Forbidden Donut

The problem with analyzing tax plans is that you can't accurately draw any conclusions about the plans without first considering the proposed spending by each candidate.

In a fiscally responsible world:

• If a candidate proposes to increase spending, they must also increase the gross income from taxes.
• If a candidate proposes to decrease spending, they must also decrease the gross income from taxes.

In a world bound by the principles of freedom:

• If a candidate proposes to increase or decrease spending, they must appropriately adjust taxes to impact all citizens equally.

In the type of society this country was founded on, both of these worlds work harmoniously together, and everybody wins. In the type of society that we live in today, both of these worlds are ignored and the principles they are built on are shit upon, and everybody loses.

But fuck it. Let's continue to let our government (it doesn't matter which party is in control) dramatically increase spending.

Hell, the only real choice you have between the democrats and the republicans in terms of taxes is whether you want to rape the very foundation of our society (democrat) or demonstrate the fiscal responsibility of the average [american] teenager (republican).

I don't agree with either of the two plans, mostly because of the plans for the upper class. McCain's plan gives too much of a tax break, especially giving our current spending measures. Any tax break in that income area is largely for show and not to really get the people a significant difference in disposable income. It could half as low and still have the same effect.

Meanwhile Obama's plan for the upper class could have far reaching consequences. While I find it a little difficult to fathom how people spend so much each year, that $700,000 could easily make or break several people living within their means. That money could represent several house payments that suddenly can't be made, adding to the already flooded house market. Obama wants to raise taxes on the upper class, fine, that is his prerogative. But doing it so high very quickly could easy bankrupt quite a few people. While I appreciate the extra $800 or so dollars I'll get to keep, I don't know that it is worth the cost.

That 800 dollars you get back will quickly get spent on something, making the guy who's getting taxed up the ass more money through investment in the companies you buy from. That's trickle up economics. Income is income, people making 2.5 million dollars a year in income are investing most of that. Therefore the vast majority of their REAL income isn't actually taxed here. If you've spent the last 5-10 years raking in over 2 million a year from your job, you're probably raking in over a million a year in investments.

And to Gov. PAYGO. Only Obama endorses the only feasible method of controlling spending we've had in America. For those who don't know, the idea is pretty simple: When a spending bill comes up, part of that bill has to include how we're going to pay for it. This should (at least) reduce the deficit spending problem. It may not make the deficit disappear, esspecially in light of his social programs initiatives, but it's more responsible than what we've done for 8 years, and it's certainly better than chickenhawking for more wars while claiming that reducing 2.5 billion dollars in pork will pay for all his pretty tax breaks.

This is the part that makes Obama's plan better than McCain's plan. I don't really like either of them, because both plans aren't enough to support the spending that is also laid out. I'd like to see congress grow a pair and start doing their job, but they seem to bow to the will of the president these days.

I'd like the quantity of money McCain is offering, but the increase in the value of the dollar Obama is offering. Can I have both?

Jedd's no dummy! /biggrin.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin.gif" /> How much is 100-200 dollar tax break gonna be worth if our economy tanks from being so deep in debt with foreign countries?

Rich people are fine.

What are Obama's plans on taxing corporations? I haven't seen anything on this yet.

http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/30/obama-fur...0731furman.html
It basically says that he is interested in cutting corporate tax rates, but that he has to consider a lot of the surrounding information before doing so and that McCain would just cut the rate from 35 to 25% without such consideration.

I knew McCain was going to just cut them (more), but I didn't know if Obama was going to turn back and remove the Bush cuts.

Interesting. I thought he'd be more into taxing the corporations.

The thing is, you could increase the corporate tax rate to 80%, and they still would only pay about 10, and then scoot the money around to all their board members, ceo's, vp's, cfo's, etc. That's not income, that's not capitol gains, and it's not the corporation's money any more.

They have too many ways out of paying their share.

http://www.c-span.org/newsmakers/goolsbee.htm

good interview with Austin Goolsbee, an economic adviser to Obama.

Wouldn't the CEO's, VP's, etc just pay that money in income taxes then if they just shuffled the money to them?

It's exempt if it's considered a "bonus" or a "gift". Among other things you can call it and have it not count as income. But that just demonstrates the problem. We don't have a looks like a duck quacks like a duck economic model.

er I thought you had to pay taxes on gifts. Yep: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/articl...=108139,00.html

The tax on gifts has plenty of loopholes.

Interestingly however:
The gubmint stepped in and prevented the CEO's of Fannie May and Freddie Mac from executing their Golden Parachute clauses.

Fuckers.

700k would break a multimillionaire? ROFL. thats reasoning for the lottery winners. 700k is not too much for multimillionaires. eg. check scandinavia. It's called hiring an accountant and a consultant when you're a millionaire. 700k is coming out of their income anyhow, i dont see that is unfair.

edit: if ur 2.8 mil+ and u go into debt after a 700k deduction, u need to rethink ur living expenses and investments.

Um... what are you talking about? I thought I missed something in that article that you caught, but I searched for any mention of 700k/700,000/700 thousand/thousand and no dice.

edit: there was also a lot of wharrgarbl in the post, so it's just generally hard to follow.

My guess is that ebola was referring to the image at the beginning of the thread. Where the average change in Obama's top bracket is +$701,885.

I still don't get why neither is going after a balanced budget. We are already spending beyond what we are taxing. Both candidates are planning on spending more and taxing less.

Edit: Sorry Ebola... I had the wrong Tom.

That's ebola, by the way.

right, forgot what the thread was actually about. Yeah. Most of the money in that bracket isn't made through income, but investment. You could tax them 90% and see very little increase in personal burden. The only argument for keeping their taxes low is based on a faulty theory of economics that has basically been disproven by 4 of the last 5 presidents taking that road and ending up with a deficit, and one guy not and having the 90's

I'd still like to see if it'd work, but it will never work if the government doesn't cut down on its spending.

It doesn't. Even when they cut spending. If you don't tax the people who are making the most money, you can't pay for shit. Period. Doesn't matter how much shit you have, if it's more or less than it was last year. You can't pay for any of it.

This idea that if you tax rich people too much they'll leave or stop making so much money is ludicrous and is used in combination with the myth that "you too could one day be rich!" are what keep us following this silly path.

R: Trickle up economics violate the laws of gravity, hurrr.
D: Trickle down economics violate the laws of economics, durrr.

The idea isn't that the rich people will leave or stop making money (as long as the tax percent isn't ludicrous). It's more supply side economics. From what I understand (I haven't studied any of trickle down theory, mind you), a business can make more money by producing more product and selling it at a cheaper price, but it is a hefty investment to do that. The tax cuts are supposed to allow and encourage investors to put the money into companies so the company can make more money AND the price per product can be lower.

Again, this is from my limited knowledge on the subject and is probably a very simple and not completely accurate explanation.

Here's a newer, more accurate, and generally way cooler calculator. I'd be curious to see some people's differences.

I'd keep $500 more under Obama's plan than McCain's, but Obama's saying that this bailout could throw a monkey wrench into a lot of his more ambitious plans, like universal healthcare. So I'm not sure how that affects his tax proposal.

So to kick things off

$800 vs $300: Obama

I'd save $502 under Obama's tax plan per year.