OBAMA v MCCAIN Tax breakdown graph.

I figured linking this might help compare the two candidates tax plans and how to cut through the fluff to see the real impact to your salary bracket. There's a bunch of bullshit out there and no one can use false information.

7/18/2008 3:45:13 PM

Looks like, of the two, Obama is the only one who realizes the severity of our deficit.





[Edited on July 18, 2008 at 3:49 PM. Reason : ,]

7/18/2008 3:48:08 PM

Do you have a non-google docs link that I can share with other?

Oh, and let me get this out of the way:

"DON'T BELIEVE THE GRAPH, YOU CAN'T TRUST THE LIEBERALS."

and

"I SAY GOOD SIR, LET'S BEAT THE 16TH AMENDMENT HORSE THAT'S BEEN DEAD FOR ALMOST 100 YEARS."

7/18/2008 3:50:49 PM

hersch, how so? Obama's plan (if you believe the link) still results in a net decrease in income tax revenue. And let's not forget the billions of dollars in spending increases that Obama has proposed.

7/18/2008 3:54:42 PM

I believe it's in the washington post.....but you can just save the image to your desktop and distribute it that way too.

7/18/2008 3:54:48 PM

Well it certainly brings shitloads more revenue than mccain's proposals, not to mention the huge freeing up from budget cuts to the war (and avoiding one with Iran to boot).

7/18/2008 3:56:42 PM

^ There is more to balancing the budget than raising revenue. One could also cut spending.
And Obama has already said that balancing the budget is not one of his priorities.
At least McCain indicates he will try.

PS* At best, Obama says we will be out of Iraq in 16 months. And do you honestly think he will do it? He's already talking about refining his position. He can promise to shit a golden egg, but I won't wash the frying pan until he does it.

[Edited on July 18, 2008 at 4:05 PM. Reason : ``]

7/18/2008 4:03:29 PM

7/18/2008 4:05:33 PM

disregarding the nonsense in your statement...

if you want to help the economy and you want to increase revenue you CUT taxes. you especially cut coorporate tax. all our damn businesses are walking out the fucking door because they can go overseas and do business for less.

if we want to increase revenue we need to encourage business to come back to the US.

7/18/2008 4:08:23 PM

Last I heard, the Laffer Curve was only a theory.

The Bush Administration certainly hasn't proven it correct.

7/18/2008 4:13:57 PM

"You cannot enrich the poor by impoverishing the rich"

7/18/2008 4:16:15 PM

i forget

what's 5.5% of nothing?

7/18/2008 4:16:52 PM

Quote :

"At least McCain indicates he will try."

I didn't realize that making blatant lies qualifies as indicating one will try.


HAY GUYS I'M A DINSOAUR RARRRRR

At least I'm trying, right?

7/18/2008 4:18:46 PM

^ blatant lies = McCain refuses to begin negotiating a budget before he is President.

[Edited on July 18, 2008 at 4:25 PM. Reason : ``]

7/18/2008 4:20:42 PM

Quote :

"impoverishing the rich"

Because that's the plan, afterall.

7/18/2008 4:21:11 PM

if you have a problem with that quote you might want to take it up with Mr. Lincoln

but honestly i don't think the goal of those tax hikes is literally to make the rich become so poor that they're in poverty...but what Lincoln is saying is you can't bring up the lower classes by simply forcing the rich to pay more of their money...rich people create a shitload of jobs, etc

7/18/2008 4:24:52 PM

Quote :

"but honestly i don't think the goal of those tax hikes is literally to make the rich become so poor that they're in poverty"

That was my point

Quote :

"but what Lincoln is saying is you can't bring up the lower classes by simply forcing the rich to pay more of their money...rich people create a shitload of jobs, etc"

Actually, this wasn't sitting well with a vague memory I had about Lincoln and taxation during the Civil War.

Wikipedia says:

"The first federal statutes imposing the legal obligation to pay a federal income tax were adopted by Congress in 1861 and 1862 to pay for the Civil War. The 1862 law levied a 3% tax on incomes above $800, rising to 5% for incomes above $10,000. Rates were raised in 1864."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_States#History


There you have it-- Lincoln: America's first pinko commie

[Edited on July 18, 2008 at 4:36 PM. Reason : link]

7/18/2008 4:35:46 PM

Quote :

"Last I heard, the Laffer Curve was only a theory. The Bush Administration certainly hasn't proven it correct. "

European countries like Ireland, Germany and the Netherlands are proving it in spades.

