,709 in 2009, according to an analysis done by the Tax Policy Center, because Obama would begin implementing his tax changes even before the scheduled expiration of the Bush cuts.
Click to expand...
Under McCain, those same taxpayers would see an average reduction of $48,860, reflecting in part additional cuts he is proposing.
Click to expand...



By contrast, the bottom 20 percent of taxpayers, those with taxable income of roughly $19,000 per year or less, would see their taxes cut by an average of $567 under Obama's program and $21 under McCain's plan, the tax center estimates.
Click to expand...


It really depends on where you are on the poor to wealthy continuum: If your income exceeds $600,000 a year, then you'd like McCain's tax proposal best. If you're under $250,000 then Obamas would help you more.

Of course, there is the question of whether it is fair to ask wealthy citizens to pay more, where you stand on redistribution of wealth and whether the tax proposals actually are such a redistribution, whether you subscribe to the trickle down theory, and of course, which proposal would exacerbate the deficit most.

It seems that neither candidate is really serious about a balanced budget.

Here is the rest of the story.
 
Werbung:
It really depends on where you are on the poor to wealthy continuum
Click to expand...

No - it REALLY depends on whether you are stupid or understand economics. The real dichotomy is:

Do you want the wealthy looted to put money int the hands of Obama's targeted boondoggles and other favored special interests, or

Do you want to leave money in the hands of the people who create private sector jobs?
 
Mccain's plan is better over the long run. Since he'd cut business taxes, you'd see an increase in wages and jobs. Plus there's the plain old logic of "why punish excellence?"
 
.
December 6, 2007
.​
"If there's one thing that Republican politicians agree on, it's that slashing taxes brings the government more money.

If there's one thing that economists agree on, it's that these claims are false."
.​
 
PLC1 said:

Whose tax cuts would help you most?​

Click to expand...
.
relaxing-outside-smiley-emoticon[1].gif
.
BEEN THERE!!!
.​
"Not only was the entire national deficit eliminated after raising taxes on the wealthy in 1993, but the economy grew so fast for the remainder of the decade that many conservative economists thought that the Fed should raise the prime interest rate in order to slow it down."
.​
 
Phoenix68 said:
"Not only was the entire national deficit eliminated after raising taxes on the wealthy in 1993, but the economy grew so fast for the remainder of the decade that many conservative economists thought that the Fed should raise the prime interest rate in order to slow it down."
.​
Click to expand...
Facts Democrats refuse to admit:


www.forbes.com

The Dangerous Myth About The Bill Clinton Tax Increase

The real lesson of the Clinton Presidency is the way back to prosperity lies not through increased taxes on “the rich,” but through tax and regulatory reform and a return to a rules based monetary policy that produces a strong and stable dollar.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com

The Dangerous Myth About The Bill Clinton Tax Increase​

Charles Kadlec
Contributor
I cover economic/political issues with liberty as my polar star.

Jul 16, 2012,05:23pm EDT



Former US President Bill Clinton speaks during...

"The real lesson of the Clinton Presidency is the way back to prosperity lies not through increased... [+]


One of the most dangerous myths that has infected the current debate over the direction of tax policy is the oft repeated claim that the tax increases under President Bill Clinton led to the boom of the 1990s. In their Wall Street Journal Op-Ed last Friday, for example, Clinton campaign manager James Carville and Democratic pollster and Clinton advisor Stanley Greenberg write the increase in the top tax rate to 39.6% “produced the one period of shared prosperity in this past era (since 1980).”

While this myth is now a central part of liberal Democratic folklore, it is contradicted by the political disaster and poor economic results that followed the tax increase. The real lesson of the Clinton Presidency is the way back to prosperity lies not through increased taxes on “the rich,” but through tax and regulatory reform and a return to a rules based monetary policy that produces a strong and stable dollar.

The 1993 Clinton tax increase raised the top two income tax rates to 36% and 39.6%, with the top rate hitting joint returns with incomes above $250,000 ($400,000 in 2012 dollars). In addition, it removed the cap on the 2.9% Medicare payroll tax, raised the corporate tax rate to 35% from 34%, increased the taxable portion of Social Security benefits, and imposed a 4.3 cent per gallon increase in transportation fuel taxes.

If these tax increases were good for the middle class, then they should have been popular. Yet, in the 1994 elections, the Democratic Party suffered historic losses. Even though Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell had declared the unpopular HillaryCare dead in September of that year, the Republican Party gained 54 seats in the House and 8 seats in the Senate to win control of both the House and the Senate for the first time since 1952.

Second, Messrs. Carville and Greenberg are contradicted by their former boss. Speaking at a fund raiser in 1995, President Clinton said: "Probably there are people in this room still mad at me at that budget because you think I raised your taxes too much. It might surprise you to know that I think I raised them too much, too."
 
mark francis said:
Facts Democrats refuse to admit:


www.forbes.com

The Dangerous Myth About The Bill Clinton Tax Increase

The real lesson of the Clinton Presidency is the way back to prosperity lies not through increased taxes on “the rich,” but through tax and regulatory reform and a return to a rules based monetary policy that produces a strong and stable dollar.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com

The Dangerous Myth About The Bill Clinton Tax Increase​

Click to expand...
 
Werbung:

Similar threads

Stalin
Romney Tax Plan
Replies
1
Views
842
dogtowner
dogtowner
Little-Acorn
Fiscal Cliff deal means tax increases for 77% of households, averaging $1,635 each
Replies
9
Views
2K
Phoenix68
Phoenix68
GenSeneca
    • Like
Higher Taxes = Greater Revenue
2 3 4
Replies
49
Views
7K
Phoenix68
Phoenix68
C
Expiration of tax cuts
Replies
5
Views
1K
Phoenix68
Phoenix68
steveox
Obama seeks 28 percent corp. tax rate
Replies
7
Views
2K
Phoenix68
Phoenix68
Back
Top