![]() |
McCain's tax plan
McCain's tax plan would cost more than $2 trillion over the next decade, delivering 58% of its benefits to the top 1% of taxpayers and just 4% to the bottom 60% of taxpayers.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-t...k_project.html |
Re: McCain's tax plan
Any idea where they're getting that number from? The CAP is a pretty notorious left wing group aren't they? It would be like me asking you to believe some study that came out of a right wing think tank.
I'm not saying it has to be wrong, just that if you can find it I'd love to see where the numbers are coming from. Thanks! |
Re: McCain's tax plan
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: McCain's tax plan
You realize the bottom 50% now only pays 3% of the income tax, right ? You can't cut taxes without helping the top 1% as they pay 40%. The top 10% pays 70%.
Most people are living here just about for free. |
Re: McCain's tax plan
Quote:
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh |
Re: McCain's tax plan
Quote:
|
Re: McCain's tax plan
Quote:
bomb bomb bomb bomb iran bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb iran ... |
Re: McCain's tax plan
Quote:
Five Easy Pieces and Two Trillion Dollars The Bush-McCain-Norquist Tax Agenda http://www.americanprogressaction.or...ax_agenda.html One of McCain’s economic advisers, former CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, responded to the report yesterday, as well as CAPAF criticism of McCain’s health plan. Holtz-Eakin concedes that McCain’s tax plan “will make deficits expand up front,” but argues that “voters should wait” before “passing judgment” on McCain’s plan. http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/22/...ficits-expand/ |
Re: McCain's tax plan
Here is what McCain's website says about taxes:
Quote:
Which part of these proposals do you disagree with and why? |
Re: McCain's tax plan
Quote:
1998 - 1.769 1999 - 1.904 2000 - 2.096 2001 - 2.128 2002 - 2.016 2004 - 2.018 2005 - 2.268 2006 - 2.518 So revenues didn't go down at all after the tax cuts, they stayed steady because losses in revenue from lowering tax rates were made up for by increases in revenue from raising profitability of companies and stimulating the economy. So to say Bush's cuts will cost $2 trillion by 2010, or that McCain's cuts will cost $2 trillion by 2018 to me seems at a minimum to be specious reasoning, more appropriately I think it is downright deceitful. The problem Bush had that McCain needs NOT to repeat is they gave overly rosy forecasts of how much the cuts would stimulate the economy, spent based on those unrealistic projections, and thus ended up with big deficits. If McCain does as he's promised and reins in spending, these cuts may work even better than the Bush cuts. Also it is true that his cuts with benefit the top 1% the most, but there are 2 vital points there. First, they pay the highest % of taxes, and second the fact that they pay less does NOT mean lower income people pay more, it is a cut across the board. To get an idea of exactly what the burden was on high income taxpayers I checked the % of tax paid in 2005 by income level (also from the IRS, http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxst...=96981,00.html), and those over $200,000, representing 3.9% of taxpayers, paid 51.3% of the taxes, those over $1 million, representing 0.3% of taxpayers, paid 25.2% of the taxes. Again, the top 3.9% paid over half of the taxes, the top 0.3% paid one quarter. From that perspective it doesn't seem so bad to me that they will benefit the most from the cuts, they benefit the most because they pay the most! |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:57 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 © Copyright 2000-2012. PatsFans.com Is a Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties. This site is owned and operated by I&K Internet Design Enterprises, LLC
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
The opinions posted in this forum do not necessarily reflect the opinions of our staff at PatsFans.com or USA Today.
We are not affiliated with the New England Patriots™ or the NFL™. The Photo Used In the header was taken by Ian Logue.