7/18/2008 4:39:43 PM

Quote :

"3% tax on incomes above $800, rising to 5% for incomes above $10,000. Rates were raised in 1864." "

i dont know what the rates were raised to in 1864, but that 5% sounds pretty damn awesome

7/18/2008 4:55:47 PM

Quote :

"Last I heard, the Laffer Curve was only a theory. The Bush Administration certainly hasn't proven it correct."

JFK proved it correct back in the mid-60's.

"A rising tide raises all the boats" - JFK

JFK's tax cut slashed taxes on the highest bracket by a whopping 23%, and yet revenues shot up dramatically in the years that followed. Obama could learn a thing or 2 from him.



[Edited on July 18, 2008 at 5:55 PM. Reason : 2]

7/18/2008 5:48:07 PM

I see this as a never ending battle

Liberal Hippy Flaming Douche Democrat- "bro we gotta tax the rich more b.c they can afford it more and gives the poor more money to spend stimulating the economy.

Conservative Ignorant Redneck Jesus Loving GOP- "i may win the lottery and end up in the highest tax bracket one day and don't think its fair that the rich who already have to pay the most to pay more; rich people use their money for investments to stimulate the economy.



The engineer in me says neither camp is right. There is a balance that has to be fixed and adjusted in order to maximize economic productivity and societal harmony. Swaying the equation far in any which direction would have devastating effects on the economy. I am actually kinda surprised that obama's "plan" would currently save me money in the 66-111K range.

Honestly i do not give two shits about the $2.87 million group having a 11.5% increase in taxes. I am not delusional enough to think that my yearly income level will one day reach this pointWhat i do have a problem with is the 5.5% cut for the "up to 19000K" group. I personally find this BULLSHIT. Most likely this group already has a net tax liability approaching 0%. What is even more likely is they receive a net tax credit from the gov't since they probably qualify for foodstamps and welfare. Surely if obama becomes president he will attempt to widen the scope of social programs including universal health care. If anything the "up to 18981" should have a tax increase to pay for their free healthcare and food stamps. After all this group is obviously is not known for their high intelligence and perhaps they should have paid for their own health insurance instead of putting dubs on their chevrolet caprice.

It only makes sense that as the gov't moves to more socialist policies that the income tax should move to a flat income tax. Since the gov't is forced to pay for services people are not responsible enough or smart enough to take care of in our own. A progressive tax made more sense when the "struggling poor" argument had more credibility in the first half of the 20th century before the current gov't hammock was laid out.

[Edited on July 18, 2008 at 6:07 PM. Reason : l]

7/18/2008 6:02:25 PM

RAWR RAWR RAWR

FUCK THE POOR! FUCK THE RICH!




We get it. All you care about is yourself.

7/18/2008 6:21:58 PM

The bins for this graph are huge. So, without seeing smaller bins, it looks like Obama is going to be more beneficial for me financially.

7/18/2008 6:29:52 PM

obama might be FRACTIONALLY more beneficial to me financially

but even if i was a single issue voter on the subject of taxes, i'd still vote mccain, just because i don't think it's fair to fuck people out of money just because they have a lot of it.

i DO think that we should do something to account for the fact that with most super-rich people, most of their income is from capital gains and dividends, which makes their overall effective tax rate relatively low.

i do not think the solution to that is to raise the capital gains/dividend taxes, though...that would really fuck middle class people who are trying to get ahead (like me, for example).

7/18/2008 8:59:23 PM

And raising the capital gains taxes and shit like that actually hurts the middle class more for another reason -- if capital gains and dividend taxes go up, accountants will simply find other ways to avoid taxes for their rich clients. The middle class cannot afford this type of service.

