Go To:
Contact:
Advertisements
Order your 'Vote Out Incumbents' window - bumper sticker.
Just $3 each. Each order helps Vote Out Incumbents Democracy (VOID) raise funds to spread the message around the country.
Polls:
Other Notable Sites
You've heard McCain's mantra; it is the same as Bush's mantra: "I want to lower taxes, Obama wants to raise taxes." To which Obama replies, "I want to raise taxes on the rich but reduce taxes for everyone else." This is probably the most important difference between McCain and Obama because it demonstrates the philosphical difference between Republicans and Democrats
When the candidates argue about this, individuals in the nation do not have a concrete idea about the difference. The Los Angeles Times has an excellent article very clearly demonstrating how each of the candidate's recommendattions will affect your pocketbook. The table which follows presents how much of an increase or decrease in taxes will be experienced under McCain's tax structure vs. those under Obama's tax structure.
Comparison of McCain's tax recommendations vs. Obama's Recommendations
Income.............McCain............Obama
Lowest 20% ..............-$21 ................ -$617
Second 20% .............. -$124 ............. -$950
Middle 20% ............. -$282...............-$1035
Fourth 20% ...............-$513................ -$757
Wealthiest 20% ...... -$2,856 ...... +$6,770
Top 1% ....................-$31,943 .....+114,238
Yes, McCain lowers everybody's taxes, but most of the reduction is for the wealthiest. Obama, however, lowers taxes for everyone in the first 4 quintiles - by more than McCain. But the wealthiest will pay more than before, the top 1% paying considerably more.
Republican propaganda that claims Republicans favor tax cuts while Democrats favor tax increases is highly misleading. Most of the Republican tax cuts go to the rich, whereas Democratic tax cuts go to everyone but the rich. Since the rich have benefited greatly in the last 8 years, it's about time they paid their fair share.
The difference in the tax structures lucidly shows the philosophical difference between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans want to cut taxes for the rich. Democrats want to help the person in the middle class who has not received any of the benefits of the prosperity we had before the current recession.
Please read the whole article.
Was this article informative?
Categories:
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Taxes: McCain vs. Obama.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://poliwatch.org/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/8902
8:40 PM, 08 21 2008 | Permalink
Yes, McCain wants to lower taxes on those who have so many homes they can't remember how many they have. And rescue the deficit and debt on the backs of the middle class. He cannot have it both ways unless he were to propose to cut military spending. But, we know that is absolutely out of the question.
From this point forward, every dollar we cut in spending from the budget will be added back by the Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security obligations. Cutting spending must happen. But, unless McCain intends to end Soc. Sec. and Medicare/Medicaid for middle class working Americans, the only option is to raise taxes on someone. And McCain has many times announced who won't be seeing their taxes raised.
In fact, McCain not only wants to lower the oil, drug, and investment industries taxes, but, his voting record shows he believes in giving them tax dollar subsidies in addition.
Reply to this comment
d.a.n said at :
1:35 PM, 08 22 2008 | Permalink
McCain wants to make the tax system more regressive.
However, I doubt McCain really understands that, because he admits that he's no expert on economics. However, McCain claims that he did read Greenspan's book.
The current tax system is regressive.
Now watch some right-wing-extremist throw up some tax rate statistics on ADJUSTED income (after a myriad of tax loopholes are applied).
Some Americans are still believe that the federal tax system is progressive. It is not, as evidenced by Warren Buffet who paid 17.7% in federal taxes on $46 Million in year 2006, while his secretary paid 30% in federal taxes on $60K.
I think, at the very least, all income should be taxed an equal percentage, which obviously is NOT what we have now.
The current tax system is regressive because:
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect.
Problems...
Solutions...
d.a.n | August 22, 2008 1:35 PM
Reply to this comment
d.a.n said at :
4:08 PM, 08 22 2008 | Permalink
YEAR _______ National Debt ________ Increase per year _____ Increase per day
9/30/2007 ; $9,007,653,372,262.48 ; $500,679,473,047.25 ; $1,370,785,689.38
9/30/2006 ; $8,506,973,899,215.23 ; $574,264,237,491.73 ; $1,572,249,794.64
9/30/2005 ; $7,932,709,661,723.50 ; $553,656,965,393.18 ; $1,515,830,158.50
9/30/2004 ; $7,379,052,696,330.32 ; $595,821,633,586.70 ; $1,631,270,728.51
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6/30/1958 ; $276,343,217,745.81 ; $5,816,045,849.38 ; $15,923,465.71
6/30/1957 ; $270,527,171,896.43 ; -$2,223,641,752.89 ; -$6,087,999.32
6/30/1956 ; $272,750,813,649.32 ; -$1,623,409,153.30 ; -$4,444,652.03
I'm not so certain this debt problem can be solved.
