|
Post by agito on Sept 8, 2008 16:33:54 GMT -6
this is nifty: alchemytoday.com/obamataxcut/it is bias towards obama (if you have a lower tax cut under mccain, it won't display those results) and there is this for those that haven't seen it chart
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Sept 9, 2008 1:25:29 GMT -6
It's nice to see that Obama is campaigning on the same policy as the Republicans: tax cuts, tax cuts, and more tax cuts. And Obama will cut taxes on everyone, except those with incomes over $500K.
Those $200K/year+ investment bankers really do need their tax cuts. It's nice to see that Obama fully sympathizes with their "plight."
Is Obama going to convert to being a Republican, as soon as he gets into office.
|
|
|
Post by agito on Sept 9, 2008 20:41:53 GMT -6
according to the chart- a person making 200k would get a 1.9% tax cut under Obama, and a 3% tax cut under Mccain. so if you think a tax cut for those making 200k is a bad thing, then your vote would be for Obama over McCain. I understand the emotional appeal of describing an investment banker making 200K a year. But my impression is that an investment banker makes more than 200k a year, where as a family with 2 union incomes and money coming in on a modest stock portfolio would make close to 200k a year and prolly deserve the help, although not as much as those making only 40K (-2.4% tax cut under Obama, -0.7% under McCain). I don't know what the green party ( Mckinney !?!) tax plan is. Or Bob Barr's or even Ron Paul should he run. (announcement tomorrow?)
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Sept 10, 2008 0:29:13 GMT -6
On the first site, there is a tax cut comparison with McCain up to $125K. Above that, there's no difference shown. That suggests that to me that their tax cut proposals are the same above that point. (In theory, it could also indicate there's no McCain tax cut at all above that point--but I find that hard to believe.)
It could also be that the Obama camp, who is behind the site's "unbiased" information, are covering up the fact that taxes will be higher under Obama for those making above $125K--and they just decided not to mention that little inconvenient truth. If that's the case, that's about as dishonest as the day is long. Though I'd personally favor raising taxes on incomes above that point, I don't appreciate the dishonesty in covering that up.
Is Obama now campaigning on more tax cuts, just like the Republicans have been doing for the last 40 years? Is Obama now going to be the champion of tax cuts?
|
|
|
Post by redwolf on Sept 10, 2008 15:40:16 GMT -6
Is there any doubt that the Democratic tax plan is more progressive and more targeted to the middle class? Seriously?! Show me the Republican who doesn't endorse supply-side economics.
|
|
|
Post by db on Sept 10, 2008 18:57:14 GMT -6
Red Wolf, you are right! To even ask the question, shows how naive people are. That there is even a consideration between a Democrat and a Republicon, shows how mixed up Americans are. They believe the lies and vote against their own best interest. After eight years of being screwed by Bush and Company, how could Americans even consider a Republicon. If you like the last eight years, vote for McSame, and get what you deserve, a Contract on America.
|
|
|
Post by agito on Sept 10, 2008 20:15:48 GMT -6
pretty much as i said in my original post.
dude- has there ever been a campaign where both contestants were fully forthright with each other and the american public? I think you have an imaginary standard that no-one lives up to there.
Of course- if you want a list of this years dishonesties, yes it would take a day to read them all and both candidates would be on it.
I don't see it as Obama campaigning on tax cuts, particularly because the overall package still raises revenue. I see it as Obama trying to neutralize republican charges of him being a "tax and spend" liberal. Others might see it as a genuine expression of progressive taxation ideals.
|
|
|
Post by db on Sept 11, 2008 21:50:13 GMT -6
Agito, I am talking about historical generalities. Democrats tend to support progressive taxation, while Republicons tend to support regressive taxation. This is not an imaginary standard, this is a generalization. As I said, Red Wolf is right. Democrats are more progressive and more supportive of the middle class. No need to ask, look at the last eight years. As for lies, sure everyone lies, to be a politician is to lie; but Bush, McSame, and the Republicons have created a culture of lying. This is not a lie here or there, this is a Republicon pathology of lying. Why do you think everything is collapsing?; but according to the Republicons, the mission is accomplished, there is no recession. To turn a phrase, dude, it's the big lie, the big Republicon lie. I find it amusing, people talking about Obama lying, when they have a continuous stream of Republicon lies to talk about. Some people just keep drinking the kool-aid and some people have not got over the kool-aid, they drank in the past.
|
|
|
Post by agito on Sept 12, 2008 14:53:28 GMT -6
I try to make sure i don't drink kool-aid from either side.
And yes- ever since FDR and income tax was first implemented, it has been a progressive system (slowly eroding..and quite possibly now reversed when you factor in deductions and those who live off of capital gains.) Regardless, i agree that democratic tax policy is far closer to progressive tax policy than republican tax policy is. And i also agree that the income disparity is the one thing that is bringing our economy to a halt that government has some ability to fix.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Sept 12, 2008 20:07:27 GMT -6
I try to make sure i don't drink kool-aid from either side. And yes- ever since FDR and income tax was first implemented, it has been a progressive system (slowly eroding..and quite possibly now reversed when you factor in deductions and those who live off of capital gains.) Regardless, i agree that democratic tax policy is far closer to progressive tax policy than republican tax policy is. And i also agree that the income disparity is the one thing that is bringing our economy to a halt that government has some ability to fix. And you include local taxes which tend to be more regressive - sales and property taxes
|
|
|
Post by agito on Sept 12, 2008 22:52:14 GMT -6
yeah- but local taxes are... well local. so there isn't that much that can be said about them in the context of a national election.
but yeah- it is dissappointing when a politician thinks it will be easier to pass a sales tax rather than increase a tax on income. it means the people don't know what's going on.
|
|