Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by otis p. driftwood, Jun 18, 2008.
Nobody with a comment to this? That Obama's tax plan would actually lower taxes for "ordinary" people more than McCain's?
Yeah, but ordinary people don't drive the economy, rich people do.
I have no idea if this is true : "80% of taxpayers would get more from Obama's cuts than from McCain's" so I'll assume it is. The problem is the bottom 75% (don't have the bottom 80% numbers, this is close enough) only pay 14% of the total income tax so there's not a lot of savings for "normal people" there, even if there are some.
Before I make any criticisms - believe me that I do want "normal people" to do well and have good jobs. Heck, I'm an engineer - a normal person.
But the fly in the ointment to me is what he does with capital gains/dividends taxes; he's already had to retreat from his plans there to some extent. A lot of normal people have their retirement in stocks and would be paying more under Obama that could easily offset the relatively small savings they might get from income tax. To me it's like buying a car while trading one in, there's parts moving from both ends. Keep investment taxes the same and tell me what the numbers are then we can talk. As it stands I think a lot of "normal people" would be unpleasantly surprised.
It's kind of why I posted it. There are several people here better on the economy than I am (I try...but my eyes glaze over when I start reading economic theory...it's a seriousl weakness).
But I thought it was interesting from marketwatch.com.
The other thing that strikes me is the 80% number. The cutoff to be in the top 20% is about $85K, according to the chart I'm looking at. Good money for sure but not "rich", certainly not in a big city. Even the top 5% would would pay more than they do now, the cutoff for the top 5% is about $160K. Now that's VERY good money but if you live in Boston, Chicago, L.A., etc, making that with a family I'm not sure you want your taxes raised. To get to those making $250K+, a more reasonable definition of rich to me, but still not close to "filthy rich" you have to hit only the top 1.5%.
Speaking for myself, and I'm not typical as I like to save money for investing, I would prefer no increase in Capital Gains even if it means no reduction or even a small increse in income tax. As I grow older and my investments grow, capital gains tax will outweigh income tax.
Me too. Almost all my extra money goes to the stock market....
try mutual funds
the stock market is run by criminals.
The economy isn't driven by rich people, its driven by consumers. If ordinary people have money, they tend to spend it. Rich people tend to try and get richer.
McCain's tax plan will fukc you in the earhole unless you are uber wealthy or have a sum of $$ coming to you.
Try something which is a subset of something run by criminals ?
You are hedging your bets against the criminals by diversifying with mutual funds.
knowing that the market is fueled by criminals...having the mutual fund allows for faster liquidity so you can get the f out when the getting is good. try doing that with a CD or a bunch of bonds.
A little crazy but . . . OK. Anyway, all I have is mutual funds, I'm not an investor just someone who invests.
Problem is, it can get costly and this is where higher CG/D taxes can hurt. Last year I moved a good chunk (about $20K IIRC) out of my Real Estate fund (good timing) into something else. Well real estate had been doing well so about half of that was CG/D. Well moving from fund to fund is a sell and a buy so all that money was immediately taxable. At 10% that adds $1K to my taxes. At 26%, I think that's what Obama talked about initially, that adds $2.6K to my taxes. A big difference. And that's just moving money from one fund to another.
we should all move to the caymans...funnel our money through a fake office, and not pay taxes. Just like the big boys do it, then we can call everyone who disagrees with us "Unamerican" or "Nazi-communists"
on the real....we need a flat tax.
Why flat and not progressive?
we should all pay the same percentage of what we make. Thats fair.
unless you wanna attempt to sway me on the merits of a 'progressive' tax....my mind is set on this.
"Its so simple its complex"
The only "merit" of a progressive tax is it's not possible to raise the money needed to run the government without raising taxes on the bottom 50% otherwise. Now - if you want to make the argument that lowered spending should go along with it, I'm with you then.
If you benefit more from the system you should pay more, especially when you usually benefit at the cost of others.
With a flat tax you would pay more if you made more.
It's not clear that this is correct as the poor get more in services, not talking welfare but the shared services like roads, schools, etc, than they contribute in taxes.
A higher percentage i.e. proportionally more.
Yeah, I get it. I just don't agree with it.
Separate names with a comma.