That's why no one can answer one simple question:
Where will the money come from to merely pay the INTEREST on the $53+ Trillion of nation-wide debt, much less the money to pay down the PRINCIPAL and keep it from growing ever larger to nightmare proportions, when that money does not yet exist?
If you get a answer, let me know.
The only 3 answers I've received so far are these:
(1) We don't need to pay off that debt.
(2) We will grow the economy, increase immigration, and lower taxes.
(3) We will print the money.
Those aren't very convincing are they?
Warren Buffet (in the movie I.O.U.S.A. the Movie) fears so much debt to foreign nations will give rise to a demogoguery.
Creating more money out of thin air won't work any longer, after most Americans are so deep in debt that they can't carry any more debt.
With the current PYRAMID monetary system, eventually, the debt and inflation will (or already has) become impossible to deal with (as with any pyramid scheme; all pyramid schemes are mathematically doomed to eventual collapse).
We will not be able to create more debt to create more money (inflation will become ridiculous).
We will not be able to spend our way out of the collapse.
We will not be able to immigrate our way out of the collapse.
We will not be able to procreate our way out of the collapse.
We will not be able to increase productivity enough to avoid the collapse.
We will not be able to tax the wealthy enough to avoid the collapse.
We will not be able to untax our way out of the collapse.
We will not be able to grow our way out of the collapse.
We will not be able to maintain exponential growth.
We will not be able to overcome the mathematical certainty that dooms all pyramid schemes.
Don't you think its a bit strange for government to be giving away money in the form of stimulus checks and tax rebate checks?
HHHHMMMmmmmmm . . . Some of the politicians, Bernanke, and other Federal Reserve officials look a bit worried lately. Why? Perhaps because they know something most of us don't?
I doubt they are all so stupid as to not realize that so much debt could collapse their pyramid monetary scheme.
If necessary, the federal government and Federal Reserve will create a LOT more money out of thin air, and send out more stimulus checks and tax rebates.
However, while that may delay the eventual collapse, it will only make things worse later (for most Americans).
Unfortunately, we forgot everything and/or learned nothing from the Great Depression.
That does not mean our currency needs to necessarily be backed by gold or commodities.
It means currency must be managed responsibly, and creating too much money out of thin air for too many decades will eventually have painful consequences.
In the years leading up to the Great Depression, the decade following the creation of the Federal Reserve (1913), there were many consecutive years of double-digit inflation.
And they didn't have as much debt as we do today (as a percentage of GDP; nation-wide debt ($53 Trillion) is over 380% of GDP ($13.9 Trillion)).
d.a.n | August 22, 2008 4:08 PM
Reply to this comment
David R. Remer replied to d.a.n at :
11:48 AM, 08 24 2008 | Permalink
d.a.n, the answer to the problem is complex. Over the heads of most in Congress as you and I both know.
But, there is a way through this morass IF we are lucky enough to avoid another major jolt to the economy for the next half decade or more.
The answer rests in full employment, tariffs on imports that undercut jobs here in the U.S., and an absolute end to federal subsidies to all industry's which are not serving the full employment, export potential, and basic consumer needs of the American people.
One final ingredient, a moratorium on new weapons development and all new military spending except for maintaining and building up our military manpower and equipment necessary to make short work of Afghanistan and Pakistan where al-Queda are based.
A president unafraid of the Veto Pen can almost single handedly accomplish all this, even with a reluctant Congress. Can't guarantee they would be reelected, but, these measures would strengthen our economic base, eliminate the deficits, and better insure our ability to withstand another economic shock after 5 years of these harsh but necessary measures.
Of course, other things must happen too, illegal immigration must be halted, ending the growth in demand upon human services by an ever growing population, the inspector generals and Justice Department must be given their constitutional authority and obligations back, but, these are easier, as the popular will of the people would back these measures.
It is questionable whether Obama would undertake such measures, even if he had the vision to see their value. However, McCain is utterly incapable of even envisioning such measures, so that rules him out entirely.
Reply to this comment