Welcome to PatsFans.com

McCain's tax plan

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by weswelker#83, Mar 21, 2008.

  1. weswelker#83

    weswelker#83 In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,519
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

  2. Stokes

    Stokes In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    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!
     
  3. weswelker#83

    weswelker#83 In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,519
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    Don't worry as soon as the MSM catch with this topic, the story will develop with more informations.
     
  4. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,926
    Likes Received:
    286
    Ratings:
    +780 / 18 / -23

    #24 Jersey

    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.
     
  5. otis p. driftwood

    otis p. driftwood Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,256
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0


    Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
     
  6. Stokes

    Stokes In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    OK, if they come out with some data let us know!
     
  7. Terry Glenn is a cowgirl

    Terry Glenn is a cowgirl Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    Messages:
    7,385
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

  8. weswelker#83

    weswelker#83 In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,519
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    Here you go my friend stokes :


    Five Easy Pieces and Two Trillion Dollars
    The Bush-McCain-Norquist Tax Agenda

    http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2008/tax_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/mccain-econ-adviser-mccains-tax-plan-will-make-deficits-expand/
     
  9. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,599
    Likes Received:
    167
    Ratings:
    +459 / 12 / -14

    Here is what McCain's website says about taxes:


    Which part of these proposals do you disagree with and why?
     
  10. Stokes

    Stokes In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Thanks for the link! So I have to disagree TOTALLY with that $2 trillion number. What they did, reading the report, was just assume the tax cuts would have no positive impact on businesses or the economy in general. We know this to be way off base looking at tax revenue collected before and after the Bush tax cuts. I went to the IRS website and found tables for revenue collected by year (for some reason 2003 was missing, but the others are all there). According to the claims by the American Progress Action report, there should have been a $2 trillion shortfall in tax revenue from the Bush tax cuts (well, $2 trillion by 2010, so I guess about $1 trillion from 2002-2006). Here are the numbers by year, gross federal tax revenue collected (in trillions of dollars). The years after the first of the Bush tax cuts (enacted mid-2001) are shown in bold:

    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/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=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!
     
  11. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,440
    Likes Received:
    321
    Ratings:
    +901 / 7 / -3

    Shhhhhh!!!!!!!
     
  12. weswelker#83

    weswelker#83 In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,519
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0


    Take a look at this graph stokes :

    [​IMG]

    Shhhhhhhhhh

    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_03/013388.php

    Hey , again ,they might be wrong , and your analysis could be correct , than these experts. I am just saying , you never know , stokes.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2008
  13. otis p. driftwood

    otis p. driftwood Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,256
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    So...ummmm...what's the policy inclination of this particular site you've quoted now? Seems to be a trifle...left of center. Could you show this same thing using figures from a place not leaning leftward?
     
  14. Stokes

    Stokes In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Yeah, I recognize that the benefit goes to the top 1% of taxpayers, what I'm saying though is that its not that they get a break while the middle class pays more, the amount of tax paid by low/middle class stays the same or goes down as well.

    I do think though that it is possible to drop tax rates so low that the increase in revenue from economic growth no longer covers the decrease in revenue from lower tax rates. I think its clear we didn't reach that point with the Bush tax cuts, and I'm not sure we'd be reaching it with a possible McCain cut either, but that is I think a valid concern.

    The thing I think is wrong about this whole deal is the idea from the McCain camp that this will initially increase the deficit before revenues catch up. I'm VERY big on the idea that they should be basing a tax cut on what we can afford, so either don't cut as much, or decrease spending (my preferred option). The reason we got the deficits during the Bush administration was they said the exact same thing, and kept increasing spending. That's not good policy from my perpsective.
     
  15. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,738
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    I'm 38 years old. One thing I've learned in my life is that 10 year projections put out by politicians or anyone related to the political world are complete fabrications.

    Prediction: Should Mccain become President, I'll guarantee that what ever he says his tax plan will do over the next 10 years won't happen and whatever the Democrats say his tax plan will do over the next 10 years won't happen.
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>