7/18/2008 9:10:55 PM

Quote :

" The engineer in me says neither camp is right. There is a balance that has to be fixed and adjusted in order to maximize economic productivity and societal harmony. Swaying the equation far in any which direction would have devastating effects on the economy. I am actually kinda surprised that obama's "plan" would currently save me money in the 66-111K range. "

I agree with this statement. It makes sense to me to say - those with the majority of the wealth should be paying the majority of the taxes - however there are logical limits to this which I don't think have been crossed in our lifetimes (maybe hooksaw's, dunno).

7/18/2008 9:37:37 PM

Quote :

"JFK proved it correct back in the mid-60's. "A rising tide raises all the boats" - JFK JFK's tax cut slashed taxes on the highest bracket by a whopping 23%, and yet revenues shot up dramatically in the years that followed. Obama could learn a thing or 2 from him. "

It's ludicrous to compare the JFK tax cut to today. He was cutting from a marginal tax rate that was at 91%. That in no way compares to the way things are today.

7/18/2008 9:45:36 PM

lol shit if i made 2.87 million a year the gov taking another 700k a year wouldnt bother me at all

[Edited on July 18, 2008 at 9:49 PM. Reason : .]

7/18/2008 9:49:16 PM

Quote :

""

7/18/2008 9:55:22 PM

So, McCain wants to lower taxes for everyone and Obama wants to soak the "rich" like a typical liberal Democrat, right? Thanks for confirming the obvious--GG.

PS:

Quote :

"The engineer in me says neither camp is right."

HUR

That's what we need in this, an arrogant engineer, to fuck it up good.

[Edited on July 18, 2008 at 10:10 PM. Reason : .]

7/18/2008 10:06:22 PM

No what actually isn't obvious is that most middle class people fall in the brackets where neither candidate is that different - most people don't realize that. I'm talking the combined family income areas of 66K to 226K. Also of note is tax lowering for the 18-66K range where Obama lowers your taxes more.

Tons of Americans, particularly middle class fall in these areas and to hear it framed that McCain will lower your taxes and Obama will rape you isn't true until you start attending private country clubs and can afford BMWs.

7/18/2008 10:18:40 PM

Quote :

"you start attending private country clubs and can afford BMWs."

That's still the 160k to 226k depending on what BMWs you're talking about.

7/18/2008 10:23:28 PM

^^^^lol

7/18/2008 11:02:14 PM

I'm trying to figure out why the middle three "brackets" for Obama's plan don't follow an increasing trend... 66K to 111K sees a smaller decrease than both 111k to 160k and 160k to 226k...

let's see... a Senator/Congressman's salary is 169k. House Majority/Minority leaders make 183k, Senate Majority/Minority leaders make 188k, and Nancy Pelosi makes 212k. I'm just saying

7/18/2008 11:25:19 PM

Quote :

"lol shit if i made 2.87 million a year the gov taking another 700k a year wouldnt bother me at all "

you sure about that Clark? thats 20% more of your hard earned money.

we all should pay the same percentage of our income. bottom line.

7/18/2008 11:52:34 PM

I went so far as to make a thread about that debate, and I still haven't heard a solid explanation of why equal percentage = equal burden.


I don't see how it could. Are you telling me 20% of $3 million is the equivalent of 20% of $30k? To the former, it's a smaller vacation home, to the latter, it's food on the table. This isn't class warfare-- it's simply an acknowledgment that percentages impact different income levels in significantly different ways.

7/19/2008 12:17:10 AM

Quote :

"I don't see how it could. Are you telling me 20% of $3 million is the equivalent of 20% of $30k? To the former, it's a smaller vacation home, to the latter, it's food on the table. This isn't class warfare-- it's simply an acknowledgment that percentages impact different income levels in significantly different ways."

7/19/2008 1:09:07 AM

Quote :

"To the former, it's a smaller vacation home, to the latter, it's food on the table"

Bullshit. twenty years ago incomes were 20% lower and taxes were higher yet poor parents seem to have gotten food on the table.

A tax cut for the 'American poor' does not put food on the table, it merely changes the type of food and the room it is consumed in. Instead of warming up hot-dogs and can baked-beans as the poor of the 1980s did, the poor of the 2000s jump in the car and take the family to McDonalds.

That said, the lower classes in American society pay way too much in taxes. The payroll tax should be abolished and Society Security turned into a means-tested subsistence entitlement. At the same time, the upper classes in American society pay way too much in taxes.

[Edited on July 19, 2008 at 1:42 AM. Reason : .,.]

7/19/2008 1:33:06 AM

Quote :

"That's still the 160k to 226k depending on what BMWs you're talking about. "

or a lot less

most BMWs really aren't THAT expensive. I had a 330ci. My roommate has an M3 (was about to buy a new 335i, but he decided on an '04 or '05 M3)

7/19/2008 4:22:48 AM

Keep this in mind, folks: Bill Clinton had a "plan" when he ran for office, too--a middle-class tax cut. Sounds familiar, right? But guess what? Once he got into office, Clinton was, like, "OH NOES!!!1 It's worse than we calculated--we actually have to raise taxes instead of lowering them!"

CLINTON'S ECONOMIC PLAN: The Campaign; Gambling That a Tax-Cut Promise Was Not Taken Seriously
By MICHAEL KELLY,
Published: February 18, 1993

Quote :

"In selling his economic plan, President Clinton is gambling that voters never took seriously his campaign promise to lower the tax burden of the middle class and will respond favorably to an aggressive pitch based on equal measures of hope, fear and class revenge. After months of polling and research, Mr. Clinton's top political advisers say they are convinced that middle-class voters will support higher taxes. The advisers say the voters will see the new taxes as the price of great improvements in Government service and as inflicting a just punishment on the rich who profited during the Reagan and Bush Administrations. [Soak the rich, am I right?]"

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE4D9103CF93BA25751C0A965958260

Obama's "plan" sounds like, as they say, déjà vu all over again to me. In any event, no plan survives contact with the enemy--and his plan will likely have quite a few from both sides of the aisle.

7/19/2008 8:43:45 AM

^ To be fair, the budget situation was worse than the Bush administration let on. Check out Bob Woodward's book The Agenda.

But Clinton did have a major shift in priorities after folks like Alan Greenspan convinced him that balancing the budget was important for economic growth.

I only hope that if Obama gets elected he will have the same conversion experience.

PS* In George Steph's book all "All Too Human" he argues that the middle class tax cut was essentially delivered through expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit.

[Edited on July 19, 2008 at 2:42 PM. Reason : ``]

7/19/2008 2:38:17 PM

Quote :

"We get it. All you care about is yourself. "

pretty much; me, my friends, and my family

Quote :

"That's what we need in this, an arrogant engineer, to fuck it up good"

or ignorant douchebags who take their simple uneducated political viewpoints from their drill sgt who fucked them in the butt while in the service

7/19/2008 7:42:23 PM

^^ The fact remains that Clinton campaigned on a middle-class tax cut and delivered a tax [/i]increase[/i]. If his people didn't have accurate numbers, which is bullshit, then they shouldn't have campaigned on the issue in the way they did.

^ Is that all you've got? Weak.

7/20/2008 2:48:27 AM

Quote :

"Obama wants to soak the "rich" "

i like how you imply that people making >$600k/year aren't really rich. They're just.... "rich"

7/21/2008 2:43:01 PM

all of you are stupid if you think your [insert party preference here] has the perfect solution to turn USA #1 into a magical happy place where u make the most money and [insert the party you don't like here] is full of people that have no clue whats going on and will bring on the apocalypse.

I beleive McCain's plan would be most beneficial to me at this stage of my life and with my future plans. On the other hand i feel more "safe" under obama's plan as i know i can get laid off and "choose" to sit on my couch all day doing nothing; getting plenty of gov't free health care and welfare money.

[Edited on July 21, 2008 at 3:32 PM. Reason : l]

7/21/2008 3:29:25 PM

Quote :

"On the other hand i feel more "safe" under obama's plan as i know i can get laid off and "choose" to sit on my couch all day doing nothing; getting plenty of gov't free health care and welfare money."

unfortunately, there is truth behind the satire

7/21/2008 3:52:50 PM

^ Not really, though.

I'm sorry that your most precious strawman in the world was eradicated in 1996, but don't you think it's time to let it go?

7/21/2008 4:17:59 PM

^yes really, though

7/21/2008 4:20:25 PM